garzo
-
Posts
317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by garzo
-
-
5 hours ago, doakie said:
Guys,
I’ve been sent this analysis of the board’s statement from a fan who wishes to remain anonymous – simply due to the amount of personal criticism that’s been posted here towards other contributors and towards Alan Wardrop himself. I asked for replies to be respectful and I repeat that plea. What follows is one fan's opinion and you may agree or disagree. I offer no opinion i.e. don’t shoot the messenger but I do feel it is worthy of your attention.
Make up your own mind about this analysis but I will highlight that the deadline for stage 1 applications was 17 June 2022.
ST.MIRREN CLUB BOARD STATEMENT
SMISA members and fans will be aware that an election process is underway to fill vacancies on the SMISA Board. One of the candidates referred to a grant application, initiated by Kibble, for funding under the auspices of the Scottish Government Regeneration Capital Grant Fund (RCGF). Given the nature of the wording within that candidate statement, the Club Board wish to clarify the details regarding this matter, including the diligence undertaken in September/October 2022
[Comment] – The timing is only one aspect of AW’s criticism of Kibble. The content of the application is the subject of deeper concern. Here, the Club statement confirms that the Board conducted “diligence” 3 months too late, and that it had no knowledge. Stage 1 Application submitted in June, Scot Gov RCGF announcement 5th September and Club Board meeting 29th September.
During the September 2022 Board meeting the Directors became aware of, and discussed, a proposal to build a Wellbeing Centre in Ferguslie Park and a funding application to the RCGF. All St Mirren Football Club Directors were in attendance. A Stage 1 Application had been submitted for RCGF funding and it was successful in moving to Stage 2 of the process. The application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application, the Club nor the Charitable Foundation had been engaged prior to the submission as this was very early stages of the process. It should be noted that historic discussions and meetings around the development of the Ferguslie Master Plan, including the potential development of a Wellbeing Centre, had taken place with Club Board members, Renfrewshire Council senior officials and other stakeholders.
Comment –
- “The Directors became aware of”. Obviously, this relates to only the SMiSA appointed directors. The Kibble directors knew months before September. So, only some of the directors “became aware of”. Misleading and an attempt to deflect.
- The Statement says, “…historic discussions and meetings … with Club Board members …” Which “Club Board members”? Surely they are not trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by referring to the Kibble representatives to the Board! They obviously had no authority to represent the Board as the matter had not been brought to the attention of the Board until September. The “hat” they wore during these discussions was that of Kibble and not the Board. They cannot seriously contend that the Club Board knew merely because the two Kibble directors knew.
- Clearly, the first the Directors became aware was September. They neglect to say when the Stage 1 Application was submitted (June 2022) – which is a damning fact in itself. One of Alan’s points was that an application was submitted in the Club’s name without the Board’s knowledge nor approval. The two Kibble directors had no authority to make such a submission. The Club Statement admits as much but attempts to divert attention by claiming it was “…very early stages.”
- The Statement says “…application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application.” They do not say that the Club was also named as a participant in the project. An inclusion in June without knowledge nor authority.
- So what does this paragraph tell us? The Directors admit that they (only the SMiSA appointed directors) first became aware of the RCGF application well after the process was initiated in June.
From the discussions that took place at the St Mirren Football Club Board meeting on 29 September 2022 it became clear that the matter would require further conversation with the Charitable Foundation and that the Club should maintain interest in this matter to establish if the project offered any tangible benefit going forward. It was agreed that timely and appropriate discussions must take place regarding any potential projects in future to ensure that all stakeholders, directly involved or otherwise, were aware of the approach that was being taken.
[ Comment] – The approach being taken by Kibble and not the Club nor the Foundation – yet each was declared in the application to be an integral partner and developer.
Regarding the suggestion that St Mirren Football Club was expected to offer its land for the proposed Wellbeing Centre, this was not the case. The application was unspecific as to the precise location of the proposed building, but a crucial element of the plan was that the Wellbeing Centre would be built on one of several long-term derelict sites in the Ferguslie area, not on land owned by St Mirren.
