Jump to content

kevo_smfc

Saints
  • Content Count

    1,919
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by kevo_smfc


  1. 20 minutes ago, Danny said:

    I think her thinking is that the opposite will be the case and she might be right. Extending the league has always been unpopular as it means sharing the prize money among more clubs. Self interest says clubs want to keep the biggest share the can. So if Budge can convince clubs anty loss will only be for the short term she has a better chance of getting the 11 to 1 vote she needs

    I read something from earlier that said Celtic were willing to take a £1m hit on prize money to vote through the last proposal of league reconstruction back in 2013, the one that we knocked back along with Ross County. It was a terrible idea the whole plans at the time, instead of just adding more teams to the top flight, they wanted to break the top divisions into 3 mini league part way through the season.

     


  2. 1 hour ago, Sonny said:

    I do not think reconstruction has a hope in hell in getting through. The 11-1 vote if nothing else will see to that as why dilute the pot by increasing the number of Clubs and  why vote for potentially less income from sponsorship?

    There is a good article in the Scotsman today where the Chairman of Stenhousemuir says he is sick to the teeth of the SPFL  as the Board and Premiership do not give a damn for the smaller clubs. He is not happy about attempts to change the League on a temporary basis to save Hearts while doing nothing for Partick or Stranraer. (Of course reconstruction may change that but at the moment PT and Stranraer are down whereas Hearts are not). If his views are typical there would be little support further down the Leagues.

    The Championship has been called a the best League in Scotland for years. Likewise League One and Two are competitive. Every game in the Premiership means something. For me I would leave as is especially the motivation for change.

    The 11-1 vote is a complete joke. Only to please the old firm. It should be down to a majority vote out of the 12 clubs or a fairer percentage of clubs rather than seeing either side of the old firm kicking it out.


  3. 22 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

    I've said it before and I think this is the only fair outcome, especially for clubs in the lower leagues. It's what they do with the predicament of either awarding Celtic the title or making season null and void with no champions, which I think should be more of a challenging hurdle to get over. 


  4. 20 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

     

    In recent games we have been starting with ONE academy product Scottish national.

    With one scottish loanee

    And one or two Scots on the bench...

    Is this our reality now? Is the mini conveyor belt of young talent, developed and sold on u/s..?

    How do Livi manage to punch above their weight with a lot more Scots in their team?

    Are we resigned to sifting the flotsam & jetsam of lower league footballers across Europe, hoping to unearth a relative pearl every now and then?

     

    I think it is the reality now.

     
    The pool of players available and good enough/ready in Scotland is shrinking. I think this was something the board and manager identified, hence our link up with the company that provides stat resources to players across Europe.

    We can certainly try and bring players into our youth set-up, though until they are ready its a bit of a waiting game.

    Nick McAllister was a player we picked up from Queens Park in the summer. Hasn't quite made his way into the first team yet though. 


  5. 2 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

    So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? 

    Time will tell Ricky. 

    I am sure there has been discussions been all parties over possible future ventures and it will move at its own pace.

    As the deal is due to completed at the end of next year, I wouldn't expect any change to act immediately once the deal is complete. 
    I'd imagine phased improvements will happen over the next couple of years, whether that is cosmetically or through workforce in the community.

     


  6. 1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

    They want to take control over proceedings in exchange for their £300k to ensure their aims and objectives are achieved.
    They actually confirm this in their proposal. They're not shy about seeing this as Kibble expanding through smfc.
    Why some people, (despite the lack of one, just one set of figures showing how this will add an additional revenue stream to the club) think otherwise is mystifying.
    Kibble want to expand, smfc are ripe for exploitation... so much so that a charity is throwing £300k away, and the fans are being asked to sign over to Kibble.
    Have smisa, or the club given one, just one example of how they are going to step up to this new challenge?
    That should be a genuine worry for all!
    It appears it's only Kibble who have a plan, and the resource and determination to see it delivered!

    Why didn't you re-join SMISA for a couple of weeks at least, attend the meeting the other week and raise all of these doubts you have at the Q&A?

    Do you honestly think the people that have St Mirrens best interests at heart would put such a proposal forward if it never had St Mirrens best interests at heart to grow?

    Feeling like a record player, though if you think this proposal was dreamed up over a couple of weeks and had no scrutiny behind it, carry on thinking like that. 
    Thankfully you are a minority that has nothing positive to say.
     


  7. 2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

    Au contraire! Mange tout, mange tout..

    If it's looking at ways to better the existing deal then why, oh why have Smiswa not sought this partnership with Kibble and let them pay £300k to smisa to access the facilities, and opportunities they see at the club?

    Then smisa would be in a position to take its majority shareholding in jig time..?

    Now that's what I call fan ownership, partnering with an organisation to each other's benefit, and that of the community.

    Gordon would still get paid off sooner, but lose his grip on the club as a small shareholder.

    Edit... the above is all possible with the existing Smisa/Scott agreement!

    Kibble are a separate entity. I could understand your argument if a fan paid 300k to SMISA.

