Sports Bar - Old Firm

[King]

The Killie Twitter has 15,800 followers. The Park Hotel one has 449....

[killiefan97]

12 minutes ago, Al#1 said:

Plunkit - I am sure that you have probably spent a lot of time on the trust investment proposal however I don't see how giving £100,000 will do anything but cause further anguish for the supporters.  Ie. We will get to hear of the other horror stories which are kept behind closed doors.

change will only happen if the support acquire a majority shareholding - this today would mean at least a £3 million investment. And then MJ and BB still have control as I believe you require 75% ownership to affect change, therefore I don't think this is possible.

billy Bowie  must me convinced to join the support and I am afraid due to his hotel partnership this is very unlikely to happen.

i think you need to be more creative with the investment. Owning 3% of a failing business does not sound like a position of strength .

 

 

Agreed, I am all for the fans getting a seat on the board but not at the cost of £100k to keep these clowns going a bit longer and when the club are losing £700k a year will not stop the club running put of money or make any material difference to the decision making or ownership of the club. Keep any money to deal with the administrators and we may have a chance to save the club and gain real control such as Motherwell, Hearts etc.

[plunkit]

I think that anguish is not quite the way to look at any horror stories. I'd like to think that communication from the board to the support would be improved. That may mean that there is an understanding of why certain decisions are made and, importantly, done so in clear English.

Of course owning 51% of the club is a goal but, as correctly stated, to raise that amount of cash could take a generation. You still have to start somewhere and working with the club and being inside rather than against from the outside will always be far more productive. Indeed, convincing BB to think like a punter is going to be easier if we are sitting in the same environment as him. It's not about 3% of the company having power, it's about having a voice. The day to day running of the club is determined by a one person one vote scenario. Constitutional matters are determined in the manner suggested, but the day to day running of the club is what is paramount here.

If a genuine directorship is achieved, and there is a real say in the running of the club then there is an opportunity to work towards stopping these losses and generating revenue etc etc. The problem we see is that you have, in the main, a board comprising of successful and/or knowledgeable business people. They, however, have either been working with teams of specialists around them to advise or have had a bit of luck here and there. None of them, however, have had to work with businesses under this level of stress in a very depressed sector. They are, it can be argued, caught in the headlights. Our position is to offer someone who can add value to them. It will all become clear once the Heads of Terms are signed - next few days - and a launch happens, hopefully in a matter of weeks.

Okay, but there is an argument to keep the money and wait for Administration. I'd rather we were being pro-active, however, I see the point. So - club goes into Administration. The Administrator has no obligation to favour a group of supporters with good intentions. Indeed, their obligation is to achieve the best possible deal. There may well be plenty of people, Killie friendly or otherwise, with considerably deeper pockets. We'd possibly be left outside again and need to start all over.

But - and here's the biggie - if the club goes into Administration who are the shareholders ? Yup - the existing shareholders and in their present proportions. These are the folk who need to be negotiated with one way or another either during or after the event. Who owned Motherwell after Administration?...the same guy who did before it. 

Administration is not the answer here. It is a massive problem which may or may not mean we can be Hearts, or for that matter Dunfermline. Liquidation is also not the answer (Rangers or Clydebank?). We want change so lets' try to effect it in an effective manner. Not everyone will agree and, in my opinion, many people are letting their dislike/hate of certain people take over their like/love of Killie. We have put 2 years of work into getting this scheme to where we are because of our like/love of Killie and a desire to make a positive difference. If we have to work with people who have contributed to get us to where we are then so be it. It is about getting us out of this mess and changing attitudes, business models and, most importantly, restoring pride in this club. That takes work - let's get on with it.

[Mcilroy56]

Gary, just to clarify, if heads of terms are agreed does that tie the trust into the deal and if so what would be the penalty should there not be sufficient subscribers to make the proposal viable. 

Or, is there a clause in the heads of terms which will allow the trust to then outline transparently what the trust will be involved in so that existing and new members can make judgement as to whether they wish to subscribe. 

Thirdly, I presume that you would wish to set up a direct debit system to ingather monthly funds, so will subscribers be entering an agreement over a period of time and what, if any penalties would be incurred if payments were stopped.

[Squirrelhumper]

All very well and good but Moran, Smith, Kiltie, Cairns er al have all failed to get BB to see sense, i have my reservations about giving this failed regime another 100k to prop them up for a wee while longer with no real say.

The articles of association would need amended before the Trust would have any say. MJ & BB have all the power. BB would need to screw MJ over and vote against him and do you honestly think that the Hotel buddies will do that? No a hope in hell.

[plunkit]

Blair (as we are on first name terms here) - No. 

Written into the Heads is a need for strong due diligence carried out by our own CA. Any decision will be taken based on their report. If the money is not / cannot be raised then the deal falls.

