Dundee's fan ownership 'saga'

[bazil85]

14 hours ago, WeeBud said:

Do you worship there daily or just weekly?? 

Banter, are you not thankful for what he’s done for the club at not a penny profit? 

[bazil85]

13 hours ago, oaksoft said:

And there you have it. If you want an example of exactly the sort of shite we want to avoid at all costs, just look at Baz and LPM on this thread. This is exactly what I was getting at.

Can you imagine either of these two types of person on the board of our club.

It would be absolute f**king carnage.

You yet again make a disrespectful and uninformed comment. You are now referencing posts where I have said someone accusing SMFC/ SMISA of doing something illegal with zero evidence or foundation is a bad thing. 

You can tell you have very little experience working in senior group environments.

If you were ever to sit in a company boardroom meeting you’d probably crumble at what they’re actually like . this argument is Santa visiting a nursery compared to some I’ve been in. Completely cut throat 

You will no doubt twist this with your standard ‘that’s not what I meant’ comments. 

[bazil85]

13 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Cringeworthy retort. You got all, yes all the facts wrong. Then you insist you know, in detail the nature of a complaint only the complainant, smisa committee and the FCA could know about.

fwiw i now believe you are are/were not on the Smisa committee, or know anything about its processand proceedure.

Dicko was the complainant and much like you with cancelling your SMISA because you were in a minority, he couldn’t wait to drop subtle (not very) hints at what he’d done. The issue here is you and him have put yourself in a bit of a situation. If you genuinely do believe there has been a regulatory breach you are duty bound to report it. So either you haven’t done that or it has been done and the FCA have told you to jog on. 

What makes you think that now? The fact I told you direct dozens of times, the members are known and people on here have confirmed I’m not?  

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, oaksoft said:

You must be joking.

Board members need to be team players and I am not a team player. It's very much "My way or the Highway" when or comes to running things.  I don't crave power. I crave personal independence above everything.

If ever there was proof you have no idea what goes on in boardrooms.

Some of the most successful are absolutely cut throat, trust me. I’ve been in several meetings in several large companies where people have: 

walked out 

made others cry 

literally screamed at each other 

put completed work in the bin. 

Now I'm not saying these actions are acceptable but you get very certain types of persons that get to that level in successful business. 

Theres actually been much work done on the link between clinical psychopaths and leadership, look it up.   

[Doakes]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Which fans though?

A couple who have been voted onto the board?

Or everyone who buys in?

Who gets to decide what the fans want?

I don't think anyone really believes that every single decision is going to be put to a vote for all members to decide on? that would be mental.

The 50+1 rule in Germany, "is designed to ensure that the club's members retain overall control, protecting clubs from the influence of external investors" 

Essentially means that St Mirren will always be run as not-for-profit organisation, rather than opening the club up to the risk of private (bad) ownership. 

Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but the whole point of fan ownership is to guarantee the existence of our club and to ensure we're in a good place financially. You only have to look a few miles down the road to see what could happen if we don't have this sort of model in place.

[Lord Pityme]

9 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

16 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

And there lies the real issue! He hasnt put any money into SMFC,
he bought the selling consortiums shares with smisa. That money went to the sellers, NOT the club.
He is guaranteed to get HIS money back,
Smisa members wont get theirs back, but in the end they will have put up the most money (if it survives. If it doesn't then he gets to keep smfc, or sell it to who ever he chooses)
in Germany the 50+1% rule means the club is run by an elected board with fan representation, it still allows investors to put money into the ckub in exchange for involvement/influence in the club. There is no option for that in BtB.

He's still risking his money until he gets it back.

Minimal risk, but please dont get me wrong. Its his money he could have done whatever he wanted with it. And at the time if he hadnt decided to approach smisa to set up BtB then who knows where we would be today?

i dont have any issue with Scott putting up his wedge, being chairman etc... i do have an issue with the fact that it is ONLY smisa members putting additional funds inti the club, and smisa members money i.e. The asset lock in our community benefit society being broken, to give. Money to the club, that it said it didnt need!

