Jump to content

If we stay up... Give us the family stand back.


Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Yeah and look at their piss poor home support. You reap what you sow!

Since you knew about the fakes, why lie and say that we were the only club in the league to do it since lying won't win you the argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

100% this... Although there was a gap in the announcement, it was part of the same decision, released publicly to minimise criticism and keep the W7 boys sweet.

The whole point of the W7 split in the first place, ill thought out as it was, was to house the OF.

Well done to the W7 folks for winning that battle.

The W7 split was used for small crowds so the North stand could lie empty.

But don't let the whole truth get in the way of a good moan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

 

 


Yeah , they have a piss poor support because the give the scum more seats....that’ll be the reason right enough . emoji23.png

 

 

Must be the Same as the Accies. since they have the bigots in 3 stands ( including the tent :lol:)  As for Livy, they give them the whole ground bar the main stand  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we just build some corners to the stadium and pop them in each of them. Why would you want fans behind your goalie in one half of the match giving him dogs abuse.  Stands in the corner and while your there you can all turn around, be quiet and keep your D hats on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
2 hours ago, stlucifer said:
The W7 split was used for small crowds so the North stand could lie empty.
But don't let the whole truth get in the way of a good moan.

It went on to be used like that to save money once relegated... but look back prior to that!

So it was not exclusively used to accommodate the OF?

Glad we cleared that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about?
The world is full of successful companies which don't put profits first to the exclusion of everything else.
The world is also full of companies who went bust prioritising profit ahead of everything else.


A ridiculous generalisation. We aren’t putting profit ahead of everything else. We’re allowing opposing fans into a section of our ground FFS.

Can you name any of these companies that are of a similar size to our football club and provide some detail to support this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's that got to do with anything? This is a discussion about a company which is prioritising profit at all cost over the wishes of its customer base.


So, now you speak for the “customer base”?

Well, you don’t speak for me or, I suspect, many others. As usual, a few people on here disagree with a decision and assume that they are righteous and everyone else is wrong and use hyperbole like your post above to get their point across.

IF the majority of Saints fans don’t want this to happen then they should find a way to influence the BOD’s decision. Greetin’ on this forum likely won’t achieve that.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DLBud said:

 

 


A ridiculous generalisation. We aren’t putting profit ahead of everything else. We’re allowing opposing fans into a section of our ground FFS.

Can you name any of these companies that are of a similar size to our football club and provide some detail to support this?

 

Maybe he should change his user name to "Drama queen".:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DLBud said:

 


A ridiculous generalisation. We aren’t putting profit ahead of everything else.

 

That is right it isn’t profit that has been used as the argument. It is an alleged increase in income that has been touted as the reason for not having a family stand for several games each season  

The amount of claimed income has been shown many times to be overstated, and I don’t think even the board apologists have claimed that it will reflect as profit at the end of the year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

That is right it isn’t profit that has been used as the argument. It is an alleged increase in income that has been touted as the reason for not having a family stand for several games each season  

The amount of claimed income has been shown many times to be overstated, and I don’t think even the board apologists have claimed that it will reflect as profit at the end of the year. 

One things for sure, no matter how hard Scott, the board, Basil & sweep try.... they'll never be able to polish that turd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it was not exclusively used to accommodate the OF?
Glad we cleared that up.
Geez you're desperate.
I did not say it was "exclusively" used for the OF but that originally, that is what the ability to put the division in was for.

Of course I was only told that in person on a tour during construction by the director overseeing the building and design!

Don't tell me YOU are now calling GLS a liar?
[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

I thought twisting words was beneath you.

Wee midweek dram?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DumboBud said:

That is right it isn’t profit that has been used as the argument. It is an alleged increase in income that has been touted as the reason for not having a family stand for several games each season  

The amount of claimed income has been shown many times to be overstated, and I don’t think even the board apologists have claimed that it will reflect as profit at the end of the year. 

No it hasn't, no one has once shown that the income is overstated. Like it or not the best reference point we have is a man with full access to our finances in and out and he has went on record saying it’s 10% increase in player budget

not one person has been able to provide any clear or sensible evidence this is incorrect. Lots of negative speculation & spin but that’s all it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

One things for sure, no matter how hard Scott, the board, Basil & sweep try.... they'll never be able to polish that turd!