[Comment] – While the narrative in application document may have been non-specific, an artists’ impression and location map submitted as an exhibit with the application, clearly demonstrates that Kibble had targeted St Mirren assets for use in the project. The artist’s impression and location map, together with “Land ownership transfer” identified as a “Key next step” in the application document, demonstrate Kibble’s true intent. Use of St Mirren land was an integral part of the plans well before the SMiSA appointed Directors knew of those plans.
Given the need to align other stakeholders, a meeting with the Charitable Foundation took place, and subsequently the Charitable Foundation Board agreed to support the Stage 2 application for RCGF funding, given the complementary nature of the establishment of a Wellbeing Centre in the area.
[Comment] – The meeting with the Foundation took place at the instance of the Foundation (not Kibble) after it was surprised by a congratulatory message from another club at moving to Phase 2. At that moment, it had no knowledge about the application nor the pivotal part it was said to play in its conceptualisation and development. This occurred a mere 3 days before the Phase 2 deadline. Clearly, that was insufficient time to get acquainted with a project that had been under consideration by Kibble for at least a year and 4 months of an application process. The Foundation was not going to stand in the way. The Foundation did not, however, “support” the Stage 2 application. In fact, the material presented to the Foundation prior to submission, and used during the discussions, did not match the application actually submitted. The Foundation was misled.
The Club Board, having confirmed that alignment on the proposal had been achieved, was content that the matter had been concluded appropriately from a St Mirren Football Club perspective. As highlighted, a watching brief on the progress of the application was applied to establish it there were any opportunities for the Club arising from the initiative. The Club Board will always be supportive of any regeneration and development of the area surrounding the stadium if it is complementary to the best interests of the Club.
[Comment] – What steps did the Board take to “confirm alignment”? Did it:
-
Review the application material?
- If not, questions must be asked about the integrity of the enquiry process to “confirm alignment” and whether a failure to review the application and map was a failure of the Directors’ fiduciary duties to the Club.
- If so, then how could the Director’s condone the misstatements of fact in the June 2022 application?
-
Was the Board presented with a copy of the artists’ impression and location map?
- If not, then at least two of the Directors (with full knowledge of the artists impression and the intent to use St Mirren land) were not forthcoming to the other (SMiSA) directors. These two Directors had a fiduciary duty of transparency to the others and to make a full disclosure.
- If so, how is it that alignment could be confirmed when the project was intended to be located on St Mirren owned land?
Notification that the application was unsuccessful was received in January 2023, and the matter is now closed.
[Comment] – While the application may have been unsuccessful, the matter is far from closed. The events leading up the development, preparation, and submission of the application, made on behalf of the Club without Board approval, and the part played by Kibble, is an extremely important governance matter. This issue is exacerbated by the extent of the misstatements and misrepresentations made in the application materials, attributable to the Club and the Foundation, without their knowledge.
It is also worth noting by way of background information that the Club own a parcel of land adjacent to the stadium. Any sale or transfer of that asset, or any other element of the St Mirren estate, would require to be subject to a robust process. This would include being professionally valued, recommended by a majority of the Directors and approved by Club Shareholders as part of the legal Shareholder Agreement.
To reiterate the information outlined above regarding the RCGF application, no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion hence these arrangements were never required.
[Comment] – The artists’ impression and location map, prepared by Kibble, clearly show that St Mirren Football Club land was part of the application.
There have been other parties who have proposed the development of the stadium facilities and these, when they have been suggested, have been treated in a similar manner to the RCGF application by the St Mirren Football Club Board.
[Comment] – The difference is that these other projects:
- were discussed by the Board before steps were taken to gain government funding
- they were not proposed by DIrectors who had a fiduciary duty to the Club
- did not include applications for government funding that contained serious misstatements of fact and material misrepresentations.
Like all fans, the Club Board are looking forward to the next five games that see our Club in the Top Six of the SPFL for the first time, we want everyone to enjoy the games, get right behind the team and are looking forward to a positive end to one of the most successful seasons in our Club's history.