[Doakes]

1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

Minimal risk, but please dont get me wrong. Its his money he could have done whatever he wanted with it. And at the time if he hadnt decided to approach smisa to set up BtB then who knows where we would be today?

i dont have any issue with Scott putting up his wedge, being chairman etc... i do have an issue with the fact that it is ONLY smisa members putting additional funds inti the club, and smisa members money i.e. The asset lock in our community benefit society being broken, to give. Money to the club, that it said it didnt need!

I'm quite happy for the club to spend £2 of my money as long as it's on projects that help to improve the club or the local area. It's not exactly a conspiracy, more like crowdfunding. 

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, Doakes said:

I don't think anyone really believes that every single decision is going to be put to a vote for all members to decide on? that would be mental.

The 50+1 rule in Germany, "is designed to ensure that the club's members retain overall control, protecting clubs from the influence of external investors" 

Essentially means that St Mirren will always be run as not-for-profit organisation, rather than opening the club up to the risk of private (bad) ownership. 

Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but the whole point of fan ownership is to guarantee the existence of our club and to ensure we're in a good place financially. You only have to look a few miles down the road to see what could happen if we don't have this sort of model in place.

This, spot on. 

What people like Oak, LPM, BOK fail to realise is fan ownership works across many different models for many different sports clubs. Asking questions about how it will work with St Mirren are all well and good but silly questions along the lines of will 'everyone that buys in' get a vote on all/ most club matters is just ridiculous. 

I am not by any means saying let's just go with it or that it isn't right to have a risk based approach. We after all need to hope we are more a Motherwell or Hibs than a Stirling Albion or Clyde. But IMO all the signs have been positive so far, numbers considerably above target, completion date almost within sight and a couple seasons of profit coupled with a promotion. Fans also seem galvanised over recent fixtures for the relegation fight and support the manager even if we do go down. Long may it continue. 

[WeeBud]

50 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Banter, are you not thankful for what he’s done for the club at not a penny profit? 

I'm sure he's not looking for anybody's thanks and bear in mind he is a businessman, I don't think for a second that he has just done this out the goodness of his heart. I'm sure he would probably rather be judged on what he has or hasn't achieved since he's been in position...… I think there are things he has done well (some very) and some things he has done poorly (some very). 

 

[Lord Pityme]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Which fans though?

A couple who have been voted onto the board?

Or everyone who buys in?

Who gets to decide what the fans want?

Thats the issue with smisa, and i why i stepped away. It has no influence whatsoever on the general direction smfc is headed in. Think about it? Despite mu,tipke asurances during the BtB campaign that members would be "Involved" not one single issue has ever been put to them for consultation in three years. Not one!

the Smisa committee are simply Scott's lapdogs, running the smisa bowling club on his behalf.

14 minutes ago, Doakes said:

I don't think anyone really believes that every single decision is going to be put to a vote for all members to decide on? that would be mental.

The 50+1 rule in Germany, "is designed to ensure that the club's members retain overall control, protecting clubs from the influence of external investors" 

Essentially means that St Mirren will always be run as not-for-profit organisation, rather than opening the club up to the risk of private (bad) ownership. 

Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but the whole point of fan ownership is to guarantee the existence of our club and to ensure we're in a good place financially. You only have to look a few miles down the road to see what could happen if we don't have this sort of model in place.

You got that a bit wrong mate, companies and individuals can still invest in 50+1 clubs, but they will never have the majority voting rights under that scheme, that stays with the fans.

However a few clubs arent 50+1 like RB Leipzig. Now do you think the ordinary saints fan would prefer to have this obedient poodle smisa slowly saving, and not really involving them, or have a Red Bull take over and propel us towards the champions league???

the term 'not for profit' is a bit of a misnomer, as of course every club wants to make profit, what it really should say is there is no dividend paid to shareholders. The profit goes back into the club, not to a few fat cats.

i played in German football, and i can could give you a list as long as your arm of companies and individuals who invested in our team, but never picked up a dividend. Actually one of them was a brewery, so that was nice!

