Dickson

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.  

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

Showing your age. 

Really?
League Cup all day long. And it isn’t just the final us Saints fans remember, it was also that cracker of a semi final when we punted Celtic out.
Scraping survival against Dundee United comes nowhere near close.

League Cup win, that team go down in history.
The play off.................................that team will slip into oblivion.
Absolutely no contest on what day was better, the joy and pride on the League Cup day is simply unbeatable, could be equalled but not beaten.
More relief on the play off day, not even close. 

I seen him at the game.
He was definitely wearing trousers.

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
 

Smisa paid him off last year along with the other directors

1... Worrying  aspect.
2... Glad you clarified that.
3...True.
 

Ah, but all his goals are lucky! [emoji3]

Of course there is...
But under the original proposal, we, the fans, would have more control over who makes the decisions.

Note... Not over the decisions... but over who is elected to make them.

Fan management is suicidal... Fan ownership is not.

We could still come to agreement with the Kibble and other charities or community groups...

Without seriously reducing our shareholding.

He didn’t need money - if that was an issue he would never have joined us. His career was spent earning wages we could never hope to match.
Agree regarding Alex Smith - it’s the cup successes people remember. We’ve been in so many relegation battles I’ve forgotten most of them outside of the 3-2 Fir Park thriller and that random stunning performance at Falkirk when we won 2-0.

Thommo is not correct. 
We are in a League we cannot win. 
Only useful to play practice matches so we can compete and win Cup Competitions. 
I will change my outlook once Sevco and Celtic are booted tae feck. 
Till then, the farce will continue. 

I've read the proposal, watched the video, asked and had answered my questions and have now voted. I really do like the idea of the link up with Kibble and acknowledge the need for the expertise on offer but I still can't see why the shares are required to achieve the aims and requirements of both the club and Kibble, as a result i've voted no. I'll continue to pay my monthly cash no matter what the result so let's see what the result is on Friday.

It already is, being a member of the SFA

No, its just a matter of principle to me. 

I don't have an issue with that...

I want to know why the veto they insisted on goes far beyond that.

Still nobody can tell me. [emoji25]

Nothing to worry about really.What alarm bells?
 
What could possibly go wrong there?
 
Kibble are just protecting their investment, or so I was told!
 
Here's me thinking SMISA had invested even more.
 
No matter how much this is played down or justified, there is the potential for some real scary shit in the future.
 

Jeezo, best win we've had in years and people still posting in here. 😜
Back burner guys, it's a football forum. 

Best striker this football club has had since Thommo.

What a player.

Love him.

Indeed....

If the Veto is no big deal then the answer is simple... Remove it as an option.

Kibble INSIST on it to have a "degree of influence".

Also, and I quote... According to SMISA, "A trading agreement would not give the required security for long-term
investment they want to make".

Now I am curious.

What would a legally binding trading agreement not cover that a shareholding and acquiesced veto would do.

Yet the Veto is fundamental to their bid. Why?

I'm not sure I've read anything to suggest that anyone is trying to change your view and your view is something you're entitled to as is your vote.
Anyway this has taken up enough of my time this afternoon........I'm off to work on a Constitution I am helping to write for a set-up not too dissimilar to what we've been discussing...…...it will include a Constitution , the Rules of Governance (of said Constitution) By-Laws and areas of authority, spend limits etc. Having read a lot of the points in the various discussions on here and listened to others views and opinions  it has given my a broader understanding on the potential pitfalls of not protecting certain assets and aspects sufficiently....every day's a school day and all that!!

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about what has been going at any meetings. I'm not going to pretend I understand the complexities of business. I am just a fan of SMFC who wanted to help get my club in to fan ownership. I voted no because I feel misled.