Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
waldorf34

Smisa buyout

Recommended Posts

During David Nicola,s  latest podcast he perpetuated the myth that the buyout will not occur until 2026, ie 10 years of Gordon's reign.

There is no such agreement in place mentioning a time ,the agreement is simply based on when Smisa has the monies in place he WILL sell his shares to Smisa.

On current projections,including the club paying back monies owed,that should be achieved in 2023 , a good 3 years earlier.

If my calculations are incorrect  Smisa can correct me at the AGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

During David Nicola,s  latest podcast he perpetuated the myth that the buyout will not occur until 2026, ie 10 years of Gordon's reign.

There is no such agreement in place mentioning a time ,the agreement is simply based on when Smisa has the monies in place he WILL sell his shares to Smisa.

On current projections,including the club paying back monies owed,that should be achieved in 2023 , a good 3 years earlier.

If my calculations are incorrect  Smisa can correct me at the AGM.

The deal signed was as you say contingent on smisa making an offer at ten years or if it accumulated the funds before at that point. As soon as the deal was signed Scott made it known he was sticking in for ten years minimum, and has successfully emptied smisa's piggy bank on several occasions to facilitate that goal.

 

29 minutes ago, melmac said:

The "I'll sell when I'm good and ready" backstop?

Or "The Feegie Park Protocol"

Share this post


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

The deal signed was as you say contingent on smisa making an offer at ten years or if it accumulated the funds before at that point. As soon as the deal was signed Scott made it known he was sticking in for ten years minimum, and has successfully emptied smisa's piggy bank on several occasions to facilitate that goal.

 

Or "The Feegie Park Protocol"

The tens years is not mentioned in the legal document,again if I am wrong Smisa can show us the page at the AGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

The tens years is not mentioned in the legal document,again if I am wrong Smisa can show us the page at the AGM.

Actually it was, smisa is committed to making an offer at ten years, or when it accumulates the required funds. Which ever comes first.

unless you mean Scott's intention to stay in situnfor a minimum of ten years, which indeed is not in the agreement between Smisa and Scott.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it was, smisa is committed to making an offer at ten years, or when it accumulates the required funds. Which ever comes first.
unless you mean Scott's intention to stay in situnfor a minimum of ten years, which indeed is not in the agreement between Smisa and Scott.


As you say , my understanding is it is ten years or when SMISA get the money , whichever comes first , I have no issue with that.

As for after SMISA take a full controlling interest ? What comes after GLS ?

There’s the question . Anyone on here got experience of running a football club and would be willing to take on the job of having verbal shite and abuse directed at you from all side because you don’t accommodate every fans whims or pet projects ?

No . Thought not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

 


As you say , my understanding is it is ten years or when SMISA get the money , whichever comes first , I have no issue with that.

As for after SMISA take a full controlling interest ? What comes after GLS ?

There’s the question . Anyone on here got experience of running a football club and would be willing to take on the job of having verbal shite and abuse directed at you from all side because you don’t accommodate every fans whims or pet projects ?

No . Thought not.

 

I thought the idea of fan ownership 51% was to stop the club from being bought by undesirable person or persons  in the future keeping the club in safe hands by it's own supporters . That the club will run as it does now with one smisa member on the board. Should Scott or anyone else wish to step down from the board then someone in the local businesses community or out with may want to put themselves forward which I would imagine will go to a members vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

I thought the idea of fan ownership 51% was to stop the club from being bought by undesirable person or persons  in the future keeping the club in safe hands by it's own supporters . That the club will run as it does now with one smisa member on the board. Should Scott or anyone else wish to step down from the board then someone in the local businesses community or out with may want to put themselves forward which I would imagine will go to a members vote. 

In short no, the agreement will see Smisa in full control of the club, and will see smisa members choose who sits on the board. The board will be responsible for overseeing the running of the football club. Putting a management team in place both off and on the pitch.

those management teams will report to the board, as is now. The board can be solely comprised of smisa members, or no smisa members..! It will be up to smisa membership to decide. Maybe this helps some understand why Scott distrusts the Smisa membership, and Smisa committee  to such a degree that he even runs the SMISA AGM ffs..!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have niggling doubt over the ten year period, i did at one meeting mention that we could buy the club well before the ten year period and remember being answered with "there is a caveat that allows GLS to remain for ten years if he wishes" I can't see it written anywhere on the agreement and wonder if it is there, on a legal document that we have not been shown.

Share this post


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

In short no, the agreement will see Smisa in full control of the club, and will see smisa members choose who sits on the board. The board will be responsible for overseeing the running of the football club. Putting a management team in place both off and on the pitch.

those management teams will report to the board, as is now. The board can be solely comprised of smisa members, or no smisa members..! It will be up to smisa membership to decide. Maybe this helps some understand why Scott distrusts the Smisa membership, and Smisa committee  to such a degree that he even runs the SMISA AGM ffs..!

That's what I'm writting SMISA will have a vote who goes on the board. It's how most German clubs work Barcelona also. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

That's what I'm writting SMISA will have a vote who goes on the board. It's how most German clubs work Barcelona also. 

