Brilliant Disguise

Acquiring shares in the club makes it easier to access the rights to use the clubs name and assets in your objective to squeeze more money out of a variety of 3rd party funding initiatives that become available

Its primary existence is the young people, the fact that its employees can achieve a £230k annual Directors salary is just a bonus.

AW stood on a mandate to go for the Kibble board members. The SMISA members did not agree with his mandate. It’s dropped and we move on. Aggrieved board members with too much money then decide to play billy big baws and go legal ego on the matter. Just as well most other people have sensible heads and lack of funds when offended to resist from the childish “I’m going to sue you” scenario. As started earlier this is the second legal advice on board members that have been sought. The meeting last night inferred that another board member had to seek legal advice due to an issue in the board room.

The same as where we are now. In the SPL. You are giving too much plaudits to the Kibble and ignoring the people in the club and the fans who have been loyal to the club many years before they arrived. When you’re playing well you attract more fans, better players and in theory can generate better revenue from both.

You have misconstrued what was actually stated last night with your evident dislike for AW The facts are that 2 Kibble Employees/SMFC Directors have taken a legal case against AW. The said employees have cited SMISA in their legal case in some form or another. SMISA have now incurred legal costs in order to protect itself and its members. If the later had not occurred then it had feck all to do with SMFC or SMISA and was about the 3 individuals. So much so had SMISA not been mentioned then the whole issue could easily have been shut down and not discussed at all. From the legal case and the SMISA pre meeting statement, someone has something to hide and has been less than honest from the beginning . Good luck to the three of them, they are all as bad as each other I hope they spend a fortune on legal fees trying to see who can pee the highest and who has the largest ego.

What was more concerning was the admission that there has been legal advice sought twice for 2 (former/current) board directors. Also SMISA took advice to rid themselves of the Kibble ????? Imagine putting yourself on a board to be bullied by the constant threats of legal action. That sounds like a jolly good board working effectively together.

100% Shambolic. Sounds like we have a majority board being bullied by the minority members. No way to run a company. Threats of legal action when they don’t get their way.

Or it could send out a message not to take on the “controlling” members of the board. Irrespective of who is right or wrong on the facts the sentiments of the civil action is worrying. This is not the first flex of legal muscle from the “controlling” members of the board and will certainly not be the last.

You obviously missed the bit I wrote When only a 1/3 voted in the recent elections suggests that 2/3 are not that bothered. (That is the norm for anything that is SMISA related and that is a problem) That does not however mean that 2/3rds of the membership can have you decide on their thoughts on the matter. The few shouty grumpy old men had their opinion. Funny how no one in the room offered a differing opinion. I did not witness a single person stand up and defend the board, other than the board. What i have taken from your post is the best SMISA members are the ones who don’t engage but keep paying their money. If you voice an opinion you are labelled one of the few shouty grumpy old men. IMO - AW has made a tit of himself over this. Not on the content of his allegations but in the manner, the timing and the ignorance of who he was taking on. In relation to the content of his allegations I don’t care. The nub of the argument is the claim that Kibbles guys are in it for themselves. From what i observed the SMFC guys are in it also for themselves. JN hinted at other issues on the board. Who was the other Director that they took legal advice on to have removed and why.

What’s the timeline from that original accusation and the Kibble excuse it was the Council. Days, weeks MONTHS !!!!

Episode 2 is the real action. It’s the most cringeworthy watch you will ever see. Not one member on the board and former member comes across with any credibility. Needham gets pulled up for making faces at the people asking questions. (We wasn’t alone the entire board was doing it) Disgraceful actions from a so called chairman. Paul M got the wrong end of the stick when he was appointed to the board. He looked like he was appointed to be bored. Dia Station on the board needs to get some anger management training.

With the current run in form I would suggest getting them in the team on Saturday. One may have a conflict of interest.😂

I like many others just want a club that is run by professionals. The backstabbing and bickering should be done at board level not in public. AW, JG and JN have washed the clubs dirty underwear in public. Some and possibly all have lied to the supporters and the Fans Owned Club.

Time will tell. !! Keep brushing. But that carpet will soon become a hill.