div Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 At the end of the day Ricky, if you are serious about investing in the football club and have the means to do so, then I'd suggest you email Gordon directly at [email protected]Fairly pointless posting your ideas here. I'm sure I'm not alone in not having a clue what it is you are proposing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 26 minutes ago, div said: I'm sure I'm not alone in not having a clue what it is you are proposing! I imagine you can count St Ricky himself in that number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymitchell Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) Gordon doesn't control over 75%.... Edited November 8, 2016 by barrymitchell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 A slightly more prosaic message for the day from our CEO's alter-ego.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 Gordon doesn't control over 75%.... He does via him and Smisa. Sorry i was typing on phone so just said GLS rather than splitting it down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 17 hours ago, iainsc said: I dont see why the fans should put money in and the board dont. Because the whole point of this exercise is for the fans to own the club. Gordon Scott is facilitating this by already have a lot of his money invested in the shares of the club. People need to get away from thinking of the board Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 6 hours ago, rea said: 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. This is progress. We are (amost) on the same page. All we are discussing is the ranking of creditors. I acknowledge that any any preference shares issued would be of limited value to investors. But they can rank before other shares. You are right when you say that the 75% shares controlled now by GLS give him virtual carte blanche. They (he) could therefore seek and of course gain permission to alter what you call The Prospectus. As for issuing additional ordinary shares, there is no way that I would personally invest in these where an individual or group owned more than 75%. Either option would provide cash for the business. My personal favourite is Preference Shareas as this brings some protection to the 100 people I suggested might invest/lend the club £1k-5k each. Like Stuart Dickson, any plan provided would need to be long term. At the moment for very limited funding in relative terms, GLS has it all ways. Good luck to him and I mean that very sincerely folks as one Hughie Green used to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, St.Ricky said: This is progress. We are (amost) on the same page. All we are discussing is the ranking of creditors. I acknowledge that any any preference shares issued would be of limited value to investors. But they can rank before other shares. You are right when you say that the 75% shares controlled now by GLS give him virtual carte blanche. They (he) could therefore seek and of course gain permission to alter what you call The Prospectus. As for issuing additional ordinary shares, there is no way that I would personally invest in these where an individual or group owned more than 75%. Either option would provide cash for the business. My personal favourite is Preference Shareas as this brings some protection to the 100 people I suggested might invest/lend the club £1k-5k each. Like Stuart Dickson, any plan provided would need to be long term. At the moment for very limited funding in relative terms, GLS has it all ways. Good luck to him and I mean that very sincerely folks as one Hughie Green used to say. below are the two key pages. note clause 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 6 hours ago, div said: At the end of the day Ricky, if you are serious about investing in the football club and have the means to do so, then I'd suggest you email Gordon directly at [email protected] Fairly pointless posting your ideas here. I'm sure I'm not alone in not having a clue what it is you are proposing! Not pointless Div - I would hope. Others on here have deep pockets. We also have friends with even deeper pockets. I guess what I am saying is that the basic deal is in place to convert to fan ownership which many have bought into. But People are naturally impatient. The only way to speed things up whether we like it or not is to raise further capital. This doesn't always bring about the desired improvement of course. My point is that this does not need to GLS or SMISMA. The timing is, in some ways perfect, since returns on money held in bank accounts offers such a poor return. But people will also seek to feel secure and to see some present benefit from investong/lending their cast to the club. Now - I am not a solicitor or accountant so the detail might differ but the principle remains the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, rea said: below are the two key pages. note clause 7 Thanks Rea - Appreciated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougJamie Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 Despairing at the mentality that throwing money at this will sort it. Total rubbish............... If someone can name a good loan signing in Jan over the last 3 seasons ? Gonsalvez was 4 years ago.... At our level if we need more money then we are already doomed. I am sure JR and team are already looking at alternatives and maybe offloading....... Shows just how good DL was when he came in ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 16 minutes ago, DougJamie said: Despairing at the mentality that throwing money at this will sort it. Total rubbish............... If someone can name a good loan signing in Jan over the last 3 seasons ? Gonsalvez was 4 years ago.... At our level if we need more money then we are already doomed. I am sure JR and team are already looking at alternatives and maybe offloading....... Shows just how good DL was when he came in ........ DJ You have a good point but additional monies could also be used to bring forward revenue earning opportunities which then bring in an additional income stream to the club. I am not proposing that all of any amounts that could be raised should be spent entirely on players. A sound long term plan which showed new income streams would be needed. Increasing income streams includes non direct football related income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymitchell Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 Again, GLS does not own 75%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, barrymitchell said: Again, GLS does not own 75%. I have not said that he does BM. All you have to able to do is influence or control 75% Over and out for me on this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrymitchell Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 Nah you said "You are right when you say that the 75% shares controlled now by GLS give him virtual carte blanche." That is not a given by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 Ricky has ceased posting on this Thread. Sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, shull said: Ricky has ceased posting on this Thread. Sorry Nonsense. he's just chosen to ignore it. a ploy you might well practice, more often. Eg when you next think of starting up a new thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 1 hour ago, barrymitchell said: Nah you said "You are right when you say that the 75% shares controlled now by GLS give him virtual carte blanche." That is not a given by any means. I would be surprised if GLS solicitors did not advise him to put a clause in the SMISA deal that allows him to copt the SMISA shares to pass any Special resolution that he deems nessesary, which requires the 75%. whether if the solicitors suggested it, it was actually actioned i know not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinorr Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 3 hours ago, rea said: I would be surprised if GLS solicitors did not advise him to put a clause in the SMISA deal that allows him to copt the SMISA shares to pass any Special resolution that he deems nessesary, which requires the 75%. whether if the solicitors suggested it, it was actually actioned i know not Richard i can assure you this was not suggested and had it been, it would not have been agreed to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 3 hours ago, rea said: I would be surprised if GLS solicitors did not advise him to put a clause in the SMISA deal that allows him to copt the SMISA shares to pass any Special resolution that he deems nessesary, which requires the 75%. whether if the solicitors suggested it, it was actually actioned i know not There seems to be no end to what you don't know, but you keep trying to set st mirren fans against each other regardless. Puts me in mind of that Cindi Lauper number "True Colours" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 Richard i can assure you this was not suggested and had it been, it would not have been agreed to Fair enough. I personally dont think it would have been a bad agreement to have. Means there is no issue re special resolutions if needed. So not so sure i would have been so quick to not agree to such a thing finally as i said was not talking about if it was suggested to smisa but if it was suggested to GS by his advisors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 Ricky I haven't really had time to follow the thread and have only really had a fleeting glance at what's being said. Later on I'll take more time to sit and go through it. But is there a reason why you would prefer the money to go directly to the club rather than through SMiSA? The Premier package offers a list of benefits in return for your money and there's the opportunity to create a bespoke package that might be an avenue to get something more akin to what I think you seem to be asking for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted November 8, 2016 Report Share Posted November 8, 2016 57 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said: Ricky I haven't really had time to follow the thread and have only really had a fleeting glance at what's being said. Later on I'll take more time to sit and go through it. But is there a reason why you would prefer the money to go directly to the club rather than through SMiSA? The Premier package offers a list of benefits in return for your money and there's the opportunity to create a bespoke package that might be an avenue to get something more akin to what I think you seem to be asking for? Worth thinking about Stuart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.