And no matter how hard you try, you won’t change your reputation as a caught out liar or stop BTB from completing. Poor wee thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No it hasn't, no one has once shown that the income is overstated. Like it or not the best reference point we have is a man with full access to our finances in and out and he has went on record saying it’s 10% increase in player budget

not one person has been able to provide any clear or sensible evidence this is incorrect. Lots of negative speculation & spin but that’s all it is. 

The Chairman hasn't shown any evidence to back his spin, until he blows us naysayers out of the water with the actual figures that's all it is - another piece of spin..

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

The Chairman hasn't shown any evidence to back his spin, until he blows us naysayers out of the water with the actual figures that's all it is - another piece of spin..

Why should he? He has no requirement or duty to give us any financial figures or statements bar the annual accounts that’ll be out roughly February. 

What he has said closely aligns with rough calculations regarding the extra stand, ticket prices, our squad size & average player wage. 

You can think he’s a liar all you want but it remains incorrect to say anyone has proven spin or providing of incorrect information on this subject from him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Why should he? He has no requirement or duty to give us any financial figures or statements bar the annual accounts that’ll be out roughly February. 

What he has said closely aligns with rough calculations regarding the extra stand, ticket prices, our squad size & average player wage. 

You can think he’s a liar all you want but it remains incorrect to say anyone has proven spin or providing of incorrect information on this subject from him. 

He was quite happy to post the details on here as scoop1987 but that was to undermine the previous BoD - your BFF has more in common with LPM than you! :lol:

Quote

I am not sure if this is already in the public domain but if I was Ken Mcgoech or Gordon scott I would be well pissed off!

The following is a breakdown of where the £2million selling price would have went in 2008 and as of todays date.

2008

Stuart Gilmour 24,259 shares £403,912

George Cambell 21,209 shares £353,129

Alan Marshall 7,670 shares £127,705

Evelyn Purvis 12,842 shares £213,479

Brian McAusland 21,722 shares £361,671

Gordon Scott 15,224 shares £253,479

Ken McGeoch 17,154 shares £285,614

In late 2008 George Cambell bought 4,284 additional shares and Brian McAusland bought 5,701 shares. This allowed them to sell a controlling interest in the club without including Scott and McGeoch thus ignoring the gentlemens agreement between all board members that if they ever sold they would sell as a group.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

No it hasn't, no one has once shown that the income is overstated. Like it or not the best reference point we have is a man with full access to our finances in and out and he has went on record saying it’s 10% increase in player budget

not one person has been able to provide any clear or sensible evidence this is incorrect. Lots of negative speculation & spin but that’s all it is. 

Do you really believe that?

Unless we somehow sold more tickets than we have seats in the South Stand and worked some scam with the taxman to avoid VAT the additional benefit to the club cannot be six figures never mind the sometimes quoted £130k. 

Throw in some reasonable assumptions and the figure falls even further. 

You might have a different opinion on the worth of having a family stand than me, but at least acknowledge that the figures put out were either inflated or hopelessly optimistic. 

Then we might have a sensible discussion on whether it is worth not having a dedicated family stand to allow our opponents to have more fans in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

He was quite happy to post the details on here as scoop1987 but that was to undermine the previous BoD - your BFF has more in common with LPM than you! :lol:

 

So you agree he has absolutely no requirement to share the details with us & your claim of ‘spin’ remains unfounded & without evidence. Rest is just irrelevant deflection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

Do you really believe that?

Unless we somehow sold more tickets than we have seats in the South Stand and worked some scam with the taxman to avoid VAT the additional benefit to the club cannot be six figures never mind the sometimes quoted £130k. 

Throw in some reasonable assumptions and the figure falls even further. 

You might have a different opinion on the worth of having a family stand than me, but at least acknowledge that the figures put out were either inflated or hopelessly optimistic. 

Then we might have a sensible discussion on whether it is worth not having a dedicated family stand to allow our opponents to have more fans in. 

Yes I do believe it. It has been well documented on here the rough figures & income streams & unless you can provide solid evidence they’re wrong, your claim that he’s a liar is unfounded (like everyone else’s) 

VAT & Tax are very murky waters when it comes to football clubs & a lot of tax is based on profits & can be deducted for costs such as wages. I don’t pretend to be an expert on it but do you know who will be or has the ability to consult an expert on this? The St Mirren football club BoD 

GLS is claiming it’s allowed for a 10% uplift to the player budget based on having full information & knowing many sources could expose him if he lied about the figures. You can think that’s likely but the calculations closely match to what has been claimed. If you want to deny that show proof or it’s just another unfounded derogatory claim against the chairman 

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...