    I don't claim to know the whole ins and outs though surely it makes logical sense, that Kibble taking a percentage to go on the board is more beneficial, as this is a long-term commitment for them, for what they propose to provide in resources to the club?

    Remember...51% is a majority and that is what SMISA will have if Kibble agreement goes through. In my personal opinion, it is more appealable to have an experienced organisation join the board, especially when they have resources there to help build the clubs future.

    Whatever your opinion, this has not been an overnight proposal.

     
     


  8. 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

    Certainly wrong with your last line, childish accusation.

    The bottom line regarding the rest of your post is the fact that yet again the smisa membership are made what they believe to be a cast iron promise, only to see that walked back because the club or committee fancy something else!

    The smisa committee and club didn't tell the potential members during BtB that they didn't have it in them to see the proposal that THEY stood by, through to successful conclusion.

    All the talk of the things Kibble can do better, really means that the current incumbents...

    A. Never had it in them

    B. Just plain lazy

    C. There was always a plan to water fan ownership down...?

    Because they told the membership time and again of the dangers to the club of an outside body taking control.

    So forget what Kibble are good at for one moment, and ask what is failing, and why there is a need to prop the club up immediately?

     

     

    Have you never given it thought that in the time of building a business, you see room for improvement or alternative ways of generating additional income in that period of time? There is always room for change for the better.

    Buy the buds is 4 years in and within that time, like any business I am sure there have been may learning curves, just like GS when he took the chairmans role has learned a far deal greater than he did before about the running of a football club.

    The club will STILL be fan owned regardless if the Kibble proposal is approved or not. Kibble are not here to take over, they are here to help generate extra revenue whilst boosting their own profile. As you are very aware, SMISA itself is run by many volunteers who already have full-time jobs elsewhere and dedicate a large chunk of their time to the association. Something I think that at times, these people get very little credit for. 

    I know I am explaining points that you already know and will result in a negative reply, as you have nothing positive to say about either SMISA, Kibble, GS or St. Mirren Football Club in general. 


  9. 7 minutes ago, shull said:

    I am having chicken tonight and what has that got to do with a Governor who is not British ? 

    Celtic and Sevco fans are complicit and condone sectarianism and bigotry in our Beautiful Game. 

    Would not want their sort in our football minded Boardroom. 

    Will end up with 3 Stands being given to those vile fans. 

    Sevco and Celtic need booted out of Scottish Football. 

    Will they help or veto ? 

    Its a shame that you tarnish all old firm fans with the same brush. 


  10. Just now, pod said:

    Everyone at St Mirren would like to wish Ethan all the best during his loan spell. 

    Says nothing about view to buy. :unsure:

    Possibly the club don't want to disclose that publicly, as there is a possibility he may be back and they don't want the player to feel like he doesn't have a future with us.


  11. 4 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

    I understand concerns that Kibble are a bigger organisation than Saints and that they might be able to exercise more influence than the 27.5% stake they will hold, it's a valid point and one that SMiSA will I'm sure be aware of now that you've pointed it out, however we were always going to reach "the endgame" when the post-GLS situation had to be sorted. I think overall this seems like a good deal

    • it still leaves SMiSA with overall control of the club (51%)
    • saves the ordinary SMiSA punter some money.
    • gets it all over sooner.

    It brings more expertise onboard, exactly.

    With a successful organisation like Kibble involved, I personally would feel more comfortable post takeover, with another business minded head added to the club to help runnings. 


  12. 1 minute ago, Sonny said:

    From The National ......

     

    Adam said: “Kibble can bring new resources and expertise to help St Mirren grow as a business – but more than that, it can help grow the club’s reach into the community of Paisley.

    “Over the next few weeks, we’ll be talking to our members about what this means – and hopefully they will be as excited as we are by the possibilities.”

    Jim Gillespie, chief executive of Kibble, commented: "We are incredibly excited by this important plan for both organisations, both of which were founded in Paisley in Victorian times and are a part of the town’s history.

    "The purpose of our proposal is to step up Kibble’s young workforce development programme and improve the future prospects of our young people, including employability options, skills and qualifications. Our executive team has been working on a strategic plan to maximise our opportunities along these lines within St Mirren FC.

    Our plan involves Kibble utilising all of St Mirren’s facilities, including the training ground at Ralston, to provide these opportunities in areas like catering, hospitality and apprenticeships in ground keeping and the various skills required for stadium maintenance.

    "The day-to-day running of the football club will still be done by the professionals at St Mirren who do it well, but they will be supported by Kibble's expertise in areas such as HR, finance, marketing and communications."

    Scott said: "When I took over as chairman and majority shareholder in 2016, it was with the intention of taking the club forward and working with SMISA to create a sustainable and successful fan ownership model.

    “This is the right time, the right corporate partner and the right model. The club is in a very strong place right now – financially, in terms of stadium and academy infrastructure, and the people we have employed at all levels of the football club."

