Jump to content

Kenny McLean


Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, davidg said:

Won't this go to the old board to pay off the loan sooner?

Great move for Kenny if true.

I've seen other comments about this and I don't understand.

Surely this money belongs to St. Mirren FC Ltd? Surely it can't be used to purchase shares in said company? That can't be right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Will be happy if this is true, but its also another example of Saints getting shafted on transfer fees while others can manage to get a fair fee.  Hibs no doubt will do well out of McGinn too.

When Kenny left us, we were hurtling round the relegation u-bend. Since signing for the Dons, he has routinely featured in the country's 2nd best placed team.

II don't think we can cry foul on this one. The timing of his move and gentlemen's agreement thing were pish, but the respective fees we're looking at here seem reasonably proportionate to me.

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Drew said:

When Kenny left us, we were hurtling round the relegation u-bend. Since signing for the Dons, he has routinely featured in the country's 2nd best placed team.

II don't think we can cry foul on this one. The timing of his move and gentlemen's agreement thing were pish, but the respective fees we're looking at here seem reasonably proportionate to me.

Really?

McLean was playing in the same league and was outstanding at the time.  Indeed, I am sure in the lead up to his transfer he was averaging more goals per game for a team fighting relegation than he has done for Aberdeen.

I can't see any argument that he is 5 or 6 times the player now than he was then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Really?

McLean was playing in the same league and was outstanding at the time.  Indeed, I am sure in the lead up to his transfer he was averaging more goals per game for a team fighting relegation than he has done for Aberdeen.

I can't see any argument that he is 5 or 6 times the player now than he was then. 

He was the standout player in the team that was going down. That was the reality.

As you know, it isn't all about being #X a better player now than he was then. It is about what another club is willing to pay. How many scouts do you reckon were watching him routinely then as compared to throughout his time at Aberdeen? Being lauded as a star performer in the team that has finished runners up to a rampant Celtic will gain a hell of a lot more attention than being the best player in a team going down.  Have you heard a lot about the ICT poty recently?

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ICT don't produce young players like St Mirren have done recently.

Utterly bizzare that only do the club accept the first offer that comes in for their players and partake in nonsense such as "gentlemans agreements" to sell stars for buttons durng relegation battles but that many fans seem happy with it too!

How many scouts have watched him?  I don't know.  Doubt it is more than have watched Mallan or Magennis of late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mcdowell76 said:

I've seen other comments about this and I don't understand.

Surely this money belongs to St. Mirren FC Ltd? Surely it can't be used to purchase shares in said company? That can't be right?

There is an accelerated payment clause in the deal that was constructed last summer.

SMiSA could not come up with all the money up front as their part of the deal, and to save them having to go and borrow that money the selling consortium agreed to take the payments in phases over a period of time as money is saved up from members contributions.

One clause to that was that if the club was to enjoy a large income from transfer fees that a portion of that money would be lent by the club to SMiSA who would then pay it on to the selling consortium (thus accelerating their time to receive full payment). That accelerated payment clause was waived in the case of Kyle McAllister but it will kick in on the Mallan transfer I believe.

The club don't lose out on any income but it just means SMiSA will owe money to the club rather than to the selling consortium.

That's how I understand it anyway, sure the SMiSA people will be able to correct any errors in the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Utterly bizzare that only do the club accept the first offer that comes in for their players and partake in nonsense such as "gentlemans agreements" to sell stars for buttons durng relegation battles but that many fans seem happy with it too!

 

Simply put, Kenny McLean wouldn't have signed the new contract he did, when he did, were it not for the agreement to let him go. In that scenario once he ran his contract down he'd have gone for nothing, no up front fee, no sell on percentage, nothing.

As it was, selling him precisely when we did was a really bad bit of business all round and one which certainly contributed to the relegation that followed but I don't think we can really have many complaints about the agreement that was struck.

We got £200K for him, and could yet realise more through the sell on clause we have (which was confirmed by Stewart Gilmour on twitter recently).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, div said:

There is an accelerated payment clause in the deal that was constructed last summer.

SMiSA could not come up with all the money up front as their part of the deal, and to save them having to go and borrow that money the selling consortium agreed to take the payments in phases over a period of time as money is saved up from members contributions.

