Kmcalpin

Good post Jay. Well done. I agree with 95% of it but am unclear about the other 5%. From what I've taken from the AGM, and I wasn't there admittedly, we have enough cash to last us for some time. However, the SPFL requires an 18 month guarantee in October, that we'll have enough in the coffers to last for a further 18 months (until March 2026) if we have another bad year. Currently, we couldn't give them that guarantee ie roughly £1.5m annually to cover that bad year. To be clear there's no imminent threat of adminstration whatsoever. Is my understanding correct, albeit the £1.5m figure might be inaccurate?

I hope they score their goal early. That way it gives us plenty of time to score one more than them. We're not keeping a clean sheet. Get in their faces and show them no respect. Feed the Bair.

Some good points made by Antiochas III and Handsome John on P & B. These need to be more widely shared. The current MFC shareholder split is roughly 71% Society and 29% miscellaneous small shareholders. If a new investor were to arrive on the scene and buy newly issued shares to attain a 51% holding then the other shareholders' holding's would be diluted. In short, the Society would hold considerably less than 49% of the shares.

Funnily enough, I was thinking exactly the same thing. If that's what the membersip wants then it will have to contribute more and quickly. We need to realise, that if there are no other aspects to a Society proposal other than increasing member income (and I'm confident there will be), then we're looking at roughly tripling average subscription levels i.e. from £5 monthly to £15 monthly or from £10 monthly to £30 monthly.

Yes, I'd be a bit concerned too. St Johnstone and St Mirren were in the right place at the right time. In St Mirren's case they sold old Love Street at the very height of the Retail boom when we all worshipped the big supermarkets. There was money in them thar stadia. In St Johnstone's case, they sold Muirton to a supermarket too, Asda on Dunkeld Road. A benefactor, farmer McDiarmid gifted them the ground for free to build a new stadium with plenty of surrounding land on the edge of town. In the Geoff Brown era they were rightly lauded as being a well run club and their war chest from the sale of Muirton, allowed them to push the boat out a bit on the playing side. Times change though and Geoff Brown and his family wanted out. The multi million war chest has now diminshed. Timing is critical in these matters, of course and after years of opposition, an expanding and wealthy Perth is gobbling up more land. The once sacrosanct land to the west of the A9 is being opened up to developers. For those of you who know Perth you'll be aware of the development at the old Auction Market site, and the new housing there. Bertha Park too, to the north west of the infamous Inveralmond roundabout is zoned for housing. So its quite conceivable that St Johnstone could flog McDiarmid Park to a housing developer (its within the existing settlement envelope and to the east of the A9 after all) and make a killing out of it. unlike Fir Park, there are no underground workings. Then build a new stadium on greenfield land to the west of the A9. Unlike the Motherwell conurbation, and it is a conurabtion, Perth is a wealthy wee city with a large rural hinterland and no ugly sisters nearby. That said they do attract smaller crowds than us and the population is smaller, but growing. In short, their situation is not quite the same as ours. They have more to gain, but more to lose.

I agree with most this. Despite owning the club, the Society seems to have taken a passive back seat role. It should have been more proactive. Derek Weir and Jim McMahon and perhaps others a year or two ago seem to be have been ploughing lone furrows. Credit to them for their service though. The Society ought to have been a bit quicker off the mark to draft up a proposal in principle. More joined up thinking required, as you say. On another tack, I'd like to hear a bit more about the other 3 or 4 external proposals which are not as far advanced as the 2 main ones.

Good post Denny. As to your first point, I assume that the net figure takes into account staff and admin costs. Beyond that, I'm not clear. Does it take into account monies already paid to the club or to other beneficiaries? I'm supportive of a Society proposal to raise say £750k annually, but like you I'm not sure how they'd go about doing that. Early days of course and we have no details on which to base decisions.

No idea. I'd prefer to go with the Society option but have voted to consider external options. I think it would be remiss to reject out of hand external options without knowing details. I do not want to influence anyone else though. Each to their own.

This is a critical issue, so its time for a new thread. The Society has just sent out an email containing a provisional vote. Have all members received it?

It doesn't matter what the majority is so long as its clear. For example, if its 51% against 49% then the entire Society's shareholding of say 71% would count in any club vote either yay or nay.

Agreed San that is not on the cards.

From the information provided, and thanks to those who have done this, I don't think it's a wild take at all. That's not to say it would happen though. My understanding is that the club and the Society have sufficient funds to cover last season's loss of £1.6m. So no immediate threat. However am I right in thinking that there is a projected loss again this year? That being the case we would be struggling, but would probably get by. However, the SPFL will require a guarantee by October, that we can meet any potential debts for 2024-25 and that's where the problem lies. A wildcard of course, is the potential sale of Lennon Miller. Is all that a correct assumption?