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Minimal risk, but please dont get me wrong. Its his money he could have done whatever he wanted with it. And at the time if he hadnt decided to approach smisa to set up BtB then who knows where we would be today?

i dont have any issue with Scott putting up his wedge, being chairman etc... i do have an issue with the fact that it is ONLY smisa members putting additional funds inti the club, and smisa members money i.e. The asset lock in our community benefit society being broken, to give. Money to the club, that it said it didnt need!

It is not 'minimal risk' the club were a game away from relegation to League 1 football not long ago. You have repeatedly said about the risk of fan numbers falling away if we don't perform and the deal falling through, in fact you come across as desperate for it to happen. that risk for GLS is equal to the club. Deal falls through and GLS is left with £X amount investment that is now only worth £Y to sell.

You seem to have an issue with Scott, let's be honest. The SMISA members are putting up money to buy the club. Fans paying money to have the club fan owned, same as many other fan ownership models. This was the plan from day one so why do you have a problem with it now? 

So you expect GLS to not only put a six figure sum of money at risk, give up 10 years of his life for no profit but also to put additional money into the club to invest? Did you also expect him to snuff it on Friday and magically reappear on Sunday ffs?

Also no matter how many times you say it, the asset lock wasn't broken, it was democratically voted on to change the structure slightly with it having zero (bar a small amount of interest) impact on the end date of the deal or the finances. The club also clearly said they didn't 'need' the money, it was an option for SMFC fans to save SMFC some budget by paying for it. Imagine fans of the club wanting to do that... wow. 

 

[Lord Pityme]

12 minutes ago, Doakes said:

I'm quite happy for the club to spend £2 of my money as long as it's on projects that help to improve the club or the local area. It's not exactly a conspiracy, more like crowdfunding. 

I think most who signed up are happy with the concept, its the stupidity of some options put forward for hand dryers, matchballs and tantrums thrown if a community option looks like winning the vote that pisses people off. In short smisa gave up its independence.

now i know many arent so bothered about that as long as things tick along. But football clubs like ours dont tick along! There is always a bump in the road ahead. And when we hit that bump many will wonder what happened to the insurance policy, and why are there all these exclusions.

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

I'm sure he's not looking for anybody's thanks and bear in mind he is a businessman, I don't think for a second that he has just done this out the goodness of his heart. I'm sure he would probably rather be judged on what he has or hasn't achieved since he's been in position...… I think there are things he has done well (some very) and some things he has done poorly (some very). 

 

He might not be looking for it but I'm sure there are many that are thankful for what he has done. 

There are of course indirect benefits to him doing this which no one in their right mind would grudge him. Advertising, marketing, reputational benefits. But an individual doing this for the club he supports IMO is admirable. 

He has of course made mistakes, he's only human. I'm sure he'll make others in his time here. 

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I think most who signed up are happy with the concept, its the stupidity of some options put forward for hand dryers, matchballs and tantrums thrown if a community option looks like winning the vote that pisses people off. In short smisa gave up its independence.

now i know many arent so bothered about that as long as things tick along. But football clubs like ours dont tick along! There is always a bump in the road ahead. And when we hit that bump many will wonder what happened to the insurance policy, and why are there all these exclusions.

There is no stupidity here at all. It's been well documented that you can't understand why a fan of a football club would be willing to vote for these options because it financially benefits their club. I genuinely don't know why you find that impossible to grasp. You also seem incapable of understanding a conflict of interest. 

But this is 'minimal risk' to GLS investment? Caught 

[Doakes]

6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

 

You got that a bit wrong mate, companies and individuals can still invest in 50+1 clubs, but they will never have the majority voting rights under that scheme, that stays with the fans.

However a few clubs arent 50+1 like RB Leipzig. Now do you think the ordinary saints fan would prefer to have this obedient poodle smisa slowly saving, and not really involving them, or have a Red Bull take over and propel us towards the champions league???

the term 'not for profit' is a bit of a misnomer, as of course every club wants to make profit, what it really should say is there is no dividend paid to shareholders. The profit goes back into the club, not to a few fat cats.

i played in German football, and i can could give you a list as long as your arm of companies and individuals who invested in our team, but never picked up a dividend. Actually one of them was a brewery, so that was nice!

