Lord Pityme

Lol...

Is that the white flag I see. Lol

If Betfair want to sponsor the club to a significant amount. How many fans would be happy at Kibble vetoing it because it doesn't sit with their brand? Youd gave a fecking riot on your hands when the tail starts wagging the dog

They do not market themselves as a Local Community Organisation.... ask them why? Plus if the proposal is passed then smisa are in direct contravention of their object to "4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running and ownership of the Club;" It's all there in black & white cockles Edit: Hillington is in Glasgow lol

That's funny... especially since you actually quoted me backing the vote for this COMMUNITY option over the piss poor club money grabs last week. The gift that keeps giving...

Where do Facebook operate from?The bulk of Kibble's clients are from, and return to communities across the UK. Great what Kibble do, but they are not and actually dont claim to be a Local community organisation.

So on that thinking Sports Direct are a local organisation that we should pal up with?As are Morton... or any organisation with a branch in Renfrewshire... what a laugh. Here's another good laugh... if Kibble are resourced from Renfrewshire (which isnt Paisley) how do the local authorities across the UK that they pitch to and take on their clients "resource" them..?

The only flaw in that plan is that Kibble... are not a local community organisation. They operate across the uk.

It actually gets worse for smisa as abandoning the agreement that would see Smisa members hold 71% of the club for a much reduced shareholding, and the deal allowing an outside national body to buy into the club is in direct contravention with one of Smisa's principle objects...! "4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running and ownership of the Club;" How do smisa justify that? Completely abandoning their objects..!

Again from the Smisa constitution..... "The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members." It could not be clearer... the current proposal is an unquestionable benefit & profit of one member! I dont for one minute think, smisa or Scott, are seeking to exploit Scott's membership of Smisa to this end. I do think however, they simply do not think to check the constitution to see what is or isnt aligned with it. And that's on Smisa!

Another piss poor attempt at deflection. But it is worth a read for the car crash rant!

Hope Goody can shore up our defence for Friday. It was AWOL second half last night.

Next goals the winner

Aaaaaand back to reality.

f**k...

Bawz... jinxed it.

Need to make it difficult for Well to get any momentum. Starve them for 20 mins to break them. Radio saying well are pushing forward

If he had simply chucked smisa before the proposal was put to a vote then he not a member. But the simple fact that as a member, he's got smisa to poll the whole membership to faci6the sale of his shares! Its the same as a smisa member getting the committee to poll the membership about buying his timeshare option. Only the community can benefit from smisa, not a member.

Goody decides to hit them from the off, and hey presto with all the attacking players we have we steamroller them!

Sorry but you are wrong. The whole deal being proposed by smisa benefits him. I get that's not why they proposed the deal, its yet another oversight by the smisa committee re the constitution. He is a smisa member, and cant sell & benefit from that sale unless the smisa membership vote for it. It's the clearest example you'll find.

So a saints fan, is goading another saints fan to call in the financial conduct authority? Priceless

As usual you are wrong on all fronts. Lol The 'renege' comment was if smisa did not fulfill their obligations in the original agreement and buy Scott's shares by the tenth year. But hey... make a push storm out of it if you like. The simple fact is Scott, if the proposal goes through benefits as a smisa member. The whole vote is being held to benefit him. What's so hard to understand about that.

Immaterial... The fact is he is benefitting as member as a vote of the entire membership has been called to facilitate the sale of his shares. He couldn't sell them any other way until ten years were up, and smisa reneged on the agreement.

You say 'toys out of prams' if members do as they are asked and cast a vote? Who hurt you?

They never sought them.