Jump to content

Sonny

Chairman's Update

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Gordon hasn't achieved as much as Stewart etc or Bob etc, that's just a fact. The rest of your post in regards to myself, well it's nonsense. 

Contradicting a statement without offering supporting justification  is what is actually non-sense, as indeed is denying what is blatant, but then again if you do not have the capacity to rationalise an argument then this is perfectly undestanable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Contradicting a statement without offering supporting justification  is what is actually non-sense, as indeed is denying what is blatant, but then again if you do not have the capacity to rationalise an argument then this is perfectly undestanable

Bob etc took on a club with the administrators at the door, Stewart etc took on a club around 2 million in debt. Gordon took on a well run club with no financial worries, there was no ship to steady and in all honesty the management and players have achieved promotion. As for denying what is blatant, I'm fully able to see you don't have a clue what you're talking about with regards myself and me leaving SMISA. Your posts also don't deserve much time, can't be any more open or honest than that. Keep sooking the dummy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaybee, come off it. You want rationality and then you make a subjective statement that Gordon Scott has achieved more as Chairman than others. Really? I didn't like the man but I think the single biggest achievement any St Mirren Chairman pulled off was the sale of Love Street to Tesco. There may have been a great deal of luck involved particularly in terms of timing, but as a business deal it's been by far the biggest in St Mirren's history. 

In so far as the boardroom machinations are concerned let me try to be rational by using an analogy. Lets say I have set up my own company making and selling toilet paper. I sell to a particular market and because of the plethora of shit that is posted on this forum my business enjoys tremendous success and rapid growth. However the level of shit on this forum is such that I need to increase production to meet demand and to do that I need investment in my company to afford me the ability to upscale my production. Fortunately for me a venture capitalist sees the amount of shite on BAWA and agrees with me that there is huge profit making potential in this toilet paper business and they are happy to invest in my business in return for a 30% stake in the company and a seat on the board. Now do you think the venture capitalists will appoint their choice of individual onto my board, or do you think that I as chairman of the toilet paper business will get the opportunity to interview everyone working for the venture capitalists to decide which employee I like best and which one I will allow to sit on my board? Do I need to answer it for you? 

Why should the set up be any different at St Mirrren. SMISA are the institution providing investment in return for a seat on the board. Gordon Scott should not be dictating to them who that person should be, what skills that individual should have, or what criteria any individual needs to meet before that individual is appointed. The choice of who to appoint to that seat on the board should belong exclusively to the members of SMISA. 

 

 

Edited by StuD

Share this post


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

Bob etc took on a club with the administrators at the door, Stewart etc took on a club around 2 million in debt. Gordon took on a well run club with no financial worries, 

Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't there a debt to the former chairman and board members. 

Share this post


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

Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't there a debt to the former chairman and board members. 

There was a price for their shares plus some small loans here and there. SMISA covered the share payments to the former board. But then, I've never actually seen all the takeover agreement documents.

Share this post


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

There was a price for their shares plus some small loans here and there. SMISA covered the share payments to the former board. But then, I've never actually seen all the takeover agreement documents.

Cough, cough  - I believe those small loans came to £247k...…………...

Quote

http://www.blackandwhitearmy.com/downloads/accounts-may2016.pdf

Salient Points;

The club made a profit of £30K for the year ending May 31 2016. That is compared to a loss of £266K the previous year.
Annual turnover for the year was £2.48M as opposed to the previous year (in the Premiership) which was £2.97M.
The clubs wage bill for the last financial year was £1.16M, down from £1.87M in the previous financial year.
The club has no bank debt.
The undersoil heating is broken.
The figures are healthier than expected due to sale of John McGinn, parachute payment, rental of ground to Celtic in pre-season, Rangers in the home end last day of the season and the Petrofac Cup semi final at Ibrox.
The extra money was used to repay directors loans totalling £247K

…………….and I forgot about the broken undersoil heating - SMiSA sure drove a hard bargain!  :jerrry

Share this post


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

 Gordon took on a well run club with no financial worries

 

4 hours ago, pod said:

Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't there a debt to the former chairman and board members. 

 

2 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

All paid off , confirmed by Jim Cumming 

Yes wadorf34, but not when Gordon took on the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, jaybee said:
  10 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

Firstly, I don't think Gordon has achieved more in 18 months than anyone else. Stewart Gilmour etc ensured the club was still here, as did Bob Earlie initially.