Oh I'm not against investment, we should be inviting as much investment as possible. It just means that we can protect the club from risk by holding the 50+1 system. 

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I'd hate for St Mirren to become an RB Leipzig. "St Mirren Red Bulls?" nae thanks! I'm quite happy with our ambitions of being self sufficient and perhaps pushing towards the top 6.

Fully agree that all profit should be going back into the club. Another thing which will be guaranteed with fan ownership. Look at Newcastle with Mike Ashley! They would kill to be in our clubs position.

If any breweries are reading this, please invest in our club, (and create a German style brewery tent outside the west stand) 

[Doakes]

12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I think most who signed up are happy with the concept, its the stupidity of some options put forward for hand dryers, matchballs and tantrums thrown if a community option looks like winning the vote that pisses people off. In short smisa gave up its independence.

now i know many arent so bothered about that as long as things tick along. But football clubs like ours dont tick along! There is always a bump in the road ahead. And when we hit that bump many will wonder what happened to the insurance policy, and why are there all these exclusions.

I think it's good that we question and challenge decisions - that's why fan forums such as this one, facebook and twitter are important, as it allows the members to debate in an open format. 

I thought the idea of having an option to rollover the fund was a decent idea, especially if none of the options that month were proving popular. Perhaps we should start counting the number of votes and set an allowance that a certain percentage of the member base must agree for a spend to be allocated.

Personally, I'd view a rainy day / bump in the road fund as something that Gordon Scott should be keeping money available for. Not really what a £2 p/m crowdfund is designed for..

[Lord Pityme]

13 minutes ago, Doakes said:

Oh I'm not against investment, we should be inviting as much investment as possible. It just means that we can protect the club from risk by holding the 50+1 system. 

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I'd hate for St Mirren to become an RB Leipzig. "St Mirren Red Bulls?" nae thanks! I'm quite happy with our ambitions of being self sufficient and perhaps pushing towards the top 6.

Fully agree that all profit should be going back into the club. Another thing which will be guaranteed with fan ownership. Look at Newcastle with Mike Ashley! They would kill to be in our clubs position.

If any breweries are reading this, please invest in our club, (and create a German style brewery tent outside the west stand) 

Its a funny old game! Ashley has put an absolute fortune into NUFC, and yet they believe they should be doing so much better, despite having had next to no success in winning the top league or cup in their history. Indeed Ashley was one of the few to actually put money into sevco. And again they hate him for it

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, Doakes said:

I think it's good that we question and challenge decisions - that's why fan forums such as this one, facebook and twitter are important, as it allows the members to debate in an open format. 

I thought the idea of having an option to rollover the fund was a decent idea, especially if none of the options that month were proving popular. Perhaps we should start counting the number of votes and set an allowance that a certain percentage of the member base must agree for a spend to be allocated.

Personally, I'd view a rainy day / bump in the road fund as something that Gordon Scott should be keeping money available for. Not really what a £2 p/m crowdfund is designed for..

I also think it's great when people challenge and question, I do think there's a lot that isn't done in an overlay productive way though. There's a will among a very small minority that wants this deal to fail at any cost. Not because it would present a better future for the club I might add. 

There is. it's over 50% to pass. I do think this is a curious notion, if 51% isn't enough to pass the arrangement then surely 49% isn't enough to decline it. People think I agree with SMISA universally but personally I'd have been happy for the members resolution to be passed on over half the votes. I don't know enough about the specific regulation though to know if 2/3 is bound, I don't imagine it would be though. 

I took comfort in SMISA response that such a fund exists/ is being developed. I think people need to have a wee bit of perspective on how much money we could realistically save. It won't be a tiny amount but it also wouldn't be massively significant in the grand scheme. Especially when you consider how many arguing for it play down the size of the money we make from the two stand decisions. 