At launch, there will be complete transparency about what is involved. indeed, the club are extremely keen on us doing this. Our job is to present a positive but realistic case. 

A platform to collect funds is in place and, being egalitarian, no penalties for leaving the scheme.

[plunkit]

Humper, the guys you mentioned have, in many cases, not made BB think like a punter - as far as we know. However, as I say, it's about looking at the business as one in deep distress - I don't think they are doing that. i have reasons for saying that which you will appreciate I cannot go into.

I have no desire to pump £100k into any regime - I have a desire to keep the club going. 

Will BB ever vote against MJ ? Why not. When your hard earned cash is under threat, and you can clearly see that, it is amazing how you can change your view of a business partner.

Keep the faith.

 

[bute-killiefan]

Why not have a kick starter campaign run alongside the current method of fundraising. If someone more articulate than myself could put together some sort of pitch explaining the position the club finds itself in and the aim of the fans who wish to take the ownership of the club, it could gain support from all over the world...

[plunkit]

2 minutes ago, bute-killiefan said:

Why not have a kick starter campaign run alongside the current method of fundraising. If someone more articulate than myself could put together some sort of pitch explaining the position the club finds itself in and the aim of the fans who wish to take the ownership of the club, it could gain support from all over the world...

The launch will explain all aspects of the situation and show a clear timeline for events. Assuming we are going to progress with the scheme after due diligence takes place then there will be a suitable ramping up from communication to action. This is a big and ambitious plan with people considerably more expert than me in promotion of it having already put in a power or work.

[bute-killiefan]

Then I see no reason why the launch shouldn't coincide with a kickstarter campaign. It won't cost anything (I think) and if anything will add more money to help push things along

[plunkit]

Hopefully we'll not be like this 

[shug]

1 hour ago, plunkit said:

Humper, the guys you mentioned have, in many cases, not made BB think like a punter - as far as we know. However, as I say, it's about looking at the business as one in deep distress - I don't think they are doing that. i have reasons for saying that which you will appreciate I cannot go into.

I have no desire to pump £100k into any regime - I have a desire to keep the club going.

Will BB ever vote against MJ ? Why not. When your hard earned cash is under threat, and you can clearly see that, it is amazing how you can change your view of a business partner.

Keep the faith.

 

Plunkit i can see your point and can understand that it's worth trying but there is something in your comment above that makes me nervous.... if we have a supporter on the board will we have full transparency? You allude to knowing things you can't divulge ..... i'll financially support getting a fan on to the board but only if we are all aprty to what's going on and we don't have small groups knowing more than others. It's these things that cause divisions and make things like this fail

[Mcilroy56]

1 hour ago, plunkit said:

Blair (as we are on first name terms here) - No. 

Written into the Heads is a need for strong due diligence carried out by our own CA. Any decision will be taken based on their report. If the money is not / cannot be raised then the deal falls.

At launch, there will be complete transparency about what is involved. indeed, the club are extremely keen on us doing this. Our job is to present a positive but realistic case. 

A platform to collect funds is in place and, being egalitarian, no penalties for leaving the scheme.

Thanks G, I await with interest

[Squirrelhumper]

1 hour ago, plunkit said:

Humper, the guys you mentioned have, in many cases, not made BB think like a punter - as far as we know. However, as I say, it's about looking at the business as one in deep distress - I don't think they are doing that. i have reasons for saying that which you will appreciate I cannot go into.

I have no desire to pump £100k into any regime - I have a desire to keep the club going. 

Will BB ever vote against MJ ? Why not. When your hard earned cash is under threat, and you can clearly see that, it is amazing how you can change your view of a business partner.

Keep the faith.

 

I don't dispute that but putting 100k into the club in the current state will only keep it going for a short time, IMO it'll make little impact into changing the direction of the club and again in my opinion, will only serve to plug a gap for short period of time to make up for the mismanagement of the club on a day to day basis.

As for BB, he has shown zero interest in voting against MJ as far as i can see, in fact he is the main reason we're stuck with MJ. 

It could be argued that if we are just talking purely "hard earned" then the club/assets would be worth more to the majority shareholders without the hassle of having a football club attached to it.

I'm not trying to be negative about the proposal, as I am a great advocate of fan ownership. I just feel with the structure of the club, it’s articles of association, the structure of the board and the previous new board members who’ve tried and failed to evoke change, that you quite possibly could be pissing in the wind with this.

 

That said, I’ll take the proposal on face value and will of course contribute if I feel it’s a winnable battle. From what I’ve heard again this week, MJ is going nowhere without a seven figure sum so it’ll take a lot of Trust shares to gain any reasonable power at RP I fear.

