Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apparently he's not goingto Celtic. Which is great for us because they would definitely have done a deal which included Scott Allan and less cash.

I've heard from a decent source its not them so hopefully it's a pure cash deal somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Hibs chairman at their AGM has said McGinn sell on clause is not 33% . Anyone know what it is ? A Hibs fan said it's 21%. 

Well our chairmen at the time Mr Gilmour stood in a meeting and told everyone there myself included it was 33%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely 33% of any profit Hibs make.

Believe they paid £120K for him,  so if they sell for £4m we'd get a third of £3.88m give or take so our cut would be just under £1.3m.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LargsBud said:

Apparently he's not goingto Celtic. Which is great for us because they would definitely have done a deal which included Scott Allan and less cash.

I've heard from a decent source its not them so hopefully it's a pure cash deal somewhere.

I would have thought in this case, Scott Allan would have to be financially evaluated and the monetary value built in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

I would have thought in this case, Scott Allan would have to be financially evaluated and the monetary value built in.

That's where it gets messy - usually theres something in the contract to say that its kept separate but from what i understand this clause wasnt inserted with McGinn's.

Would be easier all round if another player isnt involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would take £1 mill for him right NOW because he's no that good. If we get anything over £800k then it's a great bit of business by the previous board.

His big brother owned him in the game we pumped the " champions " at the San Siro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MWISAINT71 said:



His big brother owned him in the game we pumped the " champions " at the San Siro

Which is what Lewis Stevenson said to me in a boozer in Majorca , said Lennon really rates him and was surprised he hadn't tried to nab him , and confirmed Lennon's outburst to John that "you aren't even the best player in your own house "  ^_^!

Share this post


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

IOBS, stop buying into the Hibs supporters on Pie and Bovril. 

It's a running joke from them that everytime a St Mirren fan mentions the sell on % they knock it down the way to get bites as they usually get so many. 

Ok sir :blink:.  McGinn was being discussed I joind the subject if you pm your mobile I will give you a call to make sure it's alright to post :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

I would have thought in this case, Scott Allan would have to be financially evaluated and the monetary value built in.

So who "financially evaluates" him then? Hibs arent exactly gonna say Allans price would be high.

I'm sure where this has happened in the past its just the cash that counts cos you can't accurately say the value of the player if there has been a swap.

Share this post


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

Definitely 33% of any profit Hibs make.

Believe they paid £120K for him,  so if they sell for £4m we'd get a third of £3.88m give or take so our cut would be just under £1.3m.

 

 

Tasty. Just think how many non-league 21 year olds Stubbsy could sign with over a million quid in his hip pocket.

 

 

 

 

 

:oohlala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Tasty. Just think how many non-league 21 year olds Stubbsy could sign with over a million quid in his hip pocket.

 

 

 

 

 

:oohlala

If there is a windfall it's going towards stadium redevelopment in turn making money for the club long term. Gordon Scott Buddie Vision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

If there is a windfall it's going towards stadium redevelopment in turn making money for the club long term. Gordon Scott Buddie Vision. 

Where on Buddie vision. Was it recently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LargsBud said:

So who "financially evaluates" him then? Hibs arent exactly gonna say Allans price would be high.

I'm sure where this has happened in the past its just the cash that counts cos you can't accurately say the value of the player if there has been a swap.

I seem to recall some SFA committee in the past arbitrating in a disagreement between clubs on the value of player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

If there is a windfall it's going towards stadium redevelopment in turn making money for the club long term. Gordon Scott Buddie Vision. 

Why, is the stadium needing redeveloped. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Tasty. Just think how many non-league 21 year olds Stubbsy could sign with over a million quid in his hip pocket.

:oohlala

and if he really get lucky, we could get a multi-million pound return when they're later sold on.   :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

If there is a windfall it's going towards stadium redevelopment in turn making money for the club long term. Gordon Scott Buddie Vision. 

This might not be a sexy use of money but it is an excellent idea.

