Stirling Albion Thread

[JakeSAFC]

Beat EK tonight 2-0. Anyone tell me how we played?

 

[DeanMck]

9 minutes ago, JakeSAFC said:

Beat EK tonight 2-0. Anyone tell me how we played?

 

Wasn’t the most exciting of games. You won comfortably. EK didn’t create a lot. Jason Marr - who scored the first with header from corner and Kevin Fell your best performers i’d Say. The left back from Elgin is god awful i’ve never been impressed by him and sadly Peaso looks another yard slower, maybe age finally catching up with him. 

One thing I was laughing at when doing some research on your team was in your new keeper Callum Ferie’s pic below he looks about 35 yet in real life looks like 16 !. He had a comfortable game but not much to do, isn’t the biggest of keepers but.

[JakeSAFC]

Wasn’t the most exciting of games. You won comfortably. EK didn’t create a lot. Jason Marr - who scored the first with header from corner and Kevin Fell your best performers i’d Say. The left back from Elgin is god awful i’ve never been impressed by him and sadly Peaso looks another yard slower, maybe age finally catching up with him. 
One thing I was laughing at when doing some research on your team was in your new keeper Callum Ferie’s pic below he looks about 35 yet in real life looks like 16 !. He had a comfortable game but not much to do, isn’t the biggest of keepers but.

Thanks mate. Marr seems to have done well during his trial hopefully he is signed up. One of my pals said that Jordan Allan played well, so we’ll see about him. Pleased to hear Kevin Fell played well although can’t see him being a starter for us.

Sign Marr up, get a winger, striker and midfielder signed up and I will be happy.

[BB_Bino]

sadly Peaso looks another yard slower, maybe age finally catching up with him. 

To defend Peaso, since coming back, he’s played 2 games and made 1 training session, so he is probably behind the curve slightly. However, I thought he looked done last season. I think he did ok, and we looked a better team with him in it but by and large, I just felt we should be looking for more from our Striker, especially one who has done as well as Peaso. However, I can accept that I am probably in the minority with these views.

[KierenAAFC]

Caught your game tonight as it was local to me and can only echo what is above. Not giving Jason a contract would be madness, as much as it pains me to see him in a Bino kit. Your no.10 - Nathan Fell looked the pick of the bunch. Stewart and Peaso didn’t do much at all which I was surprised about.

 

[JakeSAFC]

To defend Peaso, since coming back, he’s played 2 games and made 1 training session, so he is probably behind the curve slightly. However, I thought he looked done last season. I think he did ok, and we looked a better team with him in it but by and large, I just felt we should be looking for more from our Striker, especially one who has done as well as Peaso. However, I can accept that I am probably in the minority with these views.

I thought Peaso was vital last season personally. He must have created a large chunk of our goals. The way he played allowed Daz and Morrison (when at the club) to get in behind and score the goals.

[King Crownest]

On FB, I see Roy Guthrie’s been getting a battering for bringing up section 11.1 of the bid – can see why his confrontational style might get folk going!

But he’s right.

Here’s what Section 11.1 says: “For the avoidance of doubt, the Investors may in their capacity as directors recommend to the board that the Company takes such decision or implements such action as the Investors wish to take any of the actions set out in Schedule 6 without the consent of the Trust.

 Schedule 6 includes: “Merge the Company (or any part of its business) with any other person or propose to do so; Allow the Company to cease (or propose to cease) to carry on its business; Incur any indebtedness or borrowings in excess of £1; Vary the rights attaching to any class of Shares; Take any step to place the Company into administration; Approve any merger, liquidation, dissolution or acquisition of the Company.”

 So the Trust will remain the majority shareholder but will have no power at all. All the traditional rights of a shareholder will transfer to John Neill and Colin Rowley.

They, and they alone, will have sole power to decide the future of the club.

Note they have the power to borrow money without the Trust’s consent.

 Just as I said before, what if they choose to load up the club with assets, borrow money against them, pay themselves back and then walk off, leaving the club to die?

I see lots of fans supporting the bid on social media so they’ll be well placed to answer this…

Can I ask them, is there anything I’ve missed in the bid documents that would guard against that?

[rhliston]

2 hours ago, King Crownest said:

On FB, I see Roy Guthrie’s been getting a battering for bringing up section 11.1 of the bid – can see why his confrontational style might get folk going!

But he’s right.

