Kombibuddie

what's the chance's there's a wee rendition of 'Johnny Needhams black & white army' on Saturday

your jokes are worse than John Needham's 😂😂😂

Thanks Pod. Unfortunately, i'm no further forward to finding out if JN has merely offended rangers or (as seems suggested in some quarters) committed a hate crime?

Lads & lassies, I'm out the loop on what is lawful/unlawful or sectarian/nonsectarian in Scotland. Living in England has it's benefits of no one I know gives a toss about religion/sectarianism. Has John Needham offended Rangers or has his tweets been unlawful? If the former, he should be censured not to do it again and be reminded of his responsibilities the Chairmanship of St Mirren FC brings & he should fight tooth & nail to never give rangers 2 stands ever again.

It would be hard to ignore the question if a "Special Resolution" was proposed. Which could happen if there was no plans to consider a vote.

The monthly spend results are a clear indication of that. No harm in putting the question to a vote 😃 Totally agree. I'd still be St Mirren through & through, if we dropped down the divisions due to lack of cash (It won't happen though) Ahh, lack of cash........ that pot that SMISA are building could be offset against that forsaken financial benefit of giving a 2nd stand to away supporters. That's a spend that'd be worth it. SMISA paying St Mirren to keep rangers & celtic out of a 2nd stand. What a legacy that could be. St Mirren's Fan Owners benefitting The Club by prioritising the fan base.

I don't agree with giving rangers or celtic 1 stand, never mind 2. But that's me. However, I believe it is within the SMISA members gift to have a vote (online or at the SMISA AGM) and as majority shareholders, give an instruction to The Club Board not to give the opposition support a 2nd stand (or additional seating elsewhere in the ground). 1 stand will do. Unless a vote is carried out amongst the fans (SMISA Members), we'll never know, if there is support for not giving or giving, the North Stand and the Family stand to the opposition when they visit. No doubt, the argument of "fan owned doesn't mean fan run" Why else do we have a BoD is likely to be brought up. To a certain extent, that is true but not absolute. When the majority owner (SMISA membership) has a majority/overwhelming opinion, it would be remiss of The Club Board (&/or The SMISA board) to ignore it. A simple vote amongst the SMISA members should be sufficient but I have a feeling, to move forward with such a thing a "Special Resolution" would need to be voted on and accepted at a SMISA AGM. Just a thought.

I just don’t fully agree they are such big issues or necessarily need attention right now. Bazil, This is so much more like it. I like this 'you'. I'd even buy this fella a beer 😀 I digress, I'll refer you to the bit where you write Enough said 😄 Have a nice evening Buddie 🍺🍺

The delete button was a great invention. Never read a word as it'll be full of utter pish & littered with you spinning all that you can. You crack on with your delusional misunderstandings, misinterpretations, making shite up and clutching at make believe straws. 🥱

I know. The discussion has run it's course for me with Baz on this.

Baz, I hope you don't mind. I'm not reading your post in it's entirety. I too, can't be bothered. I was scrolling by & something caught my eye, hence a much shorter post than a dissemination of your whole post that started with the quote below. You really shouldn't have bothered as , You clearly haven't understood When I said, "nothing has changed" I meant that Kibble would continue doing what they've been doing St Mirren FC would continue doing what they've been doing. SMiSA would continue doing what they've been doing. hence my comment about "not criticising" Kibble and saying "nothing has changed" related to all of the above and everyone else not mentioned, doing what they've been doing for the betterment of St Mirren Football Club. Your interpretation of my opinions is so far off the scale. You are making stuff up and it only exposes you as being someone who refuses to consider an other views. I didn't feel ridiculed by your misinterpretations & comments about "doomsday scenarios" that only fully exposes you for posting utter shite. You seem hellbent on arguing other viewpoints for the sake of it & your persistent misunderstanding of others opinions embarrasses you above anyone else. Do you clasp your hands with glee when you read someone else post & think "how can this be ripped apart and me make them sound like they hate St Mirren" That appears to be one of your favourite lines, people being anti St Mirren. I'd suggest you go back & re-read & try see if you can interpret properly, mine & others viewpoints before you wrongly jump all over them. It might help you understand better & enable other posters to start valuing some of what you post instead of thinking 'here Baz goes again' I haven't read the rest of your post because I cannot be bothered responding to all your inaccuracies & misinterpretations (if the above quotes are a reflection of the content). The wheel can continue to turn and we can still discuss all things St Mirren or whatever. Sometimes we'll agree & other times we won't. I am fine with that. We ain't the chuckle brothers either, this isn't a game of to me to you. Have a nice day.

🤣🤣🤣 If nothing else, you still make me laugh Baz but you're still spouting Utter shite "Doomsday scenarios" 🤣🤣🤣 you've not changed one bit. You'll keep believing the pish you spout & many will keep thinking 'utter pish' at what you post. And the wheel will keep on turning.

I know. Been on BAWA holiday for about 2 years.

