Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
div

What happens if we raise the funds early?

Recommended Posts

On 7/2/2018 at 3:02 PM, munoz said:

Yeah I'd also be happy keeping the contributions going beyond whenever the deal is finalised. It can surely only make the club stronger. 

Thye club would simply spend according to it's means.  Not necessarily making St Mirren stronger or more successful.

 

In whatever ownership scenario that eventually manifests, we will have "fan" ownership and a degree of "fan" control.  This means whoever is in charge is working with someone else's money, so not necessarily a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Thye club would simply spend according to it's means.  Not necessarily making St Mirren stronger or more successful.

 

In whatever ownership scenario that eventually manifests, we will have "fan" ownership and a degree of "fan" control.  This means whoever is in charge is working with someone else's money, so not necessarily a good thing.

I think you could look at this from the opposite side and in a more positive light. If people continue to pay, that’s money over and above expectation. Regardless of what that is, it’s beneficial and I would say should be treated as a bonus not a necessity. (Like the £2 fund is used now) 

the positive of the fan ownership side as well is that, it may be other people’s money but it’s not for profit. When we have fan ownership we won’t have a chairman looking to take a profit or wage. Now I know we haven’t had that for a number of years, but there’s always that risk for clubs that aren’t fan owned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I think you could look at this from the opposite side and in a more positive light. If people continue to pay, that’s money over and above expectation. Regardless of what that is, it’s beneficial and I would say should be treated as a bonus not a necessity. (Like the £2 fund is used now) 

the positive of the fan ownership side as well is that, it may be other people’s money but it’s not for profit. When we have fan ownership we won’t have a chairman looking to take a profit or wage. Now I know we haven’t had that for a number of years, but there’s always that risk for clubs that aren’t fan owned. 

How do you know..?

A. Any future charman or board wont be paid in some way?

B. Given from the club accounts that there is money paid to Directors, why do you think its not happening now?

Share this post


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

How do you know..?

A. Any future charman or board wont be paid in some way?

B. Given from the club accounts that there is money paid to Directors, why do you think its not happening now?

A. Fan ownership will protect against an owner taking a wage. I'm not saying people on the board or making up background staff won't be paid, but we will not have a conventional owner in it for profit that you see with other clubs. 

B. Probably covered in point A. I'm speaking about conventional company owners (I worded as Chairman but owner is probably clearer) My understanding is the director is TF who is an employee of SMFC. DN, GLS don't take a profit, that is the model we'd work under fan ownership based on my reading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

How do you know..?

A. Any future charman or board wont be paid in some way?

B. Given from the club accounts that there is money paid to Directors, why do you think its not happening now?

Last set of accounts show £29K was paid to Directors. I always assumed that since Tony Fitz moved from being an employee to being a director, that his salary would thus have moved into one that had to be shown in the accounts. I might be wrong as it's too low, unless the figure shown is only for part of the financial year (the part after he was made a director).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, div said:

Last set of accounts show £29K was paid to Directors. I always assumed that since Tony Fitz moved from being an employee to being a director, that his salary would thus have moved into one that had to be shown in the accounts. I might be wrong as it's too low, unless the figure shown is only for part of the financial year (the part after he was made a director).

Yeah i think most people equated that to Tony F's wages, however the club CEO was always on the club payroll, and being a director is just part of his responsibilities. So yes it might be purely TF, then again it could be one, or more others?

this isnt calling anyone, or body on it, simply highlighting it was an unexplained/no detail line on the accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anybody know what the final shareholding would be after the fans buy club.  Main share holdings going forward I would guess at

Bought by Fans under the current purchase plan              51% (old Boards shares)

Existing SMISA Share Holding?                             ?

Existing GS Personal share holding                     ?

Other existing small share holders                      ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mibbee it’s just me but I’d be more than happy if GS stayed in his position for the full 10 years, as far as I’m concerned he ( & the other board members ) have done a great job through what could have been a very difficult time in our club history . I wonder if there’s Anyone else out there who has got experience of running a football club who would like to take the helm and expose themselves to the abuse and negativity a certain section of our support can inflict ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mibbee it’s just me but I’d be more than happy if GS stayed in his position for the full 10 years, as far as I’m concerned he ( & the other board members ) have done a great job through what could have been a very difficult time in our club history . I wonder if there’s Anyone else out there who has got experience of running a football club who would like to take the helm and expose themselves to the abuse and negativity a certain section of our support can inflict ?

Dorothy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A suggestion.  If funds are raised early why not give the extra monies to Gordon Scott who has been and clearly is a wonderful chairman.  Then  fcuk off and give us all peace.  Smisa are a shitpot of altering opinions who are already going back on ring fenced promises.  The "look at me" wall is a disgrace that should be torn down and the class split between premium and normal members identifies Smisa as...well..a shitpot.  Smisa have been a great organisation in the past that did very good and just things for our club when the club really needed it, well done.  Now it it is time to halt your dreams of domination.  The moment premium members were offered an invite to any event before those who perhaps could not afford it identified you as an organisation of spunkstains.  I have zero faith in you  and I view you as a great threat to Paisley's greatest insitution.  

 

Piss off Smisa, piss off indeed

Edited by TediousTom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TediousTom said:

A suggestion.  If funds are raised early why not give the extra monies to Gordon Scott who has been and clearly is a wonderful chairman.  Then  fcuk off and give us all peace.  Smisa are a shitpot of altering opinions who are already going back on ring fenced promises.  The "look at me" wall is a disgrace that should be torn down and the class split between premium and normal members identifies Smisa as...well..a shitpot.  Smisa have been a great organisation in the past that did very good and just things for our club when the club really needed it, well done.  Now it it is time to halt your dreams of domination.  The moment premium members were offered an invite to any event before those who perhaps could not afford it identified you as an organisation of spunkstains.  I have zero faith in you  and I view you as a great threat to Paisley's greatest insitution.  