Here’s what Section 11.1 says: “For the avoidance of doubt, the Investors may in their capacity as directors recommend to the board that the Company takes such decision or implements such action as the Investors wish to take any of the actions set out in Schedule 6 without the consent of the Trust.

 Schedule 6 includes: “Merge the Company (or any part of its business) with any other person or propose to do so; Allow the Company to cease (or propose to cease) to carry on its business; Incur any indebtedness or borrowings in excess of £1; Vary the rights attaching to any class of Shares; Take any step to place the Company into administration; Approve any merger, liquidation, dissolution or acquisition of the Company.”

 So the Trust will remain the majority shareholder but will have no power at all. All the traditional rights of a shareholder will transfer to John Neill and Colin Rowley.

They, and they alone, will have sole power to decide the future of the club.

Note they have the power to borrow money without the Trust’s consent.

 Just as I said before, what if they choose to load up the club with assets, borrow money against them, pay themselves back and then walk off, leaving the club to die?

I see lots of fans supporting the bid on social media so they’ll be well placed to answer this…

Can I ask them, is there anything I’ve missed in the bid documents that would guard against that?

Whilst their is no denying that such actions can happen, I think you would have to ask the question as to why both these people would want to do such things. Clearly from a business prospective why would 2 responsible business people want to bring the Club to its knees in the first place? Does not make sense. 

I am quite sure that both people have the best interests of the Club at heart and only want to take the Club forward with some new ideas. 

With regard to the Trust having no power think you have got that wrong, as I understand it the Trust can get rid of these people at any time if they do not like the way the Club is being run. 

The Trust members have a chance on the 19th July to vote whether to accept this offer or not. Also remember that their is another offer on the table of £200k from another group to be considered.

It all boils down to the fact that at present the Club is going nowhere fast and clearly the need for additional investment could just be the catalyst to get the Club moving up the Leagues, at the very least out of the Basement. 

[BB_Bino]

On FB, I see Roy Guthrie’s been getting a battering for bringing up section 11.1 of the bid – can see why his confrontational style might get folk going!

But he’s right.

King Crownest, if you are on Facebook then mail your questions to the SAFC Consort account, I’m sure they will answer them for you. I mailed a few over about youth development and got quick, and very derailed answers. You’re better doing that than raising questions on here, if you genuinely want answers and are not playing to an( or someone else’s) agenda.

Top post Rhliaton, but can I just pick up one thing:

. Also remember that their is another offer on the table of £200k from another group to be considered.

Can I just make it clear that it is not £200k bid, it is my belief that the bid is on the table from the existing board members (with the exception of Stuart Brown) of the sum of £200k IF the board deem that this money is actually needed by the club...............

[King Crownest]

7 hours ago, rhliston said:

Whilst their is no denying that such actions can happen, I think you would have to ask the question as to why both these people would want to do such things. Clearly from a business prospective why would 2 responsible business people want to bring the Club to its knees in the first place? Does not make sense. 

I am quite sure that both people have the best interests of the Club at heart and only want to take the Club forward with some new ideas. 

With regard to the Trust having no power think you have got that wrong, as I understand it the Trust can get rid of these people at any time if they do not like the way the Club is being run. 

The Trust members have a chance on the 19th July to vote whether to accept this offer or not. Also remember that their is another offer on the table of £200k from another group to be considered.

It all boils down to the fact that at present the Club is going nowhere fast and clearly the need for additional investment could just be the catalyst to get the Club moving up the Leagues, at the very least out of the Basement. 

I’m not suggesting they’re plotting to asset strip and kill Stirling Albion.

 But contracts are there to guard against the unexpected and the disastrous.

 So I think it’s less a question of what John Neill’s motives are and more a question of why would anyone vote for a bid that’s been drawn up so loosely it gives Stirling Albion and the fans zero protection should things go wrong??

 There should be personal guarantees written into the contract so that should SAFC be left with bank debt when and if the consortium walk away John Neill and Colin Rowley will be personally liable for it.

 That way, if anyone ends up in liquidation it’s them rather than Stirling Albion.

 If they’re as well meaning and confident in their ability to run the club as they and you say they are, I’m sure this won’t be a problem.

PS   Unless the success parameters are not met, the Trust CAN'T get rid of the directors - have a look at Section 5.

[King Crownest]

6 hours ago, BB_Bino said:

 

King Crownest, if you are on Facebook then mail your questions to the SAFC Consort account, I’m sure they will answer them for you. I mailed a few over about youth development and got quick, and very derailed answers. You’re better doing that than raising questions on here, if you genuinely want answers and are not playing to an( or someone else’s) agenda.