RCGF-R10-Stage-1-submission-guidance-2023-24.doc 120.5 kB · 11 downloads
This is interesting & on First reading of it, I agree with the comments.
Couple of things;
Why is application graphic in name of St Mirren?
What are St Mirren @smisa directors playing at here? The dynamic seems to be they didn't know about any of this, didn't care when it was brought to light and waved it away, like there is no issue and now, if the club released statement is endorsed by all directors, are party to interference in a smisa election and "dodgy" PR style , statement full of deflection & potential inaccuracy.
I know a bit about the RCGF applications. They are a council led application for Scottish government funding.
-
1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:
Because we are working with and not against.
Working with and not against is what should always happen, of course... but who is in charge, who is in control, who sets the agenda?
-
Controlling party: The company is under the joint control of The 1877 Society Limited and Kibble Education and Care
Centre.Is this fan control and ownership? Not sure this is what @smisa deal was or even my understanding after the kibble deal.
Does 51% not mean The 1877 Society Limited are controlling party?
What am I missing?
-
7 hours ago, Jimmy H said:
Devastated to hear about John.
We grew up together at Woodneuk Court Millarston, we did our first ever holiday abroad together, an 18-30 trip to Corfu.
I hope the c”nt who ripped off his business when he was ill rots in hell.
RIP my friend ❤️
My reaction to this news is more than sad Jimmy. Devastating news at the loss of John. He was a really good guy.
-
I'm not going to games, at the moment...
Here are some reasons that might apply to me and perhaps others?No thanks or recognition, none whatsoever, for season long financial outlay during season of no attendance, (didn't watch online)
No invitation, email or otherwise, to renew season ticket,
#INYOUWETRUST is crass,
Red zone and restricted attendance shambles,
No contact to advise if I did by a season ticket my seat was not available because of the red zone,
No contact to advise if I did by a season ticket , because of the red zone, I would be moved to somewhere else,
No contact to advise the red zone is no longer in place and I can have my seat as normal,
Both ends of the ground being allocated to an away team,
St Mirren Directors being supporters of other (Glasgow) clubs,
SMISA appointment of Directors without a members vote,
Shambolic organisation of club services,
Rumours of Directors infighting, power struggle,
Dissatisfaction with Kibble or ownership structure,
It's too cold,
Football is not very good,
COVID is still an issue,
Other things taking priority now,Just some thoughts... take your pick,
No doubt I'll be back, one day soon, don't know when though... -
11 minutes ago, Dickson said:
OK. Think about it logically. Does every shareholder of St Mirren FC get free access to the Directors Lounge and the Directors box on match days? They don't do they? You need to be a club director to have that privilege. Kibble will have two club directors, able to bring as many guests as there are spaces available. Won't they?
The proposal also says that Kibble will be able to veto any other service provider coming into the business. So, for example, when the catering contracts are up for renewal and SMISA are looking to get a bit of cash in by flogging the franchise, they can't unless Kibble approve - and if Kibble have got their eye on that part of the business how do you think those discussions are likely to go?
I look forward to seeing the video - perhaps everything I've raised will be answered in it. If it isn't, then I'd suggest that SMISA members could be voting for a pup on the basis of having far too little information. I certainly find it deeply concerning that the future of the club rests in the hands of some football fans who can't spot someone stripping the club of assets right in front of their eyes.
I'm genuinely interested in what you mean here...
-
2 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:
In 2016, we bought into the deal presented for BTB and took what was said to be the right deal & paid into it.
Last week, I ordered a new car, specific model, in black & whacked down my money for the deal
When I take delivery of that car, if anything is not as I bought into, I'll be getting my money back & spending it on something that is what I bought.
Now,
If this deal gets approved, myself and anyone else dissatisfied with the change we didn't authorise should be entitled to get their money back.
taking your analogy...
