Jump to content

Dickson

Saints
  • Content Count

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Dickson last won the day on February 11

Dickson had the most liked content!

About Dickson

  • Rank
    Youth team regular

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ricky. Why would that need to be the case? Let's for a moment assume that everything we have been told is correct. SMiSA and Gordon Scott think that having a partnership with Kibble is a great thing that will see growth at the club, and Kibble have seen an opportunity to get involved with the club to use the clubs facilities to train their kids for the working environment. What is there to stop that from happening without the share purchase and the veto? Why would Kibble need to spend £300k on shares that they themselves see as so worthless they might even give them away to SMISA? Why would Kibble need the power of a veto over the SMISA board? And why would SMISA feel the need to give up the strong position at the club they all support, in order to give a third party a veto over every major decision they make? Is Gordon Scott really so desperate for the £300k right now that he would want to see control of his boyhood club given to a third party? Surely if the deal is rejected there would still be scope for a less invasive partnership with Kibble on terms that would sit better with the clubs support? And if there isn't then I think it would be quite clear that St Mirren have dodged a bullet.
  2. If that is your rational then it's bonkers. Seriously did you read what you wrote? Currently SMISA are heading for 7!% share ownership. We were all sold this as a great idea that secured the future of the club forever. When the deal is concluded the club would be under the control of SMISA members who can do pretty much as they wish. You are voting to reduce that shareholding to 51%. If that is carried a third party will hold 27% and won't just have the protection afforded in law to any minority shareholder with a 25% shareholding.(to veto any Special Resolutions) but enhanced powers to veto "any major decision". And you are going to rely on Chick Young and his pals to be interested enough, and to understand it enough to stop this third party using their veto for anything. I absolutely understand your other post with concerns about the ability of the SMISA membership to run a football club. If you'd stopped there then fair enough. You voted yes cause you want competent leadership. Fine, great. What I don't quite get is why you were so desperate to prove the point that the SMISA membership couldn't run a football club by showing you personally couldn't be trusted to work through the issue logically and to vote in a manner that made any sense.
  3. I remember that too. It may have been in the form of a questionnaire. As I remember it though they were looking for specific professional qualifications and skills rather than interests and hobbies and skills. I totally understand why they went that way, but if I were an accountant or a solicitor - whilst I might be happy to read something through for them, or check something and offer advice for free, I don't think I'd be keen to extend my working week for no pay all the time for them. I thought what Stewart Donald at Sunderland did was interesting when he first took over there are chairman. The majority of fans were embarrassed about the seats in their stadium. The weather had battered them and seats that were once red were now pink. He told the fans that he'd buy the seats and if they'd come in and install them he would feed them. Within 9 days 10,000 new seats had been installed and after 3 months 32,000 seats had been changed over. They weren't looking for skilled tradesmen to do the job - just football fans that they could supervise using a screwdriver. https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/11540607/sunderland-replace-32000-seats
  4. I can't find it on the SMISA website, but isn't the vote closed now anyway? If it has then it's pointless continuing to argue about it. I just hope that if the proposal is voted through, that those who voted for it end up being on the right side of history and that they don't regret their decision. Somehow I don't think the excuse of "I just trusted the SMISA committee" and "I was too busy to read the legal agreement" will hold much credence if it transpires that the SMISA membership have voted to replace supporter control of the club with a model that proves financially debilitating, or the membership find that their views cannot be carried because Kibble have a veto.
  5. SMiSA has a legal agreement with Gordon Scott - or at least so they tell us - to buy all but 8% of the shares he owns (giving them a total 71% shareholding). To facilitate Gordon Scott selling all but 0.05% of his shares to Kibble (giving them a 27% shareholding) SMiSA has to agree to set aside this legal agreement (thereby reducing their total shareholding to just 51%) That is the reason for the vote. SMiSA Members have not been asked to vote on whether to allow Kibble a veto on all ordinary and special resolutions on the club board. The SMiSA committee, Gordon Scott and Kibble have already decided that if they can get SMISA members to agree to waive their legal agreement the veto will be part of the arrangement. The "extended" veto is being sold to fans as something that protects all sides - which it does do in the interim period whilst Gordon Scott's shares are still being transferred over to SMISA ownership. However once this period has passed the veto is to remain in place. The only beneficiary from that would be Kibble. Under normal circumstances any minority shareholder with 25% of the shares in a company or more would be allowed a veto on Special Resolutions only. However in this proposal the veto is to be extended to "all major decisions within the club".
  6. Really? Wow that really would smack of desperation.
  7. You also want people to ignore the very real pitfall that is the enhanced veto rights that have been given to Kibble.
  8. Yeah I agree. It's not just about football either these days. It seems to be the way of Social Media where there are party line people who will tell you how you are meant to think and if you disagree you get attacked. And the irony is that the same people attempting to shut down discussion and debate often screech first about the importance of diversity in society. Over the years I've enjoyed forums because in amongst all the mud slinging and abuse there is often a degree of learning in the debate there too. Forums are far less enjoyable when it's just an echo chamber.