One clause to that was that if the club was to enjoy a large income from transfer fees that a portion of that money would be lent by the club to SMiSA who would then pay it on to the selling consortium (thus accelerating their time to receive full payment). That accelerated payment clause was waived in the case of Kyle McAllister but it will kick in on the Mallan transfer I believe.

The club don't lose out on any income but it just means SMiSA will owe money to the club rather than to the selling consortium.

That's how I understand it anyway, sure the SMiSA people will be able to correct any errors in the above.

Cheers div.

Still doesn't seem right to me though. Shareholders are borrowing money from a limited company in order to help them buy the shares in that company?

I'm sure its all above board, etc, but doesn't sound good to me.

You say that the club doesn't lose any income but it seems to me that the club forgoes an up front lump sum in return for future income? Is interest being paid?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mcdowell76 said:

Cheers div.

Still doesn't seem right to me though. Shareholders are borrowing money from a limited company in order to help them buy the shares in that company?

I'm sure its all above board, etc, but doesn't sound good to me.

You say that the club doesn't lose any income but it seems to me that the club forgoes an up front lump sum in return for future income? Is interest being paid?

 

I don't think all the transfer money is applicable, but I've no idea how much.

You are right of course that there would (if I have the whole thing right) be a delay in the club receiving all of the money.

I might be incorrect in my understanding of how it all works, I'm not 100% sure on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers div.
Still doesn't seem right to me though. Shareholders are borrowing money from a limited company in order to help them buy the shares in that company?
I'm sure its all above board, etc, but doesn't sound good to me.
You say that the club doesn't lose any income but it seems to me that the club forgoes an up front lump sum in return for future income? Is interest being paid?
 


So smisa bought most of the club on Tick?

I get it now. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

Utterly bizzare that only do the club accept the first offer that comes in for their players and partake in nonsense such as "gentlemans agreements" to sell stars for buttons durng relegation battles but that many fans seem happy with it too!

 

I don't proclaim to know how you would start to value a player.

But as you seen to think the chairman and board are getting it all wrong, why don't you drop them a line and give them a few tips on how it should be done.

Remembering if you wait to long for the right offer the player will probably walk away for nothing anyway. OMO 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few transfer clauses I've saw in papers/football news over last few years have included payments made to selling club after -

A certain amount of games

A certain number of goals

A cap for their country

if we had the certain number of games and the cap for their country clauses inserted into Mclean and Mcginn deals that would be even more money coming back (assuming Mclean gets capped soon) rather than just having the stand alone sell on clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Suggestion said:

How much do Smisa owe for there shares and what was smisas % before taking on more shares .

My recollection without checking is that Gordon put up £615K and the initial SMiSA element was around £387K give or take.

Very rough take of the original plan was that over 10 years they would pay back the full £1m so £100K per annum based on original subscription numbers.

They smashed the number of subscribers so that time period *should* come down IMO.

Accounts of SMiSA to end of November 2016 show a surplus of £150K (source; http://www.smisa.net/images/docs/AGM2017/smisa_finalaccounts_2016_.pdf)

ETA: The accounts show the last payment from SMiSA to the selling consortium is due to be paid in July 2018.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, div said:

I don't think all the transfer money is applicable, but I've no idea how much.

You are right of course that there would (if I have the whole thing right) be a delay in the club receiving all of the money.

I might be incorrect in my understanding of how it all works, I'm not 100% sure on this one.

Is it not the case nowadays that all transfer fees tend to be spread over a period of time . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an accelerated payment clause in the deal that was constructed last summer.
SMiSA could not come up with all the money up front as their part of the deal, and to save them having to go and borrow that money the selling consortium agreed to take the payments in phases over a period of time as money is saved up from members contributions.
One clause to that was that if the club was to enjoy a large income from transfer fees that a portion of that money would be lent by the club to SMiSA who would then pay it on to the selling consortium (thus accelerating their time to receive full payment). That accelerated payment clause was waived in the case of Kyle McAllister but it will kick in on the Mallan transfer I believe.
The club don't lose out on any income but it just means SMiSA will owe money to the club rather than to the selling consortium.
That's how I understand it anyway, sure the SMiSA people will be able to correct any errors in the above.

You lost me at "there is an...." My lack of business knowledge as opposed to your explanation. My Hebrew Trigonometry class was easier to follow.
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...