     
     
     

     

     

    From what I read, my understanding is that Kibble benefit from using our facilities as well as exposure for the brand tying in with St Mirrens community values.
    In return St Mirren get the highly beneficial access of resources that Kibble have, including a helping hand in areas of the business through employment options. After all they are a CIC company so cannot profit a return.

    They are not here to take over, far from it. SMISA will be majority shareholder at 51%, by time the deal is in place, if it is voted in. GS with his shareholding % along with Kibble will have places on the board due to their shares value and will all have valuable input, though it will be SMISA controlling things by that point with business minded people surrounding them.


  13. 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

    Not getting a game?
    How many times has that been? Behave yourself ffs you're making shit up now.

    Behave myself? You are the one trying to put a negative spin on every topic on here. Every last topic. Agenda against the board, no praise of players, just negative negative negative. 

    Did he play on Sunday? No 
    Did he play against Rangers? Yes, because we relied on extra defenders at the back.
    Did he play against Broxburn? No
    Will Flynn play right back on Saturday if McGinn is still at saints by the transfer window? Most likely

    He is no longer first choice right-back at the moment.


  14. 2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

    Both McGinn and Hladky are under contract, the club can easily tell Ross to do one as we need (like Hladky) our best players now!

    Arguably McGinn is of more value... what if we suffer another defensive injury, or the youngsters struggle for form/consistency as they inevitably may at some point.

    He's now currently sitting behind Flynn in the pecking order and I couldn't see that changing anytime soon. We have also filled our centre half roles. He's out of contract end of season, not getting a game (at the moment). Jack Ross was the man that brought him to the club.

    Hibs could have openly looked to sign him on a pre-contract though want him now. It really wouldn't surprise me if the club had spoken to Paul about the interest and he has said he would like to speak to them. Same thing happened with Naismith, ironically the man he's looking to fill the boots of. We sold him off early to Ross County as the player was keen on the move early.


  15. 3 minutes ago, Steg87 said:

    Hi everyone, just posting for the first time, so go easy on me.

    Talking about Strikers....would Goodwille not be a good shout? I know he has problems but seems to be banging them in for Clyde and I would imagine he would be cheapish to buy?

    He just signed a 3 year extension recently with Clyde. Looks like he's happy to stay out of the limelight and play in the lower leagues. 


  16. 16 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

    So why not the same story as Hladky who is worth more?
    Could be the club need the funds pronto to pay something off?

    Could it be that Hladky is valued as a player who can win you points (shut-outs) as was Morgan for his match winning attributes.

    Hladky has also made it known where his ambitions are to play his football. Put it this way, he won't e short of offers in the summer and will most likely get a move to the level he seeks.


  17. 22 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

    The link Munoz just posted basically says Jack Ross contacted us but expected to be told to F Off when that didn't happen it's moved on to him probably signing for Hibs.

    Imo that would suggest Goodwin was happy to let him go not as Goodwin is hinting keeping an unhappy player, looks to me like this particular player was made unhappy by the club agreeing to transfer him in middle of the season where he has played nearly every match when fit.
     

    Could Goody, Tony or Gus have pulled Paul aside and said, look Hibs have shown an interest in signing you. We don't want to deny you an opportunity you may want to take up. Paul has possibly said he'd be interested. Would assume if there was any truth to my theory, then there was no intention of a contract renewal? 


  18. 42 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

    A bit high on the few B.. Although I would love you to be right!  Don't disagree too much with your other comments. 

    We received around £25k for Jason Naismith when Ross County wanted to bring him in early after agreeing a pre-contract. I would expect something similar, though a bonus if we do get more, as we are not exactly in a position to release a consistent great performer without there being something in return for it.


  19. 17 minutes ago, mattman said:

    65A75BAC-11F4-4434-AE13-E9805525C099.png

    Personally don't think he is what we need. He's at a good age, though he has been a journeyman and scored very few goals in his career so far. Wasn't overly impressed with him at St Johnstone.
    We need someone with a decent goal ratio to their name


  20. 23 hours ago, Hambud said:

    You sure its celtic? Going by his brothers twitter posts he is of the other persuasion.

    Anyway hope he manages a recovery, seems to have set back after set back unfortunately.

    He said so in the 1877 supporters club after one of the games a couple of years ago when Alan Wardrop said to him about coming from Celtic family he said he was a Celtic supporter


  21. 56 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

    NAW that is not our AIM. We are progressing every year and if we finish on better goal difference but the same points as any other team we pick up more prise money. If it happens to stop us being in the play-off,  then that is better than having to be in the play-off... is that not simple enough for you?

    So tell us about you top notch outlook  - we could all do with a laugh :bounce2

    TRY reading previous post about how others have fared there this season . . . then re-read it and see if you can get it to stay in your head for more than a few milliseconds . . :hammer

    For me, this year is all about gaining stability within the squad, management and avoiding the relegation playoffs. For me that would be good enough progress in our first full season with our manager. Anything above that is an added bonus. 

×
×
  • Create New...