Jump to content

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Just for clarification, are you saying that the Old Board are legally entitled to a percentage of the sell-on fee or do you mean that St Mirren receiving a windfall would hasten the club purchase repayments to the Old Board ?

It's actually SMiSA who need to pay the consortium earlier if McGinn and or McLean are sold, the club are in no debt at all to the consortium, so any money made will be for the clubs coffers.

ETA The club may well lend some of the money from any sale to SMiSA if they don't have enough reserves to pay it themselves, as it stands i believe Mclean being sold would not be a problem as there are funds to pay the agreed amount on that, McGinn being sold would mean SMiSA needing to borrow to pay the outstanding amount due to the consortium and there is an agreement to borrow it from the club.

Edited by buddiecat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Just for clarification, are you saying that the Old Board are legally entitled to a percentage of the sell-on fee or do you mean that St Mirren receiving a windfall would hasten the club purchase repayments to the Old Board ?

From the AGM report

Accelerated payment clause

One other element of the deal briefly touched on at the AGM was around accelerated payments which could be triggered to the consortium over the next year.

Gordon paid his portion of the share purchase up front, and SMISA – having planned to get a loan to cover our share – had initially promised to do the same. When this didn’t go to plan, we had to negotiate a deal for monthly repayments to the consortium.

They agreed to this, but only if we and Gordon added a clause which said if the club came into any unbudgeted income, some of that money be used to get them what they are owed quicker.

So if St Mirren receive funds from the sale of an asset, the club will lend a portion of that money to SMISA to make the accelerated payment to the consortium, and SMISA will repay the club. This only applies up until the date we are due to make the final repayment in summer 2018.

There are three points members should be clear on here. One is that payments only apply up to the sum we still owe them at that time – they won’t get a penny more than they are due.

Second is the club will not lose out as a result – any money which comes out of the club to make the repayments will be repaid by SMISA in full as soon as we can.

Lastly, the power of the club board is in no way affected – they don’t have to sell anything unless they choose to.

A compromise was negotiated where this clause did not apply in January 2017 – so it wasn’t triggered by the transfers of Kyle McAllister or Jason Naismith. But it may kick in if a player is sold this summer.

Again, the clause was part of the share purchase agreement, which we had authority to conclude, and which was approved by our lawyers.

This was a clause we were reluctant to agree to. However, we were negotiating a million-pound share purchase and this was a highly complex situation in which none of the three parties (us, Gordon and the consortium) got everything they wanted – as with any deal, everybody made compromises.

Share this post


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

From the AGM report

Accelerated payment clause

One other element of the deal briefly touched on at the AGM was around accelerated payments which could be triggered to the consortium over the next year.

Gordon paid his portion of the share purchase up front, and SMISA – having planned to get a loan to cover our share – had initially promised to do the same. When this didn’t go to plan, we had to negotiate a deal for monthly repayments to the consortium.

They agreed to this, but only if we and Gordon added a clause which said if the club came into any unbudgeted income, some of that money be used to get them what they are owed quicker.

So if St Mirren receive funds from the sale of an asset, the club will lend a portion of that money to SMISA to make the accelerated payment to the consortium, and SMISA will repay the club. This only applies up until the date we are due to make the final repayment in summer 2018.

There are three points members should be clear on here. One is that payments only apply up to the sum we still owe them at that time – they won’t get a penny more than they are due.

Second is the club will not lose out as a result – any money which comes out of the club to make the repayments will be repaid by SMISA in full as soon as we can.

Lastly, the power of the club board is in no way affected – they don’t have to sell anything unless they choose to.

A compromise was negotiated where this clause did not apply in January 2017 – so it wasn’t triggered by the transfers of Kyle McAllister or Jason Naismith. But it may kick in if a player is sold this summer.

Again, the clause was part of the share purchase agreement, which we had authority to conclude, and which was approved by our lawyers.

This was a clause we were reluctant to agree to. However, we were negotiating a million-pound share purchase and this was a highly complex situation in which none of the three parties (us, Gordon and the consortium) got everything they wanted – as with any deal, everybody made compromises.

I didn't sign up to Simsa or pay a monthly DD towards buying the club , this is something I don't agree with in any way. I don't think any cash bought in through transfers should be handed to the old board , this cash should be used for player budgets and for the likes of the youth teams etc.

Edited by linwood buddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't sign up to Simsa or pay a monthly DD towards buying the club , this is something I don't agree with in any way. I don't think any cash bought in through transfers should be handed to the old board , this cash should be used for player budgets and for the likes of the youth teams etc.