Secondly, I mentioned perception and I include Gordon in the list of people who'd be under that impression. Gordon will take his understanding of SMISA from three people, who's to say one of them haven't misled him just through innocently saying the last x amount of elected SMISA board members have been on the committee. It's like Jack thanking SMISA for funding the sport scientist prior to the vote, someone gave him the impression that was the case.

Sorry; not been hiding been away this afternoon, however on my return did some research and not admiring I was wrong per se, however I may not have been as right as I could have been. :wub:

So I have to say, fair comment here;  I really was thinking .....lets just say more recently and whilst I appreciate what SG did in doing the deal with Tesco and the kaffuffle with the planning people, yes it is; was, just as or perhaps even more important in some ways,  but even afterwards we were still in 'listless mode' , going nowhere  ....fast.

The Bob Earl era passed me by I'm afraid; not because of my age, but simply because I was elsewhere doing 'other' things .God knows what because I don't remember. 

Your second point on perception is entirely plausible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StuD said:

aybee, come off it. You want rationality and then you make a subjective statement that Gordon Scott has achieved more as Chairman than others. Really? I didn't like the man but I think the single biggest achievement any St Mirren Chairman pulled off was the sale of Love Street to Tesco. There may have been a great deal of luck involved particularly in terms of timing, but as a business deal it's been by far the biggest in St Mirren's history. 

In so far as the boardroom machinations are concerned let me try to be rational by using an analogy. Lets say I have set up my own company making and selling toilet paper. I sell to a particular market and because of the plethora of shit that is posted on this forum my business enjoys tremendous success and rapid growth. However the level of shit on this forum is such that I need to increase production to meet demand and to do that I need investment in my company to afford me the ability to upscale my production. Fortunately for me a venture capitalist sees the amount of shite on BAWA and agrees with me that there is huge profit making potential in this toilet paper business and they are happy to invest in my business in return for a 30% stake in the company and a seat on the board. Now do you think the venture capitalists will appoint their choice of individual onto my board, or do you think that I as chairman of the toilet paper business will get the opportunity to interview everyone working for the venture capitalists to decide which employee I like best and which one I will allow to sit on my board? Do I need to answer it for you? 

Why should the set up be any different at St Mirrren. SMISA are the institution providing investment in return for a seat on the board. Gordon Scott should not be dictating to them who that person should be, what skills that individual should have, or what criteria any individual needs to meet before that individual is appointed. The choice of who to appoint to that seat on the board should belong exclusively to the members of SMISA. 

Have already eaten Humble Pie ...taste terrible .  and see my response to TsuMirren  I agree in as much if it hadn't happened there would have been no club, so OK more Humble Pie, however it really didn't leave the club anywhere other than staggering from disaster to disaster.

I take your point with your less than subtle analogy, but it doesn't fly for me, it's not at all similar.  The money that comes in whether or not it is used for a variety of extremely contentious issues still stays within the club as far as I am aware GS doesn't even draw a salary, so the money or benefits thereof are still part of the club and no matter how much the club improves, the price to repay GS still remains the same.

Again a valid point; but harshly voiced, bottom line is it is his club at this moment in time, I am not at all sure that he is demanding in effect a veto, but surely it is not unreasonable to make sure ... to use an analogy, that the first mate who has just been appointed at least knows something about ships.  :whistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Just out of curiosity, where is this "GS approves the SMiSA board member" stuff coming from? It certainly isn't in that article. Are certain people just stirring shit again?

I don't know,  it does seem reasonable that in return for long term investment SMISA get a seat on the board, but to me at least it's not unreasonable that whoever is appointed is someone of an appropriate caliber, sounds a little elitist but I just mean someone who adds to the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:


 

 


That's basically all he said, yet the usual suspects have somehow twisted it to mean that he is choosing the SMiSA board member.

Some people just have bones to pick - personally, I would prefer it if someone else picked up the bones and smacked them roon the napper with them. Just my opinion, of course.

Aye , I can think of one person who would want to be on the board along with a few of his aliases , just so he they could like everything he said. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GS doesnt pick the Smisa member, Smisa pick the Smisa member.  

