the new board

[iainsc]

23 minutes ago, Soctty said:

The money is paid in by fans. Speaking as one of them, the only benefit I require from putting this money is, is the money be spent improving some aspect of the club, or helping contribute to club funds for general matters.

I dont see why the fans should put money in and the board dont.

[div]

2 hours ago, rebella15 said:

The club have always  had a cash flow problem in January and this coming one will be the same.

and do you think it is normal for a minority shareholder to invest in a business while the majority shareholder does not ? For ten years ?

The majority shareholder has put £600K in.  He will get that back in ten years time, but I still wouldn't call that "nothing". He could have used that capital to generate an excellent return over those ten years by investing it safely somewhere other than St.Mirren Football Club.

I'm quite happy to be putting £2 a month in with my fellow fans to improve the facilities at the club we will own in ten years time.

I don't expect anything back but when I see the disabled section being built I can't help but think that's a good example of a positive use of my £2 a month.

[Drew]

11 minutes ago, div said:

The majority shareholder has put £600K in.  He will get that back in ten years time, but I still wouldn't call that "nothing". He could have used that capital to generate an excellent return over those ten years by investing it safely somewhere other than St.Mirren Football Club.

 

Thank you for saving me the bother of pointing out the bleedin' obvious.

 

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, Pepé Le Pew said:

Thanks for that Ricky.

I don't see the point in raising capital to throw at signing players in January. As said it will be more a case of re-jigging the current squad. The actual facilities the club holds are more than adequate to support a Premiership level club so no requirement for more capital in that regard.

I know that some clubs have launched 'Player funds' to add to managers playing budgets. Albion Rovers, Clyde and Partick Thistle spring to mind. Although this is essentially a donation to the club and the club now has hundreds of folk paying £12.50 or £25 a month for the Supporters' Fund so I guess there wouldn't be much of a take up on that basis alone.

You brought it up, that's why I asked you Ricky.

You are right Pepe. These are some approaches and I gave you one possible way. Others are available - hence ask the board if you are a shareholderr.

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, Pepé Le Pew said:

Thanks for that Ricky.

I don't see the point in raising capital to throw at signing players in January. As said it will be more a case of re-jigging the current squad. The actual facilities the club holds are more than adequate to support a Premiership level club so no requirement for more capital in that regard.

I know that some clubs have launched 'Player funds' to add to managers playing budgets. Albion Rovers, Clyde and Partick Thistle spring to mind. Although this is essentially a donation to the club and the club now has hundreds of folk paying £12.50 or £25 a month for the Supporters' Fund so I guess there wouldn't be much of a take up on that basis alone.

You brought it up, that's why I asked you Ricky.

You are right Pepe. These are some approaches and I gave you one possible way. Others are available - hence ask the board if you are a shareholderr.

[Stuart Dickson]

I dont see why the fans should put money in and the board dont.

Fans don't need to. There is always the option of keeping the money and letting it accumulate if that's what the majority choose to do.

[St.Ricky]

29 minutes ago, div said:

The majority shareholder has put £600K in.  He will get that back in ten years time, but I still wouldn't call that "nothing". He could have used that capital to generate an excellent return over those ten years by investing it safely somewhere other than St.Mirren Football Club.

I'm quite happy to be putting £2 a month in with my fellow fans to improve the facilities at the club we will own in ten years time.

I don't expect anything back but when I see the disabled section being built I can't help but think that's a good example of a positive use of my £2 a month.

Div

Firstly - I am in favour of the changes made in the composition of the board and in the eventual restructuring of ownership.

What has happened though seems to be misunderstood I would suggest.

GS has paid a sum of money (I assume from what you write that this was £600,000) in order to acquire sufficient shares which together with his own means that he now has control of at least 75% of the club givng him essentially total control. This is normally the most prefferred position of a buyer.

This money has gone direct to the previous shareholers including SG, gc Etc. The money is in their pockets. I have no complaints with that.

Mr Scott can do what he wants with his money but putting it in a bank accoiunt would bring very little in the way of financial reward with interest at 0.5%pa.

I applaud his actions but not one penny of the £600,000 has come into the clubs bank account as working capital.

It appears that the club continued as a going concern with no fresh input of capital.

Now - I don't know the terms of repayment to Mr Scott (and no, I would not have put £600,000 of my money into the club or from my business)

It would be intersting to know. Presumably this is at 0.0% interest over the period?

I will be happy to join in once I know the terms of the deal.

