Jump to content

Chairman's Update


Sonny

Recommended Posts


On 8/10/2018 at 4:21 PM, shull said:

What a magnificent job our Chairman and Board are doing. 

The most important aspect is we are led and governed by a St Mirren Supporter. 

Hopefully Gordon won't leave for a very long time. At least a couple of decades. 

Our Club is thriving. 

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
29 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

Anyone want to take a bet on who'll be first to slate GLS.

And to be fair to LPM, who'll be first to beat Basil on the over the top praise. emoji23.png

I've made my comment on the other post about the 10% and the near sellout crowd, it puts the issue to bed for me on my points to why I back it.

No doubt there will still be people like LPM & BEK that won't accept it has a financial benefit and doesn't scare large numbers of fans away. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've made my comment on the other post about the 10% and the near sellout crowd, it puts the issue to bed for me on my points to why I back it.
No doubt there will still be people like LPM & BEK that won't accept it has a financial benefit and doesn't scare large numbers of fans away. [emoji38]
Just as well you say you respect the opinions of others and their right to disagree with you then, isn't it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
26 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
I've made my comment on the other post about the 10% and the near sellout crowd, it puts the issue to bed for me on my points to why I back it.
No doubt there will still be people like LPM & BEK that won't accept it has a financial benefit and doesn't scare large numbers of fans away. emoji38.png

Just as well you say you respect the opinions of others and their right to disagree with you then, isn't it.

Yeah and that will always be the case, my questions related to 'why do people believe the money isn't considerable' or 'why do people think home crowd numbers are way down at these games' not that they are automatically wrong and not allowed to think that way. 

People are still welcome to think both of those points are true, that's the great thing about opinion. This update just adds more weight to my opinion that the money is significant and home crowds don't go way down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

Anyone want to take a bet on who'll be first to slate GLS.

And to be fair to LPM, who'll be first to beat Basil on the over the top praise. emoji23.png

What a wanker 

Imagine making us wait 4 months between statements :fire

We were nearly top of the statement table until then! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I've made my comment on the other post about the 10% and the near sellout crowd, it puts the issue to bed for me on my points to why I back it.

 

Of course it does because his message tells us nothing and you are not inclined to question anything which comes from Gordon's mouth.

You didn't even think to question what the 10% related to. 🤣

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2019 at 6:37 PM, oaksoft said:

Of course it does because his message tells us nothing and you are not inclined to question anything which comes from Gordon's mouth.

You didn't even think to question what the 10% related to. 🤣

the 10% relates to increase in the player budget, that's what he has said and that's enough for me. If you think he is lying then fine, I have no reason to think so because as I have said all along, I think the income would be significant.

As you will also be aware I had no problem comparing one stand vs two (I think that's likely what he's done), you were the one that didn't like it for unknown reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 3:33 PM, bazil85 said:

Yeah and that will always be the case, my questions related to 'why do people believe the money isn't considerable' or 'why do people think home crowd numbers are way down at these games' not that they are automatically wrong and not allowed to think that way. 

People are still welcome to think both of those points are true, that's the great thing about opinion. This update just adds more weight to my opinion that the money is significant and home crowds don't go way down.

I genuinely hope the benefit is as valuable as you believe. Here & now, we are debating "considerable money" that is not quantified. Not one of us knows the actual value.

10% of bugger all is bugger all. 10% of considerable is considerable but folk only think they know. In the absence of factual numbers, it's all speculation or until The Club comes out and says, the actual benefit is £X.

Personally, I don't believe giving rangers & celtic 2 stands is worth this 10% of the playing budget  being bandied about. Having our supporters on 3 sides of the pitch is of more value (imho).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

And what does that come to?

And when you;ve estimated the first figure, does that value of 10% still sound reasonable to you?

If you want to know more contact the club. I for one don’t think our chairman is a liar and the 10% relates to the player budget being 10% greater than what it would have been without the arrangement. You know... what he wrote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

I genuinely hope the benefit is as valuable as you believe. Here & now, we are debating "considerable money" that is not quantified. Not one of us knows the actual value.

10% of bugger all is bugger all. 10% of considerable is considerable but folk only think they know. In the absence of factual numbers, it's all speculation or until The Club comes out and says, the actual benefit is £X.

Personally, I don't believe giving rangers & celtic 2 stands is worth this 10% of the playing budget  being bandied about. Having our supporters on 3 sides of the pitch is of more value (imho).

The chairman has put his name to a statement that specifically says it enabled us to increase our players budget by 10% people can think he is openly lying but I don’t. It’s amazing some people think that’s a negative thing on here. 

Your opinion can be that having one extra near empty stand for three games is more beneficial than a significantly bigger budget for 38, I personally don’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bazil85 said:

The chairman has put his name to a statement that specifically says it enabled us to increase our players budget by 10% people can think he is openly lying but I don’t. It’s amazing some people think that’s a negative thing on here. 

Your opinion can be that having one extra near empty stand for three games is more beneficial than a significantly bigger budget for 38, I personally don’t. 

the 10% remains unquantified.

To date, there is an absence of evidence of the financial benefit to The Club. The chairman saying it's "added 10% to the playing budget" doesn't cut it.

Let him tell us, What is the Magic Number? of Season tickets that need to be sold for the South Stand to stop it being given to rangers & celtic. Tell  Challenge the support to invest in season tickets that will keep rangers & celtic in the North Stand only. I'd buy one if it helped achieve that

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10% figure does seem like a very conveniently rounded up number to me. My position remains we can live without that revenue by managing the club better, and there needs to be more ambition and vision from the club to truly turn those games against the Old Firm in to home games - and not events where we let them take over our stadium and walk away with three points. After watching our reserves lose to Celtic last time, I personally won't be back.