Anything which "sweats the asset" of our stadium and surrounding land should be a very high priority. We cannot be dependent on fan numbers or TV revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any substantial ‘windfall’ from a McGinn transfer would surely negate the need to pilfer SMiSA money, ring-fenced for share purchase purpose, to fund astroturf repairs at Ralston. If we receive (hypothetically) one million quid, it would surely amount to a disgrace to still use SMiSA funds for such a purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Any substantial ‘windfall’ from a McGinn transfer would surely negate the need to pilfer SMiSA money, ring-fenced for share purchase purpose, to fund astroturf repairs at Ralston. If we receive (hypothetically) one million quid, it would surely amount to a disgrace to still use SMiSA funds for such a purpose.

Completely off topic I know, but...................

It would only be a "disgrace" for the people that didn't vote for it, when we didn't have (hypothetically) £1 million.

I'm sure "sheep" (I think that was the correct derogatory term) like me would like to see our vote honoured.

Or maybe we could have another vote to see if we've changed our minds.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm just not very bright, or simply can't get too wound up about it, but if part of the money I put towards the club is occasionally used for maintenance purposes, etc, so be it.

As long as it is for the genuine good of the club, and not lining someone's pocket or being frittered away on some random, meaningless shite or other (like HoF panels:ph34r:) I won't be complaining too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Completely off topic I know, but...................

It would only be a "disgrace" for the people that didn't vote for it, when we didn't have (hypothetically) £1 million.

I'm sure "sheep" (I think that was the correct derogatory term) like me would like to see our vote honoured.

Or maybe we could have another vote to see if we've changed our minds.:)

I’m no longer a SMiSA member, so if enough members want to vote for money to be spent on painting the floodlight pylons pink with purple spots, then that’s what will happen. 

I’m just an outsider looking in, so what I think won’t matter a fcuk in the grand scheme of things, but if the club would indeed use any McGinn money for stadium improvements, then, my opinion only, it stinks if they would still use 50k of SMiSA members monies, which were clearly ring-fenced for share purpose, to pay for astroturf repairs.

Frankly, I saw signs of this sort of thing coming, hence my reason for wanting no further part of Buy the Buds.

Anyway, open forum, just MHO etc, no need for anyone to take much heed.... and I’m sure no-one will, and I won’t be offended. Each to their own, it just became something I no longer wanted to use some of my own money to go to. Hope it all works out.

Edited by pozbaird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

I seem to recall some SFA committee in the past arbitrating in a disagreement between clubs on the value of player.

Fair enough. Seems a bit of a mental situation for that to happen.

Would have thought it was just one of these risks that needs to be accepted when you include a sell on fee in a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This might not be a sexy use of money but it is an excellent idea.
Anything which "sweats the asset" of our stadium and surrounding land should be a very high priority. We cannot be dependent on fan numbers or TV revenue.
Like "cringe" you really shouldn't use "sexy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m no longer a SMiSA member, so if enough members want to vote for money to be spent on painting the floodlight pylons pink with purple spots, then that’s what will happen. 
I’m just an outsider looking in, so what I think won’t matter a fcuk in the grand scheme of things, but if the club would indeed use any McGinn money for stadium improvements, then, my opinion only, it stinks if they would still use 50k of SMiSA members monies, which were clearly ring-fenced for share purpose, to pay for astroturf repairs.
Frankly, I saw signs of this sort of thing coming, hence my reason for wanting no further part of Buy the Buds.
Anyway, open forum, just MHO etc, no need for anyone to take much heed.... and I’m sure no-one will, and I won’t be offended. Each to their own, it just became something I no longer wanted to use some of my own money to go to. Hope it all works out.
So you don't want the club to maximise income possibilities and potentially become self sufficient?

While I don't want to get involved in some sort of Dicko v the constitution type argument the £2 was a "disgretionery" fund. If it doesn't buy the shares its not really going against what we signed up for as the £10 a month does that.

Anyway peace out.

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...