Meanwhile I still think that opportunities exist to raise capital in order to make faster progress against a clear business plan without risking the club in any way.

[davidg]

1 hour ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 

1 hour ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Fans don't need to. There is always the option of keeping the money and letting it accumulate if that's what the majority choose to do.
 

 

That's what I thought the intention was but they've now said that it will be spent every 3 months. 

 

 

[notabuddie]

I think the main issue is that it is now starting to sink in that GLS/SMISA never had a plan after getting the shares.  Nothing is coming out from the board room to say this is how we are trying to build the club. They are doing exactly the same thing as the last BOD  The appointed a rookie manager in Hope that he turns it around. The only difference is that they acted sooner rather than later. 

GLS has already stated that he is not going to invest and gave his reasons which I agree with. 

[St.Ricky]

10 minutes ago, notabuddie said:

I think the main issue is that it is now starting to sink in that GLS/SMISA never had a plan after getting the shares.  Nothing is coming out from the board room to say this is how we are trying to build the club. They are doing exactly the same thing as the last BOD  The appointed a rookie manager in Hope that he turns it around. The only difference is that they acted sooner rather than later. 

GLS has already stated that he is not going to invest and gave his reasons which I agree with. 

I am not asking him to invest.

But

This doesn't mean there can't be investment.

But

Any investment made would need to be made against a sensible business plan.

What if?

There were 100 fans who were each wiling to invest say £1,000-£5,000 each into the club.

Preference shares, voting or non voting could be issued.

Would the board welcome that and how would they handle that?

Would they for example set aside 100 seats in the directors area for these people.

Who would still be expected to pay for their season ticket each year.

Perhaps membership of the 1877 club could be included.

Surely they could make good use of £100,000 - £500,000

[notabuddie]

Again why ask the support do we not invest every week to watch the team? . I doubt the BOD would give any shares SMISA shot the guy down at a public meeting when he suggested a token share to encourage buying into the bid. 

Would we have supporters who would invest?

The only we are going to get more revenue is a better product on the park and even then it won't be much of a boost.  

I have seen us at hampden with 10k + next few home games lucky to break 4k.

Something needs to happen fast as it will be a very black day for the club if we turn part time 

[St.Ricky]

27 minutes ago, notabuddie said:

Again why ask the support do we not invest every week to watch the team? . I doubt the BOD would give any shares SMISA shot the guy down at a public meeting when he suggested a token share to encourage buying into the bid. 

Would we have supporters who would invest?

The only we are going to get more revenue is a better product on the park and even then it won't be much of a boost.  

I have seen us at hampden with 10k + next few home games lucky to break 4k.

Something needs to happen fast as it will be a very black day for the club if we turn part time 

NOTABUDDIE

We pay for access and to watch the game. This is revenue not capital investment.

There are many reasons why some would invest.

The problem for GLS is the same one the 52% consortium had and that is that they can only retain control if no new ordinary shares are issued.

But it  isn't necessary that more ordinary shares be issued.

I for one would prefer to have prefernce shares evein if non-voting as these provide better security.

With bank returns at almost negligable levels then this is in fact a good time to seek this type of investor.

Better the money in the club than in a bank account giving an almost nil return.

What is wrong with that?

Surely there must be 100 St Mirren Fans with £1000-£5000 to invest.

These could be transferable so enabling people to recup their cash.

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by St.Ricky

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

The club for me is not in a good place right now I'm not writing about our league position rather the treatment of a loyal supporter. A very sad time that one of our own is treated in this way is shocking to say the least. 

[Stuart Dickson]

3 hours ago, davidg said:

 

That's what I thought the intention was but they've now said that it will be spent every 3 months. 

 

I haven't seen that anywhere David, not that I'm denying it, I haven't followed stuff that closely. Keeping the money was an option on the last ballot though, and as far as I can remember the disabled platform didn't use up all of the available money and was to be retained. I guess we'll find out in three months time. 

I didn't vote to spend the money on the platform because I believed that was a cost that should have been covered by the club. There should have been a legal obligation on all football clubs to ensure that wheelchair users could watch home matches from an elevated and dry position in the ground. Ideally I would have liked to have seen the money used given as a soft loan at 0% interest to the club rather than how it was done. I certainly understand some of the concerns that are being raised more recently by the guys on this thread. 

 

[rea]

I am not asking him to invest.

But

This doesn't mean there can't be investment.

But

Any investment made would need to be made against a sensible business plan.

What if?

There were 100 fans who were each wiling to invest say £1,000-£5,000 each into the club.

