Jump to content

Not all bad.....


Squirrelhumper

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DrewWylie said:

Sorry pal but what does that get us in real terms ?

quoted from Facebook here -

Worth noting that if 3k Killie fans had donated the minimum £10 a month to TIK this year then the Trust could have been handing the club a cheque for £360,000 tax free which would have negated the reported loss for last year and allowed the Club to allocate more funds to the manager for the player budget, if that's what we wanted to do with it. The Trust AGM is Wednesday 16th January in the Park Suite. You can sign up for TIK here >>>
https://killietrust.killiefc.com/en/trust-in-killie_52022/

Hope you decide to sign up, I've noticed you say a lot against the Trust and their representative on the board but I really don't understand it. They've put more actual money into the football club than anyone except Phyllis McLeish since the first Mr Moffat, over a quarter million I read recently. We're all Killie fans, if you can't afford to support them then fair enough, but the hostility is strange to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rb_506 said:

quoted from Facebook here -

Worth noting that if 3k Killie fans had donated the minimum £10 a month to TIK this year then the Trust could have been handing the club a cheque for £360,000 tax free which would have negated the reported loss for last year and allowed the Club to allocate more funds to the manager for the player budget, if that's what we wanted to do with it. The Trust AGM is Wednesday 16th January in the Park Suite. You can sign up for TIK here >>>
https://killietrust.killiefc.com/en/trust-in-killie_52022/

Hope you decide to sign up, I've noticed you say a lot against the Trust and their representative on the board but I really don't understand it. They've put more actual money into the football club than anyone except Phyllis McLeish since the first Mr Moffat, over a quarter million I read recently. We're all Killie fans, if you can't afford to support them then fair enough, but the hostility is strange to say the least.

the money isnt just given to the club. they are buying shares, but will only do so if the money is used for something which the trust are happy with.  hence the quote "if that is what we wanted to do with it" to say if "x amount joined that would be GS paid for" is pushing it a bit. it would need to be agreed with the club and the shares bought. if the club and tik dont agree then it wouldnt happen, then no gs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bhamkillieken said:

the money isnt just given to the club. they are buying shares, but will only do so if the money is used for something which the trust are happy with.  hence the quote "if that is what we wanted to do with it" to say if "x amount joined that would be GS paid for" is pushing it a bit. it would need to be agreed with the club and the shares bought. if the club and tik dont agree then it wouldnt happen, then no gs.

That's meandering nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bhamkillieken said:

the money isnt just given to the club. they are buying shares, but will only do so if the money is used for something which the trust are happy with.  hence the quote "if that is what we wanted to do with it" to say if "x amount joined that would be GS paid for" is pushing it a bit. it would need to be agreed with the club and the shares bought. if the club and tik dont agree then it wouldnt happen, then no gs.

Taking away from the fact that you always have something negative to say about the Trust, money for shares is money for nothing in real terms at that level. It would take decades to get anywhere near the top shareholders at the current rate. Your point about "if that is what they wanted to do with it" is well made, but moot nonetheless. The money would be included in any budget and no matter what the Trust agreed with the club to spend it on, it would allow the club to reallocate the funds they'd already put past for that purpose into the player budget. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the Trust wanted the money spent on something the club were not going to have in their budget anyway, like safe standing, but from the other thread on that it is clear that safe standing could actually be self funded, so again rendering the point moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bhamkillieken said:

the money isnt just given to the club. they are buying shares, but will only do so if the money is used for something which the trust are happy with.  hence the quote "if that is what we wanted to do with it" to say if "x amount joined that would be GS paid for" is pushing it a bit. it would need to be agreed with the club and the shares bought. if the club and tik dont agree then it wouldnt happen, then no gs.

Utter nonsense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks. Confession. Although I been a lifelong killie fan. And a true fan in most ways anyone could measure. I have not always been a season ticket holder. I go to all games i can. Almost all home games an around 40 % aways. I got kids and they have their demands. I’m lucky I got a job where I earn good money. I want to do what I reasonably can to help progression of club. I’m not a tik member. I don’t believe in fan owned clubs as I think those who are experienced in all aspects of business and have an “ affinity” are better to drive sucess than the fan based model. BUT I would like to add something. Is there room for support/investment from this perspective or am I at odds with the objectives of tik?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thebigguy68 said:

I don’t believe in fan owned clubs as I think those who are experienced in all aspects of business and have an “ affinity” are better to drive sucess than the fan based model.

How many business people buying into football clubs understand that business?

In practice, football clubs have traditionally been owned and run by local businessmen who had deep pockets and perhaps saw owning the club as a status symbol and as a way to enhance their core business. I'm sure many had an altruistic motive too. 

More recently, especially at the biggest Plc clubs, business people have seen investing in clubs as a blatant way to line their own pockets and they often have no affinity with the game, the club or even the local area. Think Mike Ashley or the Glazers.

Having a substantial supporters' shareholding helps protect the club against decisions which might not be in its best interests, including falling into the "wrong" hands. Being fan-owned doesn't mean the club will be run by enthusiastic but naïve amateurs.

 

Edited by skygod
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

×
×
  • Create New...