SMiSAS VIEW ON CLUB OWNERSHIP
In all of our 135 years, we believe that St. Mirren has never had a majority shareholder. Other clubs with majority shareholders, for example, Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen, suggest that one majority shareholder is not a healthy arrangement.
The diversity of shareholding has surely been a major strength in St. Mirren avoiding the financial excesses seen elsewhere.
The questions are
Do St. Mirren fans wish their club to continue as a community based operation under the management of a group of local people?...
Or do they wish it to be taken into the hands of either a single person?...
Or perhaps an organisation created to utilise the assets of our club to develop community facilities?
The last option is no doubt a very admirable objective but not the primary function of our football club. Of course, St. Mirren fans do have the comfort of the firm unconditional undertaking given by the current board that under no circumstances will the consortium sell their shares to an individual who could not prove to them that the club would continue to be run in the best interests of SMFC and its fans.
When the Community Interest Company 10,000 Hours idea was first floated, the concept of fan ownership and the protection of the clubs assets were very attractive to the SMiSA board. Accordingly, our initial concerns did not relate to the eventual CIC structure but we were focused on two main considerations: -
- Was the proposed deal fair to Saints fans?
- Did the debt which the CIC planned to use threaten the future financial stability of the club?
Throughout the many months of public meetings and statements from Richard Atkinson, we worked behind the scenes to obtain reassurance on our two main issues to no avail.
In our opinion, the price per share being asked must be close to the highest figure ever paid for St. Mirren shares. As far as the debt was concerned, repayment over ten years from sources not yet in place was totally unrealistic, yet supporters were being asked to pledge their cash. In many ways, it was a relief when the proposal fell through and yet at the same time, it was a missed opportunity.
At that stage, SMiSA members voted to withdrawsupport until all necessary information was provided by the CIC.
As the various versions of the 10000 Hours proposals evolved the complexity seemed to grow. Gordon Scott is to be congratulated on his efforts to inject some realism into the proposals as far as the level of debt is concerned but clearly it will take a huge leap forward in the level of investors to conclude a deal. As matters currently stand, the SMiSA board does not have the information on which to base a recommendation to its members. We have repeatedly asked for a detailed business plan, but this has not been produced.
The SMISA board wishes to stress that the questions and standards it is asking of 10000 Hours are no different to those that would be asked of any prospective majority shareholder.
In summary, as an advocate of fan ownership and as an organisation that has provided substantial permanent funding to the club over the years, SMiSA is supportive of the 10000 Hours concept but those behind the proposals have to earn the support of Saints fans by setting out in a totally transparent manner every detail of the arrangements. They must also in doing so establish their own credibility as people we can trust to run our beloved club.
Alastair Colquhoun
SMiSA Chair