I was & the day for gifting The Club funds is many years away. Shouldn't be on the table now. We agree & hopefully, all his aspirations are realised. Who had £1 400 000 cash in hand? SMiSA or St Mirren? If SMiSA, hasn't a fair chunk of that been spent in the past 2 weeks completing the share purchase from GLS?If St Mirren, did I miss that in the accounts? Under the model "overwhelmingly" accepted, we will be investing substantially in The Club with the %'s going to the Youth Academy & Charitable Foundation. The point I am making is, if the Club is well run (as you have declared many times & I am not disputing), there is no need to ask any of its shareholders for a money. The Club should be self sufficient and pay its own way. I have explained usage of SMiSA money previously. I am not criticising Kibble. I hope Kibble's involvement is beneficial to both, The Club & Kibble. Replace "dressed up" with "presented as" & you may have understood my point better. That's fine then. Kibble bought into The Club and it is not unreasonable to expect Kibble to fulfil their responsibilities of a 27% Major shareholder. Happy days. & when Kibble cannot provide the service? SMISA foots 100% of the bill?? This well run club should be able manage it's finances prudently to ensure it can pay its way and not need to go cap in hand to its major shareholders. The current deal with Kibble is beneficial to both Kibble & The Club. That is not changing. My previous response is there. No worries if you do not agree. Have you misread or deliberately misunderstood? Read it again. If you still don't get it, fine. If you disagree, fine. If you get it & agree.. Happy Days. My argument is not an us v's them in any way. We agree on the ultimate goal but disagree on financial prudence with SMISA' funds.

Yes, you are assuming correctly. I was talking about the 50% cash reserves. I've already mentioned how the money could potentially be used. Who knows, stadium expansion in the future, could grow beyond filling in the corners or reconfiguring accessibility within the current stands (partitions/divides for accommodation of visiting supporters). If Tony Fitzpatricks aspirations for the club are matched by the majority shareholders (SMiSA) and minority shareholders (Kibble & all other shareholders (including myself)) and the home support continues to grow, who knows? There is a hope that St Mirren sell enough season tickets to support only giving rangers & celtic the North stand only. Why stop there? Enough season tickets to partition the North Stand to house home supporters too. Tony's aspirations should not be limited to filling our 8000 seat stadium, let's go 1 step at a time & maybe one day, building a bigger stand (as crowds increase). & that £86K per season doesn't need to be spent for the sake of spending it (I said this a few years ago at the SMISA AGM regarding the £2 pot) I'm not saying Kibble should gift money, therefore not taking money out of the hands of a charity. Kibble done that all by themselves purchasing a 27% shareholding in a football club. As the majority shareholder, I am saying SMiSA shouldn't be gifting money or be expected to gift money without the other major shareholders being asked/expected too. As you have pointed out many times, St Mirren is "well run", the profits generated by The Club should cover all the day to day running costs as well as covering anticipated maintenance costs etc. If St Mirren choose to sign X player from Whoever FC, the club should be budgeting for that, not banking (pardon the pun) on SMiSA' cash reserves to fund it. I respect your right to have that opinion. I don't share your opinion. With a 51% stake in the club, SMiSA are the new Majority Shareholders not the new owners. If me & you bought a house together and I owned 51% of it, am I the owner or with you owning 49%, would we be joint owners? Using this analogy, would you expect me to foot the bill for all costs? No. Of course you wouldn't and neither would I if the % of ownership was switched. If the house rose in value & we sold it for double what we bought it for, how would it be divied up? Would you want to give up 49% of the profit if it was only your money that maintained the property (as majority owner)? Can you find me anyone who would? It appears that is SMiSA' plan (for now) As 27% shareholders, is Kibble not linked through ownership? that aside, the goals should be aligned however, as a business, every company should be self sufficient. I favour lending the money, interest free supports the club whilst maintaining SMiSA' cash reserves for big ticket items in the future that the club will need support to fund. SMiSA has a responsibility to it's members first & foremost. If the will of the members is to gift the money, that is what will happen. If the members will is to lend money, that is what should happen. All previous majority shareholders lent The Club money & had it paid back. There were other shareholders who lent money & had it paid back (well documented over the years. Some even re-mortgaged to keep the club going, I believe. All were paid back) Why do you think, as majority shareholders now, SMiSA should be gifting every penny to the club ("what else will it be spent on"? I don't agree with you on that Kibble' involvement was dressed up that both benefitted from each others services. Nothing has changed., The majority shareholders are SMiSA & Kibble, Kibble has a proportion of their representatives on The Club's board of Directors, they chose to buy a 27% shareholding. No one (not even you) should be expecting them to be absolved of the responsibility their 27% shareholding brings. My opinion is, if St Mirren FC needs urgent funds, it could (subject to member approval) be provided by SMiSA by means of a loan. If it is suggested the funds required (or proportion of) are gifted, the other majority shareholders (Kibble or otherwise) should be contributing a proportionate amount according to their % of shareholding. Back to me & you buying that house analogy. One day, Kibble might decide, their investment in St Mirren FC has run it's course but SMiSA has bankrolled St Mirren from now until then and Kibble decide to sell. Do they sell at their purchase price? What their shares are worth on takeover day or do they ask for market value and ask for 27% of what St Mirren is worth at the time they decide to sell? Bottom line is, I am all in favour of SMiSA supporting St Mirren develop & grow. But not in favour of SMiSA as being treated like a cash cow. Enjoy your day Bas.