You've ordered a new car - , you've paid a deposit up front, about £20, It'll cost you £71 eventually, but you are aware you don't get delivery of it yet for at least another 6 years sir? and you are aware there are a few aspects of the car we're still trying to work out how to operate, like the brakes and headlights, steering wheel seems ok though. It'll be alright though when we deliver it to you - we're sure of that, of that you can be guaranteed 🙂
A while later...
Sir, you know that car you've ordered, not due for another few years - we know you really like it. Well there's an opportunity for us to deliver it to you sooner. We've found a solution for the brakes and headlights and actually the steering is much better than before and you'll not believe this - it will cost you a lot less, only £51, Sir.
How does that sound?
Of course you are entitled to cancel your order, but I'm afraid sir you won't be entitled to your deposit back!
-
1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:
It's being sold as a deal that seems to good to be true. My only concern is there doesn't appear to be substance behind the claims.
Still can't see what they get back for their significant investment (time and money)The Kibble will benefit greatly from brand awareness and by association with St Mirren Football Club,
Positioning themselves alongside the clubs brand will project them right out into the forefront across Scotland,
They will benefit from the opportunities this brings them to grow their own business activities,They will have access to St MIrren football club facilities, which will in turn benefit vulnerable young people and the community of Paisley - that's why they exist.
They are not hiding any of this and St Mirren Football club will benefit as a result.
-
1 minute ago, portmahomack saint said:
That's not what I heard ? they said at the meeting they are service provider and that's how they make their money,
not to detriment or cost to SMFC though, that's what I heard.
Worth following up on your point though - just to be clear. -
2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Honest question for anyone/everyone.
If A.N. Other came along with a counter proposal to lend smisa the funds now to buy Scott's shares.
And that they would undertake to invest in building the club's community trust to advantage all in the local community. And invest in the playing/infrastructure of the club.
And in return would want to be chairman for say five year period then subject to vote if still keen.
How do you think you would vote?
And the above proposal ensured a smisa board majority.that offer is a bit short on detail, is it not?
the one we have in front of us at the moment is a bit more than 6 lines in a thread in the middle of a fans forum!
Come on get sensible Sir!
-
Just now, Lord Pityme said:
No that's just what Div wants you to think.
who he?
-
1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:2 minutes ago, garzo said:you've not let anyone down, you tried your best, just you're unfortunately out of sync with the majority!
Ahh it's a done deal then?
this particular deal has still to have a vote, so I'm not prejudging the outcome of it.
I'm observing you are out of sync on most other matters on here - I may be wrong though!
-
6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Ha, ha ha... good one!
That mean they see smfc as a charity case?
Everything Kibble do is paid for!if it;s in a shareholders agreement, of benefit to St Mirren then it will benefit the kibble
and to be fair, it's not conflict that is of concern, alternative view points are to be encouraged.
It's the outcomes that are important - if these are agreeable and of benefit to all, then the partnership will work.
-
2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
I got involved basically to use my experience, knowledge and expertise to build smisa and the club. I had misgivings about the real endgame of those involved, but thought it better to tackle that from the inside. I accepted there was no perfect deal in my or everyone's eyes.
To be sat down with lifelong saints fans who just wanted assurance their subscription would be ringfenced to buy 71% of the club they loved, then for them to allow me to set up their direct debit online was a privilege.
Now I feel for my part I have let them down, what was promised to them quickly started to dissolve, and it felt wrong.
Kibble are a good organisation, but they simply dont want the same things we want, therefore conflict is inevitable, and will harm both parties.you've not let anyone down, you tried your best, just you're unfortunately out of sync with the majority!
-
7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
I might be misinterpreting this but it seems you are happy to change the original model because kibble will bring expertise in running the club that the fans can't?
I know this is part of their selling point but to me it's not a positive. Are we really saying, let's give kibble this large chunk of shares and pass over the day to day running of the company (not playing side) as its a lot of hard work and the fans consortium won't be any good at either doing it or finding an individual who can?
Im still intrigued as to how all of this expertise kibble will be supplying SMFC will be financed as well.to be fair - does this deal not answer all of your concerns?
are smisa not bringing this deal to the table, to bring on board the necessary expertise that you mention?
it's actually a masterstroke by the fans group!