 

The club doesn't lose out and still has access to the full transfer fee that comes in. As has been highlighted above, SMISA would in fact make an accelerated payment.

 

Share this post


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

I didn't sign up to Simsa or pay a monthly DD towards buying the club , this is something I don't agree with in any way. I don't think any cash bought in through transfers should be handed to the old board , this cash should be used for player budgets and for the likes of the youth teams etc.

I don't see a problem with this. It's not as if it was suddenly added. It was agreed at the outset. It just means the consortium are gone earlier than expected. It's funds that the club can't expect so , as a windfall, it means some of it becomes a nest egg. A lot of people were asking for that very thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

 

I don't see a problem with this. It's not as if it was suddenly added. It was agreed at the outset. It just means the consortium are gone earlier than expected. It's funds that the club can't expect so , as a windfall, it means some of it becomes a nest egg. A lot of people were asking for that very thing.

Not a windfall , a windfall is something you would maybe have won , this is money from the transfer of a player or if you want an asset.So only thing that should benefit from this is the club .

As for funds the club can't expect , Why place a sell on clause on any deal then?:unsure:

Edited by linwood buddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, linwood buddie said:

Not a windfall , a windfall is something you would maybe have won , this is money from the transfer of a player or if you want an asset.So only thing that should benefit from this is the club .

I don't get why you think the club won't benefit. They will get the funds. Unless you expected the club to go gung ho and spend every penny they get right away then who loses? As for what it is: a windfall is a large amount of money that is won or received unexpectedly. Maybe you expected this possible cash to be coming our way now but it was never a definite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stlucifer said:

I don't get why you think the club won't benefit. They will get the funds. Unless you expected the club to go gung ho and spend every penny they get right away then who loses? As for what it is: a windfall is a large amount of money that is won or received unexpectedly. Maybe you expected this possible cash to be coming our way now but it was never a definite.

Do you think that the club have not expected to get anything from Kenny or Johns sell on fees?I believe they did and that is why the old board inserted that into any deal , this was caused by the fact Simsa couldn't raise their initial payment. I'm not in Simsa and didn't agree with the buy out , although up till now things look to be running quite well.But will go back to my original statement and say again that ,I don't agree that the old board shout get anything from players sales.

So if you don't agree with my opinion that's your choice , its my opinion and that's all it is :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that the club have not expected to get anything from Kenny or Johns sell on fees?I believe they did and that is why the old board inserted that into any deal , this was caused by the fact Simsa couldn't raise their initial payment. I'm not in Simsa and didn't agree with the buy out , although up till now things look to be running quite well.But will go back to my original statement and say again that ,I don't agree that the old board shout get anything from players sales.
So if you don't agree with my opinion that's your choice , its my opinion and that's all it is


The money will be used just as you highlighted in an earlier post. The club gets say £100,000 from sales or a clause, the club still gets to assign and use as they see fit. SMISA have to pay the old board an accelerated payment from funds they already have or funds that have to attain.

The old board get nothing extra, they just get it earlier and from SMISA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 


The money will be used just as you highlighted in an earlier post. The club gets say £100,000 from sales or a clause, the club still gets to assign and use as they see fit. SMISA have to pay the old board an accelerated payment from funds they already have or funds that have to attain.

The old board get nothing extra, they just get it earlier and from SMISA.

 

I honestly don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

Share this post


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

 


The money will be used just as you highlighted in an earlier post. The club gets say £100,000 from sales or a clause, the club still gets to assign and use as they see fit. SMISA have to pay the old board an accelerated payment from funds they already have or funds that have to attain.

The old board get nothing extra, they just get it earlier and from SMISA.

 

i know that the old board won't make any money from the sales Bud , I've probably given the impression that they will , i'm only trying to express my disagreement to the fact they will get any kind of benefit from them .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i know that the old board won't make any money from the sales Bud , I've probably given the impression that they will , i'm only trying to express my disagreement to the fact they will get any kind of benefit from them .


Without this agreement the deal for the takeover may not have gone through. They only benefit by getting the money a bit quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important to remember as all parties have stated. No one got everything hey wanted in the buyout. There was a lot of back and forward and negotiations like any deal. This was the only way the deal would have went through. Important points to note.

Any transfer fee, the club will still receive 100% of the sum owed with the old board not receiving a penny extra.

