Jump to content

buddiecat

Buy The Buds

Recommended Posts

On 01/08/2016 at 0:47 PM, billyg said:

Putting together a playlist for Saturday , hopefully all the Saints tunes from through the years. Any suggestions also welcome in case my ageing brain cells are struggling to remember

Na Na Na - Cozy Powell, Daydream Believer, Under the moon of love,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to return to the question of the ownership of the company and club.

My understanding is that the desired outcome is that fans will own 52% of the club after buying out the new Chairman with 48% owned by others.

Ownership of 75.1% is needed, as I understand it, to have complete control.

This present is likely to severely restrain the ability of the fans group or nominees or equivalent in raising funds, issuing new shares etc.

Are there any plans in place to address this?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I questioned before why Gordon Scott wasn't putting up his previous 8 percent.  If I recall correctly, the fans will own 67 and would need his 8 to get the 75. This is not for sale however I believe.

 

6 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

I would like to return to the question of the ownership of the company and club.

My understanding is that the desired outcome is that fans will own 52% of the club after buying out the new Chairman with 48% owned by others.

Ownership of 75.1% is needed, as I understand it, to have complete control.

This present is likely to severely restrain the ability of the fans group or nominees or equivalent in raising funds, issuing new shares etc.

Are there any plans in place to address this?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from "Buy the Buds" on the SMISA website:-

Why do we have to buy 68% of the club rather than just 50.1%?

When the majority shareholding in the club first went up for sale, it was a 52% stake, owned by five people. However one of the groups who came close to buying the club wanted to buy a 75% shareholding as this would give them unchecked power.

So the original consortium secured legal agreements with several others shareholders, including ex-directors Gordon Scott and Ken McGeoch plus four others with small shareholdings, which formed them into a block of just over 75%.

Those legal agreements remain in place, which means our offer has to include those other shareholders. Once you take away Gordon’s existing 8% shareholding, that leaves us with around 68% so that is the amount we were bound to offer for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, smcc said:

Quote from "Buy the Buds" on the SMISA website:-

Why do we have to buy 68% of the club rather than just 50.1%?

When the majority shareholding in the club first went up for sale, it was a 52% stake, owned by five people. However one of the groups who came close to buying the club wanted to buy a 75% shareholding as this would give them unchecked power.

So the original consortium secured legal agreements with several others shareholders, including ex-directors Gordon Scott and Ken McGeoch plus four others with small shareholdings, which formed them into a block of just over 75%.

Those legal agreements remain in place, which means our offer has to include those other shareholders. Once you take away Gordon’s existing 8% shareholding, that leaves us with around 68% so that is the amount we were bound to offer for.

Thank you. The net effect then is that Gordon Scott will own what will be a "Golden Share". Will this be acquired at any time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Thank you. The net effect then is that Gordon Scott will own what will be a "Golden Share". Will this be acquired at any time?

It will be up to the man himself to do what he wants with his shares (outside of the agreed amount to gain the majority shareholding) no point speculating until we buy the required amount, then we can look at the situation e.g. might be other things that have to be financed and are more important - just speculating though :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, buddiecat said:

It will be up to the man himself to do what he wants with his shares (outside of the agreed amount to gain the majority shareholding) no point speculating until we buy the required amount, then we can look at the situation e.g. might be other things that have to be financed and are more important - just speculating though :-)

Also factor in the other 25% are owned by long time St Mirren fans, so excluding Gordon's 8% the fans will own 92% of the club. Thats the Golden Share!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Also factor in the other 25% are owned by long time St Mirren fans, so excluding Gordon's 8% the fans will own 92% of the club. Thats the Golden Share!

True, and when you add that Gordon is a fan then it's 100% fan owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

I see where you are coming from but that model has problems for me. Any model has pros and cons. This might just be the only viable option in town -- at this time.

It's also a done deal so doesn't matter if there are any other options. It's no longer for sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard our good old pal Chick on the radio basically blaming the board and the fans buy out for our current predicament.

He says that a fans buy out prevents a sugar daddy coming in and bailing the club out? WTF was Stewart Gilmour a sugar daddy?

Doesn't the daft Cnut realise that we were in this mess prior to the take over and the current manager was appointed by the previous regime? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he has a valid point in that without a major investor it will be very difficult to get the club much above mid-table. Sadly, our playing budget will be constrained by the other demands on the overall budget that others in the division don't have to bother about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rabuddies said:

But he has a valid point in that without a major investor it will be very difficult to get the club much above mid-table. Sadly, our playing budget will be constrained by the other demands on the overall budget that others in the division don't have to bother about.

You may well be right but the fact is, for the entire duration of the club being available for purchase there were the grand total of f**k all Sugar Daddies queueing up to plough Millions into Saints.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kendo said:

Just heard our good old pal Chick on the radio basically blaming the board and the fans buy out for our current predicament.

He says that a fans buy out prevents a sugar daddy coming in and bailing the club out? WTF was Stewart Gilmour a sugar daddy?

Doesn't the daft Cnut realise that we were in this mess prior to the take over and the current manager was appointed by the previous regime? 

He told the departing BOD that Rae was the man to take us forward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rabuddies said:

But he has a valid point in that without a major investor it will be very difficult to get the club much above mid-table. Sadly, our playing budget will be constrained by the other demands on the overall budget that others in the division don't have to bother about.

Tom Hendrie and Gus McPherson got us promoted as champions without a major investor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anybody even listen to Chic Young never mind quoting him. Are they any suger daddies in Scotland ? They might be chairman and chairwoman in the county but none of them are throwing their money away at their clubs.





Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kendo said:

Tom Hendrie and Gus McPherson got us promoted as champions without a major investor.

True. But that was then and this is now. Of the last six clubs to be promoted to the top league, five had major investors and the other had a major cash injection to put their playing budgets beyond anything a fan owned club could aspire to unless they go down the route the Pars fans appear to be taking by supplementing it with monthly subs.  I would love it if we could beat the odds and put a team on the park that would be competitive, even at the current level, but sadly I can't see it happening any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...