Preference shares, voting or non voting could be issued.

Would the board welcome that and how would they handle that?

Would they for example set aside 100 seats in the directors area for these people.

Who would still be expected to pay for their season ticket each year.

Perhaps membership of the 1877 club could be included.

Surely they could make good use of £100,000 - £500,000

You cannot use assets of the Club as encouragment for the sale of shares in the Club it is against Club rules IIRC

[Stuart Dickson]

3 hours ago, notabuddie said:

I think the main issue is that it is now starting to sink in that GLS/SMISA never had a plan after getting the shares.  Nothing is coming out from the board room to say this is how we are trying to build the club. They are doing exactly the same thing as the last BOD  The appointed a rookie manager in Hope that he turns it around. The only difference is that they acted sooner rather than later. 

GLS has already stated that he is not going to invest and gave his reasons which I agree with. 

I was in the 1877 club before the match on Saturday and Tony Fitzpatrick read out the team lines before promising everyone that "big things" were going on behind the scenes. And we all know that Tony would never lie.

I think people just have to be patient when it comes to the on field stuff. Jack Ross wasn't my choice of boss but he's been on to a hiding to nothing so far. All you can really ask of Ross and Fowler at the moment is that they structure the training sessions properly, give the players the appropriate instructions and to try to get a performance out of a squad that is rank rotten to say the least. No-one should be expecting either fans or board members to put their hands into the pockets to buy players - especially when everyone knows buying players doesn't guarantee success. 

The board need to turn things around off the park. The important thing is that action is taken to increase revenue and turnover and to bring in more fans to the club. They also need to ensure that the youth academy is more efficient in what it's doing. That's where I would like to hear of a plan and of action happening. 

[div]

We are due an update from the Chairman this week so hopefully he'll be able to send out a positive message about what's been going on in the last month.

Br christ we need something positive from somewhere. Everyone is drowning in negativity right now.

[St.Ricky]

38 minutes ago, div said:

We are due an update from the Chairman this week so hopefully he'll be able to send out a positive message about what's been going on in the last month.

Br christ we need something positive from somewhere. Everyone is drowning in negativity right now.mmmmnj

How can it possibly be negative to suggest alternative ways of raising money to accelerate the turn-around of the club using alternative share offerings which provide working capital in a long term way which benefits the club, complements the SMISA share scheme and leaves the authority to act with the elected board of directors. Any share issue relies upon those with the money to invest are confident in the business plan put forward by the board and secured.

I have the feeling that the previous 52% group made directors loans that were adjusted to be prime creditors of the club in reality if not In name and repaid when the sale of Love Street rook place leaving both the directors and the club debt free. A good deal if you can get it and get it you could with 52% of the shares. 

What that did was leave us open to the practice proposed that the only way to go was through increasing revenue.  The speed of growth using this methodology depends on a number of factors, not least of which is how bad a job the previous board were I'm doing so. The new board see this as an open goal and there is undoubted scope in many areas.

The velocity of money however is not fast enough. I can understand that peoe had lost faith in the old board and that their energy and ideas were past their best. Natural decline.

Our choices are no investment. Difficulty in strengthening the squad, poor results Continue  and relegation threatens.

Investment ahead of January. Strngthens budget and enables better players to be appointed to the squad. Result mid table sefetu and ability to to an to raise further capital.and improve the squad result able to challenge for mid to to top positions. 

Take your pick guys.

Edited November 7, 2016 by St.Ricky

[pod]

11 hours ago, div said:

13 hours ago, rebella15 said:

The new board should have people on board who are going to invest in the club if the Chairman is not. I have no doubt they will be begging SMiSA to bail them out in January

I

 

 

 

11 hours ago, div said:

The revenue the club makes is what is has to spend.

Gate money, season tickets, advertising, hospitality, prize money (no laughing at the back), grants, TV money, events, transfer fees (I said no laughing) etc etc....

When the fans own the club it will be exactly the same as it is today, but hopefully with Gordon and the board having increased the amount of revenue generated by the club during their time in control.

We can't be in a situation where we are relying on individuals on the board to put their own money in, and nor should we expect the fans to do so.

The club has to be self sustainable.

 

Sorry miss quote.  Was referring to rebella15 quote board, chairman no investment,

Similarly no investment from fans pocket, obviously from your above suggestions. 