No, you are incorrect! Smisa will hold the majority shareholding in the club, it will own the club and will choose the WHOLE board. Its not a token representation, it is full fan ownership. Seems a fair few havent yet grasped that THEY are/will be in charge?

Share this post


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

No, you are incorrect! Smisa will hold the majority shareholding in the club, it will own the club and will choose the WHOLE board. Its not a token representation, it is full fan ownership. Seems a fair few havent yet grasped that THEY are/will be in charge?

Personally I don't see demons. Responsible people will be voted in.  Scott might still want to remain chairman who knows it's a long way off. Right now there are bigger concerns like staying in the top flight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like a who has got the biggest willy contest:  :P.  Seriously though I much prefer I.O.B.S. version of how things run after the fans take over, I comprehend the idea behind fan ownership to stop undesirable persons trying to take control, but we really need to be aware that putting fans in charge could be a little like putting the inmates in charge of the Asylum, or an alchoholic in charge of the Brewery, or an embezeler ................ well! you get the point I am sure.  I am NOT suggesting a token SMISA presence on the Board; but equally I do think we need someone like GS or SG who has the 'smarts' in the business sense to be at the helm of a company with the kind of turnover that St mirren has and yes someone who is able to absorb the vitreol thrown at them from their own supposed supporters when he doesn't comply with their latest foible, but still operate in the best interests of the club ; which I would suggest that both GS and SG before him did. 

Share this post


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

No, you are incorrect! Smisa will hold the majority shareholding in the club, it will own the club and will choose the WHOLE board. Its not a token representation, it is full fan ownership. Seems a fair few havent yet grasped that THEY are/will be in charge?

So, will SMiSA have to buy out the rest of the current Shareholders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:

So, will SMiSA have to buy out the rest of the current Shareholders?

No just the 52% shareholding that Scott took on from the previous selling consortium. Giving smisa just over 80% shareholding in SMFC. 

Again some peeps seem not to have got that they already (in theory, demonstrably not in practice) are major, but not majority shareholders. And will become the largest single shareholders, (perhaps, but i dont know the full club shareholding history) in the history of smfc. And perhaps one of the largest individual shareholding groups in UK professional football?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Your a funny character if there is an opposite to a subject you tend to grab it.  Maybe you just like debate or maybe you were born in a full moon so it's just in your jeans. 

Whit..?

i was responding to Doakes asking if we were going to adopt the 50 + 1% model of ownership, by pointing out we will own 82% of Smfc, far and above a 50+1% model. How does that constitute the opposite of a subject?

it is clear there are still many saints fans/smisa members who dont get they wont just be a token representative on the club board, but will actually be the club board. I think you are one of those who havent grasped this? If you are a smisa member the responsibilities regarding smfc will be your burden. You will pick your board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Whit..?

i was responding to Doakes asking if we were going to adopt the 50 + 1% model of ownership, by pointing out we will own 82% of Smfc, far and above a 50+1% model. How does that constitute the opposite of a subject?

it is clear there are still many saints fans/smisa members who dont get they wont just be a token representative on the club board, but will actually be the club board. I think you are one of those who havent grasped this? If you are a smisa member the responsibilities regarding smfc will be your burden. You will pick your board.

I'll admit I'm not too clued up on these things but could we run a share issue to bring it closer to 51-49 and raise money for the club in the process? Or would that dilute the share value too much?  

82% seems far too substantial

Share this post


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

 

I'll admit I'm not too clued up on these things but could we run a share issue to bring it closer to 51-49 and raise money for the club in the process? Or would that dilute the share value too much?  

82% seems far too substantial

The deal has been done.

that said smisa could decide not to buy Scott's shares, but then he is free to sell them to whoever he wants.

Share this post


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

Is it confirmed that we'll be adopting the 50+1 ownership model?

https://www.bundesliga.com/en/news/Bundesliga/german-soccer-rules-50-1-fifty-plus-one-explained-466583.jsp 

good article about how it works on the bundesliga website. 

We will own 82% but can can sell 31% to raise funds.

 

Edited by waldorf34
Incorrect number

Share this post


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

Whit..?

i was responding to Doakes asking if we were going to adopt the 50 + 1% model of ownership, by pointing out we will own 82% of Smfc, far and above a 50+1% model. How does that constitute the opposite of a subject?

it is clear there are still many saints fans/smisa members who dont get they wont just be a token representative on the club board, but will actually be the club board. I think you are one of those who havent grasped this? If you are a smisa member the responsibilities regarding smfc will be your burden. You will pick your board.

I'm not trying to rock your boat here. Personally I'm not too worried there will be a vote for board members responsible people who have experience in different back grounds. They will put their case forward to members for vote. Of course you have every right to think no one will be fit enough to be on the board.  I'm happy to wait until that times arrives right now I'm more concerned with staying in the premiership. Lastly I will be happy to keep the monthly subscription going to have a rainy day fund or future investment when needed. More importantly are you going to Perth ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×