As for a yes man for GS, nothing could be further from the truth, we currently have a superb Smisa representative on the board who brings a lot to the table and was hugely instrumental in the buyout of the club from the old board.  When his tenure is up we will be lucky to get someone else with as much drive and enthusiasm for the club but im confident the members will pick the right guy as we did at the last election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, marrez said:

GS doesnt pick the Smisa member, Smisa pick the Smisa member.  

As for a yes man for GS, nothing could be further from the truth, we currently have a superb Smisa representative on the board who brings a lot to the table and was hugely instrumental in the buyout of the club from the old board.  When his tenure is up we will be lucky to get someone else with as much drive and enthusiasm for the club but im confident the members will pick the right guy as we did at the last election.

I don't know David Nichol, hes not a friend of mine, but i don't think hes very good. He hasn't made himself available to the support. He doesn't answer emails. He doesn't respond to posts on forums. And if he is taking concerns and ideas from members to the board theres little evidence of it. IIRC wasn't he also named publicly as Gordon Scotts preferred candidate - even being seconded by him?

Obviously this time round I'm not a member of SMiSA but I do hope a higher percentage of the membership feel engaged than did last time and I really hope theres no attempt - unlike last time - to restrict candidates to the post. 

One line in the statement suggested SMiSA were limiting candidates to the board to SMiSA committee members only. I really hope that isn't true. That really would look like a complete carve up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2018 at 7:06 PM, Bud the Baker said:

FFS SMiSA seems more status conscious than the minor nobility! :wacko:

Is a Viscount more important than a Baronet?

  Reveal hidden contents

Who cares - it's a much better biscuit!

02dec9a37bed14aa029213c9f6005f34.jpg

 

Are we comparing biscuits now?

Never tasted a Baronet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, some of the stuff posted on here would drain the life force from you. Absolutely soul-sapping, so it is.

Paragraph after turgid paragraph of uninformed whataboutery and petty point scoring.

Thank f**k no-one is holding a gun against my head making me read it. I reckon that would be a far more effective torture technique than waterboarding, or having your fingernails extracted with pliers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Drew said:

FFS, some of the stuff posted on here would drain the life force from you. Absolutely soul-sapping, so it is.

Paragraph after turgid paragraph of uninformed whataboutery and petty point scoring.

Thank f**k no-one is holding a gun against my head making me read it. I reckon that would be a far more effective torture technique than waterboarding, or having your fingernails extracted with pliers.

 

Need an injection of football. :)

Share this post


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

I don't know David Nichol, hes not a friend of mine, but i don't think hes very good. He hasn't made himself available to the support. He doesn't answer emails. He doesn't respond to posts on forums. And if he is taking concerns and ideas from members to the board theres little evidence of it. IIRC wasn't he also named publicly as Gordon Scotts preferred candidate - even being seconded by him?

Obviously this time round I'm not a member of SMiSA but I do hope a higher percentage of the membership feel engaged than did last time and I really hope theres no attempt - unlike last time - to restrict candidates to the post. 

One line in the statement suggested SMiSA were limiting candidates to the board to SMiSA committee members only. I really hope that isn't true. That really would look like a complete carve up.

I don't know David either, but can say that he absolutely answers emails as I've emailed him several times and got a reply every time. Maybe it's just you...

Your little world must be so simple, believing everything that goes on inside you little head, going to imaginary dinner parties and sounding off on a forum to release your pent-up frustration with life.

Share this post


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

I don't know David either, but can say that he absolutely answers emails as I've emailed him several times and got a reply every time. Maybe it's just you...

Your little world must be so simple, believing everything that goes on inside you little head, going to imaginary dinner parties and sounding off on a forum to release your pent-up frustration with anything  St.Mirren.

Sorted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Soctty said:

I don't know David either, but can say that he absolutely answers emails as I've emailed him several times and got a reply every time. Maybe it's just you...

Your little world must be so simple, believing everything that goes on inside you little head, going to imaginary dinner parties and sounding off on a forum to release your pent-up frustration with life.

For the record, dave's never been contacted by Stuart on email, but maybe he's spelled his name wrong on the email - as its Nicol, not Nichol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, marrez said:

For the record, dave's never been contacted by Stewart on email, but maybe he's spelled his name wrong on the email - as its Stuart not Stewart

Kind of daft thing he would do. :rolleyes:

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...