[rea]

How can it possibly be negative to suggest alternative ways of raising money to accelerate the turn-around of the club using alternative share offerings which provide working capital in a long term way which benefits the club, complements the SMISA share scheme and leaves the authority to act with the elected board of directors. Any share issue relies upon those with the money to invest are confident in the business plan put forward by the board and secured.

I have the feeling that the previous 52% group made directors loans that were adjusted to be prime creditors of the club in reality if not In name and repaid when the sale of Love Street rook place leaving both the directors and the club debt free. A good deal if you can get it and get it you could with 52% of the shares. 

What that did was leave us open to the practice proposed that the only way to go was through increasing revenue.  The speed of growth using this methodology depends on a number of factors, not least of which is how bad a job the previous board were I'm doing so. The new board see this as an open goal and there is undoubted scope in many areas.

The velocity of money however is not fast enough. I can understand that peoe had lost faith in the old board and that their energy and ideas were past their best. Natural decline.

Our choices are no investment. Difficulty in strengthening the squad, poor results Continue  and relegation threatens.

Investment ahead of January. Strngthens budget and enables better players to be appointed to the squad. Result mid table sefetu and ability to to an to raise further capital.and improve the squad result able to challenge for mid to to top positions. 

Take your pick guys.

Directors loans were paid back in full at the end of each season. Fact.

[pod]

11 hours ago, iainsc said:

Get a loan from the bank if not then we are going down, you just have to look the last time we were in the Premier League the teams around us bought them self's out of trouble we did not and went down and that is what is going to happen.  

and if we go down with debt, that would be even worse. Beside who's going to give us a loan. 

[Stuart Dickson]

9 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

How can it possibly be negative to suggest alternative ways of raising money to accelerate the turn-around of the club using alternative share offerings which provide working capital in a long term way which benefits the club, complements the SMISA share scheme and leaves the authority to act with the elected board of directors. Any share issue relies upon those with the money to invest are confident in the business plan put forward by the board and secured.

I have the feeling that the previous 52% group made directors loans that were adjusted to be prime creditors of the club in reality if not In name and repaid when the sale of Love Street rook place leaving both the directors and the club debt free. A good deal if you can get it and get it you could with 52% of the shares. 

What that did was leave us open to the practice proposed that the only way to go was through increasing revenue.  The speed of growth using this methodology depends on a number of factors, not least of which is how bad a job the previous board were I'm doing so. The new board see this as an open goal and there is undoubted scope in many areas.

The velocity of money however is not fast enough. I can understand that peoe had lost faith in the old board and that their energy and ideas were past their best. Natural decline.

Our choices are no investment. Difficulty in strengthening the squad, poor results Continue  and relegation threatens.

Investment ahead of January. Strngthens budget and enables better players to be appointed to the squad. Result mid table sefetu and ability to to an to raise further capital.and improve the squad result able to challenge for mid to to top positions. 

Take your pick guys.

Got to be a longer term plan for me Ricky - especially since you're talking about a January transfer window where you are going to be acting like a desperate parent trying to buy whatever the biggest selling toy will be this Christmas on Christmas Eve. 

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, rea said:

You cannot use assets of the Club as encouragment for the sale of shares in the Club it is against Club rules IIRC

Your prospectus would be set out the terms and whether or not the ranked first on the assets

 

[St.Ricky]

1 minute ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Got to be a longer term plan for me Ricky - especially since you're talking about a January transfer window where you are going to be acting like a desperate parent trying to buy whatever the biggest selling toy will be this Christmas on Christmas Eve. 

I am not asking for immediate activation. Appropriate time would be post that period. 

[rea]

Your prospectus would be set out the terms and whether or not the ranked first on the assets

 

Irrelevant. It is against the law and constution of the Club to use Club assests as security in the transaction of shares.

I will post the relevant clause later on.

Using a different class of shares with no voting rights is as good as just making a donation as it entitles you to nothing going foward and so is generally only used by large existing shareholders. So it could make sense as a way of SMISA or GLS getting cash in without upsetting the share balance.

However the most sensible way is to do it the way the old board did and just issue new shares on the basis that a rights issue say 1 new share for every 3 existing. This will certainly not be taken up by most small shareholders but just by smisa and gls and so allows new money to go in while not upsetting the share balance.

This is the way it has been done in the past and GLS controls over 75% so that he can make it happen with no legal difficulty.

It allows him to put cash in for something and smisa can put their £2 per member amounts in and also get something while at the same time the cash can still be soent interally at the Club on the member projects but with the added bonus of shares and GLS matching the investment...or even some other putting a wee bit in.