 

 

What does “agenda” mean? If it means you think I'm part of John Hunter's bid, you're very wrong.

If it means I want to ensure that Stirling Albion doesn’t sleepwalk into liquidation then, yes, I have an agenda and I’m proud of it.

The consortium has published its bid document, there are clearly holes in it and it won’t get my vote until those holes are filled in.

And I would urge everyone else to read the document very carefully before lending their vote to it or we might not have a club to support in ten years’ time.

There’s currently £200K in the bank above and beyond the manager’s budget and no debt – why hand over control of the club to someone with no experience while taking on fresh debt and signing up to a contract that even supporters of the bid admit could lead to liquidation?

Change has to happen - there’s no doubt about that – but surely if we can only get past this infighting and give us all a blank sheet of paper, there is enough wit about the Trust membership to come up with a fresh direction for the club and then to actually employ people who know what they’re doing to realise the plan?

 Chucking our lot in with John Neill feels like desperation – which is understandable - but If it’s not right for the club, we don’t have to sign the Albion away. Just be patient.

[JakeSAFC]

As BB said message the consortium on Facebook, Roy.

[King Crownest]

1 hour ago, JakeSAFC said:

As BB said message the consortium on Facebook, Roy.

Why do I need to speak to the consortium?

It’s now quite clear the bid could leave the club open to liquidation.

So why don’t you read the bid documents for yourself or, as I say, why don’t YOU give a personal guarantee to cover any liability the consortium might leave behind?

And by the way, at the top of this page, you're saying: "I don’t think the squad is that bad tbh. A few more signings needed 100% but I’m happy with what we have so far."

So why do you want to borrow £600K?

Edited July 6, 2018 by King Crownest

[Ray Vaughn]

The guarantee that the club cannot go below the watermark of finances on the day that the consortium take over the running of the club (should both the members of the Trust vote YES to the consortium and the lawyers give the deal a clean bill of health) is reassurance that the club is unlikely to go into liquidation as they would be unlikely to spend sums of money which takes the club below that waterline and result in them forfeiting control of the club.
The club reserves I believe to be £150k as we had £170k in the bank last season and lost £20k last season (mainly due to higher spending on players and lost games due to the weather I would guess)

The Associates bid for the club has not yet been received by the Trust so is much harder to pin down any detail. Two things I have picked up about it though is that they only promise to invest £200k if “the club needs it” and said somewhere else that the club does not need money invested in it (whilst talking about the Consortium bid).
I look forward to reading their bid to convince me that what they are offering is anything other than an overdraft facility.

[BinosCammy]

Won 2-0 today vs Stranraer

Jordan Allan and Peaso with the goals

Conor Langton a winger from falkirk on trail today as well and Cameron Taylor ex Livi and Huddersfield town defender.

[JakeSAFC]

Decent result that. Bring on the season now.

[StewartyMac]

We're miles short of a team who can challenge at the moment. Not sure if the impending takeover is delaying the signing of more players or not. 

This season could be another write off, but I'd accept that if the consortium won the vote, as the future would look a lot brighter. 

[JakeSAFC]

We're miles short of a team who can challenge at the moment. Not sure if the impending takeover is delaying the signing of more players or not. 
This season could be another write off, but I'd accept that if the consortium won the vote, as the future would look a lot brighter. 

Still think with the current squad we’re easily finishing play offs. A few more quality signings needed to challenge for the title though.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Anyone know where/when the closed doors game against Raith is?

[AlbionMan]

On 7/6/2018 at 20:23, King Crownest said:

I’m not suggesting they’re plotting to asset strip and kill Stirling Albion.

 But contracts are there to guard against the unexpected and the disastrous.

 So I think it’s less a question of what John Neill’s motives are and more a question of why would anyone vote for a bid that’s been drawn up so loosely it gives Stirling Albion and the fans zero protection should things go wrong??

 There should be personal guarantees written into the contract so that should SAFC be left with bank debt when and if the consortium walk away John Neill and Colin Rowley will be personally liable for it.

 That way, if anyone ends up in liquidation it’s them rather than Stirling Albion.

 If they’re as well meaning and confident in their ability to run the club as they and you say they are, I’m sure this won’t be a problem.

PS   Unless the success parameters are not met, the Trust CAN'T get rid of the directors - have a look at Section 5.

He could even be our version of Raith Rovers' saviour, Claude Anelka.