 

Piss off Smisa, piss off indeed

Aw someone seems like they need a hug.

SMISA ain't going anywhere, members voted to change the ring fence proposal, get over it.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Aw someone seems like they need a hug.

SMISA ain't going anywhere, members voted to change the ring fence proposal, get over it.  :lol:

I am fully aware that Smisa changed it's own goalposts.  Worrying trend is it not.  The only saving grace being that for now Smisa is currently a harmless entity with a pipe dream, let us hope against hope that this pipe dream never becomes a reality.  

 

One really worries when an organisation makes a cast iron promise only to change it, perhaps Smisa should be negotiating Brexit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TediousTom said:

I am fully aware that Smisa changed it's own goalposts.  Worrying trend is it not.  The only saving grace being that for now Smisa is currently a harmless entity with a pipe dream, let us hope against hope that this pipe dream never becomes a reality.  

 

One really worries when an organisation makes a cast iron promise only to change it, perhaps Smisa should be negotiating Brexit!

No they didn't, they asked members to vote if it was agreeable. They don't have the power to change the goalposts. You not agreeing with the demographic (landslide) is fine but I'm afraid you just have to accept it.

It's a very well costed plan to repay, to coin a popular phrase on here, stop being a knickerwetter. 

You also need to accept this is happening, no one cares that you don't like it... And it'll be a success :thumbsup

Share this post


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

1)  No they didn't, they asked members to vote if it was agreeable. They don't have the power to change the goalposts. 2)  You not agreeing with the demographic (landslide) is fine but I'm afraid you just have to accept it.

It's a very well costed plan to repay, to coin a popular phrase on here, 3) stop being a knickerwetter. 

You also need to accept this is happening, 4)  no one cares that you don't like it... 5)  And it'll be a success :thumbsup

1)  I know, but changing any "ring fenced" promise shows a weak organisation that are not to be trusted.  I don't trust them one bit.

2)  You are partially correct.  However you also have to accept that not everyone is a Smisa convert.  I can voice my disapproval of Smisa as much as I want (the wonders of living in a free country)

3)  I don't wear knickers, I wear Y fronts that were white when I bought them but are now a light grey.  In any case one being mistrusting of Smisa has no connection to any bladder problem. 

4)  You are probably correct but I find it arrogant in the extreme if any Smisa follower thinks that everyone who follows our beloved club will bow to Smisa with unquestioning loyalty.  I cannot be the only one who does not trust them.

5)  Let's hope so.  Initially I am sure it will.  I am also sure that before long petty divisions will occur amongst people who couldn't keep a "ring fenced" promise and hide behind "but we voted on it" nonsense.  Smisa is doomed to fail and I hope against hope that my beloved club is not damaged beyond repair whilst Smisa collapses around it in a web of jealousy and infighting. 

 

Now lets crack on with the rest of our Tuesday, crack on with the rest of our Tuesday indeed.

Share this post


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

1)  I know, but changing any "ring fenced" promise shows a weak organisation that are not to be trusted.  I don't trust them one bit.

In what way? They asked members to vote, those that did overwhelmingly said yes. Not really a surprise given the opportunity it presented to help the club we all supported. A weak organisation would be one that didn't engage members, a lot of people would be more angry about that. 'St Mirren have asked us a question, we've answered on your behalf' 

2)  You are partially correct.  However you also have to accept that not everyone is a Smisa convert.  I can voice my disapproval of Smisa as much as I want (the wonders of living in a free country)

Yep agreed, knock yourself out, I respond because it's a forum and we can equally message as we like. It would die a death if fans didn't respond to each other. 

3)  I don't wear knickers, I wear Y fronts that were white when I bought them but are now a light grey.  In any case one being mistrusting of Smisa has no connection to any bladder problem. 

Could of fooled me

4)  You are probably correct but I find it arrogant in the extreme if any Smisa follower thinks that everyone who follows our beloved club will bow to Smisa with unquestioning loyalty.  I cannot be the only one who does not trust them.

You don't need to, it won't make any difference if you like what's happening or not

5)  Let's hope so.  Initially I am sure it will.  I am also sure that before long petty divisions will occur amongst people who couldn't keep a "ring fenced" promise and hide behind "but we voted on it" nonsense.  Smisa is doomed to fail and I hope against hope that my beloved club is not damaged beyond repair whilst Smisa collapses around it in a web of jealousy and infighting. 

Would love to know what you base any of that on.... Also see point one regarding how asking members to vote on it is 'nonsense' but if SMISA flatly said no without engaging members that would be better. 

Now lets crack on with the rest of our Tuesday, crack on with the rest of our Tuesday indeed.

Onto the game!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A question for SMiSA if I may.
Having successfully paid off the £380K to the previous board, well ahead of schedule, we now start saving to pay back the £615K due to Gordon.
With membership well over what was projected in the project plan it stands to reason that, assuming membership stays at broadly the same level, we will have that £615K raised within say the next 4 years.
That would bring us to 2022 but the general agreement with Gordon was for handover and completion in 2026.
So, if we DO raise enough by 2022, does the deal go through early, or do we keep saving for a contingency fund, and if so for how long?
Interested to know if this has been thought about and if so what the plan would be?
Be up to GS he is the owner

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...