Great to see the St Mirren Women's team will be playing their first game in the stadium. Great to keep building the St Mirren community.

Explanation of the Technical Director position makes perfect sense, and I really do hope it works out. Having a clear identity and purpose is vital to success in modern football. Look at Man City v Man Utd for an example of that! Closer to our level teams like St Johnstone show what a proper management structure can do for on the field results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 10% remains unquantified.
To date, there is an absence of evidence of the financial benefit to The Club. The chairman saying it's "added 10% to the playing budget" doesn't cut it.
Let him tell us, What is the Magic Number? of Season tickets that need to be sold for the South Stand to stop it being given to rangers & celtic. Tell  Challenge the support to invest in season tickets that will keep rangers & celtic in the North Stand only. I'd buy one if it helped achieve that
 
 
Surely anything over 4800.

Why dont we call it 5000. I'm sure st Ricky believed we could sell that many this season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of money the club spends on wages includes coaching staff , management , admin and commercial staff , youth team costs and of course paying the first team squad their wages . With that in mind the extra money from allowing away fans in the family stand for three games would probably allow us a first team squad of say 21 instead of 18 , so with that in mind I think it makes sense to try and sell out both stands when the old firm come to town .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MenstrieSaint said:

The amount of money the club spends on wages includes coaching staff , management , admin and commercial staff , youth team costs and of course paying the first team squad their wages . With that in mind the extra money from allowing away fans in the family stand for three games would probably allow us a first team squad of say 21 instead of 18 , so with that in mind I think it makes sense to try and sell out both stands when the old firm come to town .

At the wages you are offering there the three extra players will be part-timers signed up from Cowdenbeath, so not sure how much use they are going to be to us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

the 10% remains unquantified.

To date, there is an absence of evidence of the financial benefit to The Club. The chairman saying it's "added 10% to the playing budget" doesn't cut it.

Let him tell us, What is the Magic Number? of Season tickets that need to be sold for the South Stand to stop it being given to rangers & celtic. Tell  Challenge the support to invest in season tickets that will keep rangers & celtic in the North Stand only. I'd buy one if it helped achieve that

 

 

The only remaining question for me is if people believe or disbelieve a man that has got access to all the financial information regarding our clubs income and outgoings. For me I have no reason not to believe our chairman. He is not financially gaining from the decision, is not financially gaining from the purchase of the club and has the power to reverse the decision for next season (at likely considerable/ universal fan acceptance) so IMO has no reason to lie. I also feel if he was, he'd be very likely to get caught out, another reason to believe him. 

Your second part is all fair enough, he might clarify in the pre-season. I'd imagine we are pretty far away from it though given this seasons figures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only remaining question for me is if people believe or disbelieve a man that has got access to all the financial information regarding our clubs income and outgoings. For me I have no reason not to believe our chairman. He is not financially gaining from the decision, is not financially gaining from the purchase of the club and has the power to reverse the decision for next season (at likely considerable/ universal fan acceptance) so IMO has no reason to lie. I also feel if he was, he'd be very likely to get caught out, another reason to believe him. 

Your second part is all fair enough, he might clarify in the pre-season. I'd imagine we are pretty far away from it though given this seasons figures. 

It is not a case of believing or disbelieving the man.

 

It is a case of believing or disbelieving whether giving rangers & celtic 2 stands is worth it.

 

You & others believe it is.

I & others believe it is not.

 

The value of that worth for some is purely financial but for others, worth is not quantified through financial means only.

 

With the absence of actual figures, neither of our beliefs are endorsed. We simply don't know but are being asked to believe 1 mans say so.

 

I would rather make an informed decision rather than form a belief from blind faith

 

It'll likely be a waiting game. Waiting for the club AGM. Best I tell the wife now, I'll be off on another wee trip north. [emoji16].

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

It is not a case of believing or disbelieving the man.

 

It is a case of believing or disbelieving whether giving rangers & celtic 2 stands is worth it.

 

You & others believe it is.

I & others believe it is not.

 

The value of that worth for some is purely financial but for others, worth is not quantified through financial means only.

 

With the absence of actual figures, neither of our beliefs are endorsed. We simply don't know but are being asked to believe 1 mans say so.

 

I would rather make an informed decision rather than form a belief from blind faith

 

It'll likely be a waiting game. Waiting for the club AGM. Best I tell the wife now, I'll be off on another wee trip north. emoji16.png.

 

I would say your second sentence is and always has been a matter of opinion. we just now know the round about of the opinion.

Instead of 'is the money and moving fans worth it?' it is now 'is 10% increase to the player budget and moving fans worth it?' 

Like you say some are yes, some are no. It's never been my aim to change that, only to point out that I don't think it is correct when people say 'the money isn't that much' or that fans aren't going to games in large numbers because of this.

GLS statement certainly puts to bed the first point (as far as I am concerned or anyone that isn't wanting to call him a liar) and his chat on 'near record crowds' at the Celtic game and observable similar crowds at non OF games I think tackles the second part.

But just because the money is a decent amount and crowds don't appear to be massively impacted doesn't mean peoples opinion that it shouldn't happen is invalid. Same as people with the opinion it is the right thing to do, they're equally entitled to it. 

As for the not endorsed, IMO that is splitting hairs. As fans we don't need to or should expect intricate details of all financial income and outgoings, especially not for individual games. We'll get the annual accounts and there shouldn't be an expectation of anymore. I feel the word of our chairman should be plenty and when we get to the bottom line, it boils down to believing him or thinking he is lying. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
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...