Jump to content


Torfason Club
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Kombibuddie

  1. Sign back up. You can for a £fiver (I believe) & i'll see you at the SMISA AGM 😁
  2. Your say so, just not cutting it just as my say so wouldn't cut it with you. Hey ho. Needham in 😁
  3. I cannot see "all" ever happening but whoever did, would no longer be a member of SMISA.
  4. Predate Kibble you said. July & August 2021 you "evidence" Reps from the Kibble been on the Board since March 2020. πŸ€” πŸ€” πŸ€” It doesn't take a genius to work out july & august 2021 did not happen before (predate) march 2020. Dear oh dear. "Moving goalposts" 🀣🀣 Back to the topic in hand Needham In 😁
  5. 🀣🀣 Astounding spin (or basil bollocks as it was affectionately known.)
  6. You haven't satisfied the evidence request but there's no point bickering over something we both know you're not going to present. My reference to March 2020 is to counter your misleading suggestion of only 6 months of Kibble "partnership" with involvment in the club. Hopefully, you'll agree, neither of us know who is to blame for this that or whatever. Who's to blame is not my concern as long as it gets sorted & lessons are learned to prevent a recurrence.
  7. Are you suggesting the two Kibble reps on the St Mirren board since 20th March 2020 had no input in the following 16 - 17 months prior to your exhibits of evidence existing? I have no idea how engaged in the matters you've presented as evidence they were but I'd hazard a guess at fairly to heavily (engaged). Given the expertise & professionalism they were reportedly bringing to the table, i can see why some folk are looking in their direction when looking at any faults. Only the decision makers (BoD) will know how much "blame" sits where for things gone wrong. But so far, your evidence is as weak as the bovril at cappielow Got anything pre March 2020?
  8. Got it. Cheers. Or so i thought until I re-read. You've misunderstood (deliberately it appears) To avoid doubt, "evidence?" Was asking you for the evidence to spport your claim that folk are blaming Kibble for historical issues that predated them.
  9. Which are? That you claim Kibble are being blamed for. As you would ask....evidence?
  10. Perhaps too many changes in that short period of time has been too much for the organisation (St Mirren FC) as a whole & if lessons are being learned. Less of the too much too soon in future
  11. We are talking about the success of the partnership.? Not who is or who are to blame? Are we not? Since you mention "The Chairman" and none of the issues raised by folk on the forum (there's been a bit of a list this season) A daft tweet as chairman & historical tweet as a punter is not a partnership killer unless one of the parties wishes for it to be. We'll see. This "alleged" legal spat is the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more factors to define the success or failure of the partnership.
  12. Alleged legal action amongst Club Chairman & a minoriity shareholder +/- the majority shareholder embroiled in it too. Right you are, the "proof will be in the pudding"
  13. No sacrifice needed. If Kibble are dissatisfied, they can name their price & lets have the majority owners decide
  14. I hope these rumours are not true too but on the off chance, there is a shred in it...... If they (Kibble) have even sought legal advice on that vein....time for them to put together their exit strategy & put it to SMISA for a buyout (of Kibble (to avoid doubt or spin)).
  15. Correct, but if Kibble aren't happy with things (as a minority shareholder), they are welcome to put their price (for their shareholding) to SMISA & SMISA can ask it's members if they want to buy Kibble out. If suggestions elsewhere about Kibble taking legal action against The Club to have John Needham removed as chairman are true. The working relationship has broken down (irrepairably i'd say) & Kibble should put together an exit strategy & put it to SMISA. Oh, I'm in the John Needham to stay camp. He hasn't committed a crime. I expect officials at other clubs have, on occasion, forgotten the responsibilities of their roles & not been hounded out. John Needham shouldn't be either. A big reminder of "say what you like about them (whoever "them" may be) in private. Never in public" & lets get back to important matters. The football.
  16. what's the chance's there's a wee rendition of 'Johnny Needhams black & white army' on Saturday
  17. your jokes are worse than John Needham's πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚
  18. 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?
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. The monthly spend results are a clear indication of that. No harm in putting the question to a vote πŸ˜ƒ 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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 πŸ˜€ I digress, I'll refer you to the bit where you write Enough said πŸ˜„ Have a nice evening Buddie 🍺🍺
  • Create New...