Lord Pityme

Hope they make an early decision. Could easily be put back 24 or 48 hrs and still be on BT sport.

I am in Paisley area I left Motherwell after nightshift at 6am (it has been torrential there whole night long) & the same here in Paisley just passed by the stadium and the roads around this part are really bad at the minute.

I would say the weather is worse than last Saturday.

LOL. just read above, The players didn't know they had won on Tuesday night and were waiting on junior taking a sixth penalty.  I'm not sure whats worse the players not being able to count or the thought of Junior at the penalty spot.
Priceless.

Ahhh!So Kibble will be taking any profit from these ventures as they fitted it out, staffed it and ran it.
 
Hello.... anyone still unsure why they are paying £300k for worthless shares?
 
Simply because they can make money from all the initiatives that the club were too lazy or lacked any basic skill to develop.
 
Edit: I dont blame Kibbke at all! It's a great no-brainer opportunity For Them!
Hell if I got the option I would sink the funds in to develop those business opportunities, and happily pay a fair rent as it is ripe for development.

The Labour Councillor concerned was a Kibble employee involved in a financial transaction that was deemed newsworthy and questionable.

Yes but you did that because you hate GLS and St Mirren and were luring them into a trap.

Why should we trust you? In Kibble we trust! [emoji12]

I watched the Q&A session last week and it answered some questions but was still a bit vague on detail IMO. 
One thing I’d like to know is will whether Kibble will pay the market rate for any additional (new) services they take from the club? 
They stated that they spend approx. £50k p.a. to SMFC and seemed to state that would continue. Which at face value is a positive. 
I’d like assurances that they can’t/won’t benefit from cheap shirt sponsorship, stadium naming rights, facilities, etc. And what safeguards are in place to ensure that the club is getting best value commercially? Is this covered anywhere? 
 

You didn't dig very deeply!

Accusations of dodgy dealing...

https://paisleyindependent.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/labour-refuse-to-answer-kibble-questions/

Those are general business skills... Not skills in running a football club.

All very well, so long as it's not putting someone else's job on the line.

What talents/staff do The Kibble have in running a football club?

It's common purpose to identify a number of low hanging fruit no brainers.
The odd thing with this proposal is the lack of tangible wins smfc , amiss or Kibble are putting up.

I would say that the financial benefits would be discussed and assessed generally within and between the boardrooms.....the unique element here is the makeup of one of the stakeholders (SMiSA).

Given the volume of contributions made on this topic (and I have not read every one of them) there is one concern which for me stands out - the power of veto.  Ostensibly, Kibble being a charity, has charitable ambitions but at the same time by investing the substantial sum of £300,000 they must also be financially prudent and would in theory and in law, veto a decision which went against the grain of their first allegiance, Kibble.  This means that SMISA do not have the level of ownership as envisaged by all who, like me, initially to contributed to.  The reality of Kibble's participation from SMISA's view is one of TRUST and in business this can quite easily evaporate.  

Normal service resumes, W7 will be rocking for this one  

Did you read the line highlighting their disdain of bawa and its followers?
They truly believe they are 'better' saints fans with that attitude.

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

Did you read the line highlighting their disdain of bawa and its followers?
They truly believe they are 'better' saints fans with that attitude.

He canny pass a sneer test never mind a smear.    

Showing your age. 

Was a morecambe & wise line.

Smisa & Smfc have got themselves in a real clusterf**k over giving away this veto over club decisions to a outside charity.
Especially when that charity are acting like they've got two cocks saying they really dont need the shares once they are in!

Smisa & Smfc have got themselves in a real clusterf**k over giving away this veto over club decisions to a outside charity.
Especially when that charity are acting like they've got two cocks saying they really dont need the shares once they are in!

Neither of these actually appear in the proposed legal agreement.
For "veto" the relevant term is "mutual agreement"; and this only applies to matters specifically listed in the agreement, e.g. the items listed in your extract, that require mutual approval of the three/two major shareholders. And these are mostly the same items which currently require SMiSA's mutual approval in our agreement with Gordon Scott.
Slarti, I think the above is where that part came from...……...again I am not crying foul but I am always concerned (because of my professional life) that things are covered properly. I haven't, and I have looked (although it could be sitting somewhere obvious and I've missed it), seen the proposed legal agreement and I think GLS/SMiSA/Kibble have been a bit loose in the way they have talked about Veto's and Major Decisions from both the sales pitch and at the meeting. I'm not in anyway accusing anyone of anything underhand I just think the whole thing could have been handled better, the fact that they are pushing "their agenda" will always make some look with a suspicious eye.

Not much of a marketing strategy that. 
But it does highlight the "go on..vote for jam tomorrow" aspect of this proposal