It was the only way to get to our ultimate goal of fan ownership. The people that care most about he club (the fans) making decisions.

The board will only get a proportion of any fee up front which is negotiable. They WILL NOT get all the money (and from what I've heard it'll be a low amount)

It will ultimately result in the old board being paid off quicker and out of our hair, meaning future transfers this won't be an issue.

Smisa and the fan buyout is way ahead of target and everything is running positively and smoothly with close to 1,300 paying members. This not only moves things forward quicker still, it also increases discretionary funds for the club.

I'd hope people can take a step back from this one part of the deal and realise in the grand scheme of things it really is a non issue. Even if we did get all the money up front the club more than likely wouldn't spend it all on one pre season worth of signings.

Having said all this, none of this should be new information. The club and SMISA have been transparent in regards to the deal. I hope it doesn't call anyone's payments into question. If anything it would be great to make this a non issue quicker by getting more people to sign up to, what is for most (not all) a trivial amount of £12 a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also on the point about £1 million transfer for McGinn. That's a joke. No wonder Hibs told them to F right off. £1 million for one of the most promising players in Scottish football. I thought the quotes of £2.5 million were an embarrassment never mind £1 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, linwood buddie said:

Do you think that the club have not expected to get anything from Kenny or Johns sell on fees?I believe they did and that is why the old board inserted that into any deal , this was caused by the fact Simsa couldn't raise their initial payment. I'm not in Simsa and didn't agree with the buy out , although up till now things look to be running quite well.But will go back to my original statement and say again that ,I don't agree that the old board shout get anything from players sales.

So if you don't agree with my opinion that's your choice , its my opinion and that's all it is :D

They don't get anything from player sales!!!

They just get from SMISA funds the agreed sale price earlier than anticipated which is a good thing going towards fan ownership!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

 


Without this agreement the deal for the takeover may not have gone through. They only benefit by getting the money a bit quicker.

 

Is it not true that the old board gave a concession by not demanding all moneys up front allowing SMISA the time to pay the cost? If so I would argue that they will never get their money back quicker. Only less slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I think it's important to remember as all parties have stated. No one got everything hey wanted in the buyout. There was a lot of back and forward and negotiations like any deal. This was the only way the deal would have went through. Important points to note.

Any transfer fee, the club will still receive 100% of the sum owed with the old board not receiving a penny extra.

It was the only way to get to our ultimate goal of fan ownership. The people that care most about he club (the fans) making decisions.

The board will only get a proportion of any fee up front which is negotiable. They WILL NOT get all the money (and from what I've heard it'll be a low amount)

It will ultimately result in the old board being paid off quicker and out of our hair, meaning future transfers this won't be an issue.

Smisa and the fan buyout is way ahead of target and everything is running positively and smoothly with close to 1,300 paying members. This not only moves things forward quicker still, it also increases discretionary funds for the club.

I'd hope people can take a step back from this one part of the deal and realise in the grand scheme of things it really is a non issue. Even if we did get all the money up front the club more than likely wouldn't spend it all on one pre season worth of signings.

Having said all this, none of this should be new information. The club and SMISA have been transparent in regards to the deal. I hope it doesn't call anyone's payments into question. If anything it would be great to make this a non issue quicker by getting more people to sign up to, what is for most (not all) a trivial amount of £12 a month.

How much is a low amount then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it not true that the old board gave a concession by not demanding all moneys up front allowing SMISA the time to pay the cost? If so I would argue that they will never get their money back quicker. Only less slowly.


They'll get it quicker than they would without an accelerated payment, which funnily enough is what was being discussed. Less slowly is quicker, unless teaching has changed dramatically since I left school in the 80's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Also on the point about £1 million transfer for McGinn. That's a joke. No wonder Hibs told them to F right off. £1 million for one of the most promising players in Scottish football. I thought the quotes of £2.5 million were an embarrassment never mind £1 million.

Won't get anywhere near £2.5 million. Probably £1.6 - 1.8m if they are really interested.

He may be promising, but he's also Scottish and has been playing in the second tier for the last two seasons. He hardly set the world on fire during his last season in the Top League, albeit in an utterly brutal Saints team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic manager Brendan Rodgers has a decision to make over moving for John McGinn – after Ipswich Town put in an opening offer for the Hibs midfielder.

Ipswich’s opening bid of £1.2million was rejected by the Easter Road club, but Mick McCarthy is set to up his offer for the in-demand 22-year-old. (Express)

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...