  9. I have acknowledged that I think the partnership with Kibble will, on balance, be a good thing for the club. Is that not me being positive about the deal? You think you are being positive, but to be honest I think you are being reckless and cavalier. You want everyone to ignore the pitfalls and to drive through this proposal on the basis of trust no matter how the legal agreement is drafted. Are you like that with decisions that involve your own personal finances, or just the things that are being paid for by everyone else?
  10. Nope. I last emailed Freeman about three weeks ago with a personal matter. And I last had an email exchange with Alan Russell just over a week ago. Both LPM and Bazil will confirm that I had previous dealings with Alan Russells superior at Supporters Direct too - Andrew Jenkins.
  11. Let me deal with the bold bit first. 10000Hours weren't offering a shareholding in the football club or a veto. There was a different structure to 10000Hours and those that followed it understood it. There was two levels of board. One was the CIC board, and the other was the club board. Kibble were in talks to be on the CIC board. They would have held no influence or veto over the football club at all. There was never any signed agreement because 10000Hours failed to conclude their purchase of shares from Gilmour and Co. What I would add as well though is that it would be possible to have a legally binding community partnership agreement drawn up that would have protected Kibble without the need for them to buy £300k worth of shares. As I've said many times already I'm comfortable enough with Kibbles involvement - I think it will probably be a good thing - however the share sale and the extended power of veto doesn't sit well with me. As for the rest, well first of all thank you for your appraisal of the 2012 situation. As I've also pointed out though there are matter of great importance in the sport that come up at fairly regular intervals in the Scottish game. One other example I have given was from 1992. Back then the St Mirren board of directors were faced with a vote of national significance. Rangers and Celtic wanted to start a new breakaway league that would see them trouser a far larger chunk of TV money than they did previously. The proposal was for the inception of a new league - the SPL - breaking away from the old Scottish Football League. The SPL would limit membership to clubs that had a minimum 10,000 seats. St Mirren had 9,400 odd at the time and were in the second tier. At the vote all 10 top flight teams voted for the new league but the voting structure meant they needed the support of two more. Raith Rovers, who had 10,000 seats, and who were riding high in the league backed them. One to go but no-one else met the SPL criteria. The only other club with 10,000 seats was Queens Park but they weren't a full time professional club. The club that cast the decisive vote - St Mirren. Years later when Gilmour was bemoaning having to pay out for a new stand, I challenged him. He was on the board at the time in 1992 and I presumed they had instructed their representative - John Paton - to vote for it. Gilmour claimed that wasn't true. Paton had been instructed to vote against the proposal but he voted for it when he got to the meeting. The reason for bringing that up - well the new structure suggests that the two Kibble reps on the board are going to be more available for these kinds of meeting than the SMISA reps on the board who will have their own day jobs to attend to. So is there a danger that once again the club could be faced with a situation where someone who doesn't support the club casts a vote of the same significance? There's loads of other examples of meetings where this could be important, from setting minimum prices at football grounds, to voting for different league reconstruction models, or even just for to re-appoint the CEO of the SPFL. The kind of decisions that independent Supporter Associations were keen to ensure fans had a say in - yet which at St Mirren could be veto'd by an outside body. Its not quite as benign as you think. Lastly if Kibble proposed a plastic pitch at the SDA, the SMISA members on the board wouldn't need a veto. They would hold the 51% voting majority. The veto isn't there to protect SMISA, or the St Mirren support, it's there to protect Kibble!
  12. No Bazil. I'll ignore your attempt to once again play the man and simply point out that Richard Atkinson has already confirmed that he held talks with Kibble back during the 10000Hours bid. The only material difference is the number of shares Gordon Scott is selling / being left with, and the fact that we now have a third party with the power to veto every major decision the fans think they can make through fan ownership.
  13. It was me who brought it up and the reason was to ask fans to think through what might have happened had Kibble had a veto on the boardroom vote back in 2012. My argument was that the sport couldn't be seen to treat "Rangers" differently to how they had already dealt with Gretna, Clydebank, Airdrieonians and Third Lanark - just because "Rangers" had a large fan base that brought revenue to the game. I believed passionately that if "Rangers" were treated differently then you might as well pull the shutters down across every senior ground in Scottish Football cause you'd signalled that the sport in Scotland was completely f**ked! I'm glad I was on the right side of history back then. But had a third party held a veto on the board back then can we be sure that they wouldn't have forced a St Mirren board to follow the obvious short term business needs of the club - over what was morally right and correct?
  14. 11 out of the 13 guys off the forum I sat with did plus the three members of the board that were in attendance. I'd say it was probably as high as 50/50 on the forum. I didn't hang around to watch Gilmour present to the wider audience but ive read Gilmour won a show of hands there too. I'm not sure what changed his vote on the day. I'd love to claim some credit but I'd imagine he was more likely convinced by other SPL chairman like Stewart Milne. It certainly wasn't a proud moment in St Mirren history
  15. Having had recent communication with both can i just say that an endorsement from either should read like a loud siren to anyone with a brain in their head!
×
×
  • Create New...