[plunkit]

9 minutes ago, shug said:

Plunkit i can see your point and can understand that it's worth trying but there is something in your comment above that makes me nervous.... if we have a supporter on the board will we have full transparency? You allude to knowing things you can't divulge ..... i'll financially support getting a fan on to the board but only if we are all aprty to what's going on and we don't have small groups knowing more than others. It's these things that cause divisions and make things like this fail

It would be a full directorship with the responsibilities that goes with that. What I mean is that I have personal opinions on matters based on conversations and observations that I don't feel it is correct to talk about on a public forum. Nothing to do with the Trust's plan here.

[baz]

It is good that fans have questions and wouldn't just blindly sign up for this...that is the kind of attitude that we are trying to promote, fans as active participants in the process and not just the old turnstile fodder scenario. I think there are a couple of issues which Gary has mentioned which may need emphasised to alleviate a few fears....

Trust In Killie is a long term initiative and will not mean that we hand over £100k to the club as soon as the heads of terms are signed. Heads of terms are a precursor to an actual deal and just set out a few ground rules prior to entering  into anything...which the Trust do so with their eyes fully open. Portsmouth Trust lost £3m when they just threw money at the problem and had to start again, we and other Trusts have learned from such mistakes. Add to that we don't have £100k just to give them so there will be a lot of water under the bridge before we give them anything or get anyone on the board...unless someone front funds the process in which case we have to revisit the whole strategy (that's what happened at Hearts with Ann Budge).

Secondly part of the heads of terms allows us to get independent advice on where the club are financially...and if the Trust is advised that any cash injection would not be wise then the current plan would stop there and again we would have to revisit the strategy...and that could mean going ahead but without the club as it stands. The bottom line being that if its not in our interest and risky to go ahead then we don't do it...not that way at least.

There is plenty of scope for change, we have people on board who have worked long (years) and weary on this and they are not going to throw away all that on a pipe dream. We are flexible enough to withstand change if it comes and we have to hope that the Killie fans will trust in their elected members to do their best in getting a good deal for the fans and getting us representation on that board that will put a halt to all the nonsense we've been seeing and put the club and our support first. There are no secrets in terms of the process, if you want to know more then just ask or even better get involved, the Trust is not an exclusive organisation, we are rank and file and the more people who are members the stronger our position is.

[killiefan97]

The problem is that £100k has to be raised by fans putting in cash and sorry but no one trusts Michael Johnson and it will be very hard to do that and convince fans if he is staying. On the other hand if the campaign was to raise money to get rid of MJ I am sure lots of people would be happy to pledge money including me. I will await with interest to see the details of the plan before I finally decide but from what I have been told so far I expect I will be  keeping my money.

[Island Girl]

5 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

All very well and good but Moran, Smith, Kiltie, Cairns er al have all failed to get BB to see sense, i have my reservations about giving this failed regime another 100k to prop them up for a wee while longer with no real say.

In my opinion the difference between these guys and a Trust director is the links and knowledge the Trust has access to. The directors you mentioned were acting on their own, the Trust can access a range of professional expertise through their membership and also are in touch with other Trusts who have either taken over their Club or are a major shareholder.

[kev1869]

I know everyone's dying to get this off topic, but why the hell are these adverts still up on the club's official social media feeds? Rhetorical question, cos we know it's someone is too proud to admit he messed up here or doesn't care that his customers are angry about it and that he's made the club a laughing stock on social media and, now I see the Sun are running with a story on this easily avoidable own goal, in the national media. 

Just get it down, FFS. Whoever has the logins for the accounts, "accidentally" hit the delete post button if you have to, cos it's gone too far now.

[findis]

They won't delete it as the fans opinions don't count.

[Squirrelhumper]

4 hours ago, Island Girl said:

In my opinion the difference between these guys and a Trust director is the links and knowledge the Trust has access to. The directors you mentioned were acting on their own, the Trust can access a range of professional expertise through their membership and also are in touch with other Trusts who have either taken over their Club or are a major shareholder.

Still powerless with the current voting system though. 

I really hope it's a success but there's an extremely large elephant in the room .

[Squirrelhumper]

7 minutes ago, findis said:

They won't delete it as the fans opinions don't count.

And the income for the Park Hotel PLC certainly does  

[Cowboy Dan]

They won't delete it as its free advertising for an event in the sports bar they own it will probably be packed out with local Huns on the day sky cameras and  Jim White reporting live. 

Nice little earner for someone .

[aumgn]

It wouldn't hurt if everyone who registered on here paid in just a tenner to join the Trust.

 

[Zorro]

11 hours ago, Island Girl said:

In my opinion the difference between these guys and a Trust director is the links and knowledge the Trust has access to. The directors you mentioned were acting on their own, the Trust can access a range of professional expertise through their membership and also are in touch with other Trusts who have either taken over their Club or are a major shareholder.

Legally, would the trusts representative on the board, be allowed to divulge the sensitive businesses information required , to allow them to use this professional expertise, you claim they have? I remember Dundee's rep being nothing more than a seat filler as they went into administration for the second time.