I don't know that they would have been. It's not a die in the ditch issue per se but had we known about this at the time, it would have prevented a lot of time being wasted on posts and hot air being expended unnecessarily. Those aren't huge issues for the club admittedly. Let's just hope the club has learnt its lesson. Time to move on.

More likely suspended.

I think that whatever Comms staff we do have should keep an eye on social media. Its common practice in most organisations. Now by that I don't mean responding to every comment. Only those which are factually wrong and creating unnecessary discussion or anger for example. It would take what - perhaps 10 minutes a day. If a fan owned club wants to relate to the fans then it should keep its finger on the pulse. Social media is a two way thing. If the Club wants to use social media effectively for output then it should be aware of what the fans are saying, in the form of input. This particular issue has been chewed over for months, taken up hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts, and I'm just surprised that no-one at the club was aware of it. My second point is that this is a fan owned club and we should be kept informed. Now again, that comes with a caveat. We don't need to know every minute detail of the Club's business. However, the length of the manager's contract is a very basic issue, which we should have known about. I just wonder what would have happened if SK's contract hadn't been raised at the AGM. We would have arrived at late May, having finished anywhere between say 11th and 7th. There would have been discussion about SK's position with nothing being announced. That would have rumbled on into the summer with fans wondering if he was working without a contract. Just not good enough. Big changes are coming our way, whether you or I like them or not, and fan engagement will be crucial to their success. The fans have to be kept on board.

You're rght Grizzly. Of course, SK knew his contract had been extended. It was probably part of his original contract and was results based. However he probably felt, rightly, that it wasn't his job to make a public announcement about it. As you say just poor communication. If nothing else, you'd have thoughtthat someone at the club would monitor SO and P & B to pick up on any avoidable complaints/discussion centred on his contract ending this coming May.

Maybe the option is on the club's side. I suspect it might be.

Thanks for this useful update Derek. I think it is important though that the Society emails all members with a short summary of what it is proposing to do. I appreciate though that facts are scant and that details might be confidential. Not everyone follows this site or P&B. Other things being equal, a Society initiative is my preferred option. The club has told its shareholders about the Society's proposal and its now time for the Society to do the same with its members. I appreciate that the 2 groups are not mutually exclusive. There does seem a lot of work for the Society to get through, according to your summary, and I just hope its achievable by October. I'll email Sally to suggest a communication be sent out to members.

I think this debate has run its course, although I do agree with you. If you are a Society member then email your comments to it.

I think the club already has such shares; there was an issue some years ago. They're called preference shares.

Just read St Andrews7's update. That is concerning, and underlines that time is of the essence. An interesting option from the Well Society, and I'd like to hear more about that. If fans want to go down that route, they have to take more individual responsibility ie its not my responsibility its the Society's.

One matter that does concern me though is that of the CEO vacancy. Apparently, the selection process is quite far advanced, which is encouraging, but would any candidate want to put pen to paper whilst the ownership/investment issue is hoveriong over the club? A real concern for me.

Firstly, thanks StAndrew7 for the excellent summary. Some very good discussion across on P & B. The issue of club ownership/investment is huge and I don't know if everyone has fully grasped the enormity of that yet. If they haven't they soon will do. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not against a new/owner or partial owner. For me, the devil will be in the detail. We have to guard against a ruthless rogue owner whio would be in it for purely selfish reasons. That said, any new investor owner would want to have a substanital say in the running of the club, or even control. Thats perfectly understandable. Every member of the Society will be entitled to a say and vote on the situation, if it gets that far. So, think about that. I just wonder about the position of the other 2 or 3 groups who haven't progressed their interest quite so far? I think change is inevitable, but it has to be on our terms. To those who advocate no change at all, I'd say "If we get relegated, and it might happen anyway, how would the fanbase react if we were to be stuck in the Championship for a good few years?" Jay sets out the situation in a fair and democratic way on P & B. There is a wide range of possible views and none is right and none is wrong. They reflect our own lives and characters. On a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being no change and 10 being an open arms welcome to any new investor, I'd place myself at about a 6 or 7. I'm open to new investment but not at any cost. The bottom line though is doing nothing, Asquith style, is not an option. The world is changing; football is changing and there's no time or room for ostrich impersonations.

What's going on with these secret contract extensions? It isn't what was originally communicated.

Some truth in that to be fair. Our loan dealings could have been worse but have not been great and hopefully the club will learn from that. This latest failure, may not send out positive messages to potential employers of Buyabu - who knows? The term "personal reasons" could mean almost anything and may be a euphemism. As I wrote before the club's statement was very terse; some might even say rude. The absence of a simple thank you is striking.