[BuddieinEK]

I also think it's great when people challenge and question, I do think there's a lot that isn't done in an overlay productive way though. There's a will among a very small minority that wants this deal to fail at any cost. Not because it would present a better future for the club I might add. 
There is. it's over 50% to pass. I do think this is a curious notion, if 51% isn't enough to pass the arrangement then surely 49% isn't enough to decline it. People think I agree with SMISA universally but personally I'd have been happy for the members resolution to be passed on over half the votes. I don't know enough about the specific regulation though to know if 2/3 is bound, I don't imagine it would be though. 
I took comfort in SMISA response that such a fund exists/ is being developed. I think people need to have a wee bit of perspective on how much money we could realistically save. It won't be a tiny amount but it also wouldn't be massively significant in the grand scheme. Especially when you consider how many arguing for it play down the size of the money we make from the two stand decisions. 

You can't help "overlay" banging on about that one point, can you?
[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

[Doakes]

28 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Its a funny old game! Ashley has put an absolute fortune into NUFC, and yet they believe they should be doing so much better, despite having had next to no success in winning the top league or cup in their history. Indeed Ashley was one of the few to actually put money into sevco. And again they hate him for it

That doesn't tell the full story tbf.. Although MA inherited around £76m of debt when he bought Newcastle, their debt has actually increased with him in charge. It's also mental that Sports Direct have paid a grand total of £0 for sponsorship  , despite having their advertising literally everywhere around the stadium. Their season tickets increased by an average of £150 per head per season, despite a £100M+ increase in media income. Work in Newcastle quite often, they hate him for good reason. That's exactly the type of "investor" we need to keep away from St Mirren 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Doakes

[bazil85]

17 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

You can't help "overlay" banging on about that one point, can you?

From the guy that's been jacking off to the word 'few' for a week 

EDIT: Sorry you do understand I don't mean that literally right? We can all see evidently you have an issue with literalness... 

Edited April 26, 2019 by bazil85

[Iamhammer]

41 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I also think it's great when people challenge and question, I do think there's a lot that isn't done in an overlay productive way though. There's a will among a very small minority that wants this deal to fail at any cost. Not because it would present a better future for the club I might add. 

There is. it's over 50% to pass. I do think this is a curious notion, if 51% isn't enough to pass the arrangement then surely 49% isn't enough to decline it. People think I agree with SMISA universally but personally I'd have been happy for the members resolution to be passed on over half the votes. I don't know enough about the specific regulation though to know if 2/3 is bound, I don't imagine it would be though. 

I took comfort in SMISA response that such a fund exists/ is being developed. I think people need to have a wee bit of perspective on how much money we could realistically save. It won't be a tiny amount but it also wouldn't be massively significant in the grand scheme. Especially when you consider how many arguing for it play down the size of the money we make from the two stand decisions. 

Or you think that 80k is worth the hassle

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Iamhammer said:

Or you think that 80k is worth the hassle

I do yeah, for moving fans for three/ four games I don't think the hassle is as big as people make out. Anyone that has a season ticket has the option to see St Mirren on these games if they so wish. £80k (not my figure yours before anyone jumps down my throat again) is between one and two players for a club like ours. 

Like I say the £2 a month being saved would be no small amount it would be a decent size (roughly £30,000 a year by my calculations). I can see why people would be interested in it and think there is merit in doing it. My personal opinion is that we are better placed investing that money now for a return. Hypothetical but say the £2 + two stand money was the difference between SP and Championship football next season. The drop in money we'd make in the Championship would dwarf anything we could save during the BTB lifetime. 

[Iamhammer]

The two pound spend does not really bother me to be honest, I think I’ve only actually voted once.  I’m not sure we could get 2 players for 80k that would be of the standard we will require if we survive, there are championship clubs paying more than 40k a year

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, Iamhammer said:

The two pound spend does not really bother me to be honest, I think I’ve only actually voted once.  I’m not sure we could get 2 players for 80k that would be of the standard we will require if we survive, there are championship clubs paying more than 40k a year

Between one and two mate, average wage of a St Mirren player this season is £46,169