-
8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
The funniest, but most sinister element in a this is the PR job that suggests Kibble (who are spending £300k on virtually worthless shares in a football club) are only doing this for the community!
Surely sinking £300k into a few community enterprises would be more appropriate if you aren't seeking to benefit financially? Lolit expands their brand - they're not hiding that
-
1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:
I might be misinterpreting this but it seems you are happy to change the original model because kibble will bring expertise in running the club that the fans can't?
I know this is part of their selling point but to me it's not a positive. Are we really saying, let's give kibble this large chunk of shares and pass over the day to day running of the company (not playing side) as its a lot of hard work and the fans consortium won't be any good at either doing it or finding an individual who can?
Im still intrigued as to how all of this expertise kibble will be supplying SMFC will be financed as well.Kibble services will be free to the club
-
13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
I guess?
Potentially less than a tenth of the home support could sell the club?7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:Then why the hell did Smisa, Scott etc insist that the only way to secure the club's future was to back their deal to take on 71% of the club?
I dont know if they've considered, or even care of the inevitable consequence, should this sham be voted through of the majority of those voting against, then deciding to end their membership of Smisa as its changed materially from the fan ownership they were sold?
Mind you they are probably quite sanguine about that.That's in the past, it can still happen like that if the new offer a is not accepted.
However, a new, better, more exciting deal is on the table.
It's on the table for a significant portion of our clubs support to vote to accept or deny,I'll be voting to accept.
-
6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
I guess?
Potentially less than a tenth of the home support could sell the club?big, big benefit in this deal is 51% fan shareholding in the club, a local charity partner in place to help grow the business and help provide long term sustainability of St Mirren FC.
It's a good deal, it's a better one than just having smisa running the club and it's one that should be welcomed,
-
6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Not a smisa member bud.
Although it's more than concerning that a vote by potentially as few as 700 people will decide if over a quarter of the club is sold off to an outside body.thats business
-
24 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
So selling 27.5% of the club to an outside body is not as we were all warned against and persuaded to BtB... is apparently NOT selling the club off to an outside body.
Glad that's been cleared up for us fans who, we were told are the best people to secure the club's future... only to be told, we are in fact the Worse people to be let near the club.
Apparently the only people who are capable of running the club are Scott, and a UK charity.
Now that's been cleared up, can us, not to be trusted people, all have our money back please?
If you never needed us in the first place, presumably you never needed our cash either?did you attend the meeting?
-
18 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Tell me what's Kibble's incentive to "give money" to the club?
Nothing will he going into the club when they buy shares, that goes to the seller.
They will get the "peppercorn" rent and sweetheart deals they always sought, and use the club to further their own enterprises.
They will be in effective control, something that was previously promised to smisa members, fans and the community!Your first two points are 100% correct, no quibble!
Kibble are offering the current majority shareholder money in exchange for his shares, locking in as far as I can see, another batch of shares to Smisa, taking their shareholding and stake in the club to a majority of 51%.
Your third point is speculation.
The fourth factually wrong!
-
2 minutes ago, Stanser said:
f**king sick to my stomach with this debacle.
can I ask why?
-
7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
They have been trying to take control for years, in fact at present they use the club facilities for a pittance run their own enterprises.
Remember they wanted control of the 1877 club etc, and were only paying a peppercorn in the 10000 hours fiasco?
That's the shitstorm that's heading back this way, if YOU let it.
Kibble's reason for being is to make Kibble successful, not St Mirren.
Ask them if they are investing in the playing squad? LolTo be fair, there's no controlling interest to kibble in the proposals as far as I can add up the numbers sir!
Use of club facilities should be at a fair commercial value.
No reason why Kibble shouldn't benefit from the proposals as a result of association and link with the St Mirren Football Club and as such the football club should be looking to maximise benefit to itself and the local community.
The football club, as always, will be responsible for investing in the playing squad, as I understand within our means.
Explosive Smisa application
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
I enjoyed the last 10 minutes 🙂