Jump to content

Brilliant Disguise

Saints
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brilliant Disguise

  1. LPM was inferring that the BOARD are not happy with the result of the vote.
  2. So the board that allowed the vote are now divided by the result of the vote. Sounds like as Tory Government. So which board member is not happy with the vote result. OR did you make it up
  3. That's a seperate issue, although certainly one that should also be part of this. Many St. Mirren fans may be fine with below living wage or even no wage if it benefits St. Mirren SMFC already have a track record of that
  4. Sally. Last 3 paragraphs succinct and to the point đź‘Ź
  5. Please advise the masses what falls in to a “Special Resolution” And how it falls in to this perception that the Veto block everything
  6. Its like an Advent Calendar of smear. Today window opened Lets roll out the “added income to the club”. If the vote is yes and GLS is gone who is the next target for your malevolence. Heard a rumour that Kibble are to appoint a Richard A to the board. Now that would be funny
  7. Luck and fortunate timing were the greatest asset of SG and the previous board. Some times in business that’s they way it goes. Remember the reason we are having this debate is down to SG and his consortium selling their shares. They only sold to SMISA via GLS because after 2 years no one was interested in paying them the monies they thought they were due. The debt the club were in to the banks is not the same as Kibble buying 27% off the shares. The banks could have liquidated the club, the Kibble can’t, SMISA would veto the vote
  8. Buying someone’s share is not financial aid its a purchase Clutching at straws linking Mr Gillespies throw away comment of possibly gifting the shares back as offering finically aid. When i watched the coverage i took that comment as a playing to the masses
  9. I read the stuff on the SMISA webpage in the “Interim Period section” just could not believe this was the VETO that you and LPM kept referring to. You both had portrayed it as if Kibble could veto everything associated with the club. We are now on to the Kibble stopping everything as its part of the business club. Re your earlier message. The Club have already had history of running a failed leisure club. That was the days before Puregym and The Gym.
  10. Which bit of this do you not like GLS for. 1. Selling.his shares to the Kibble 2. Drives a flash car 3. Is a property Developer 4. He is the chairman of a football club Look up the definition of hand out
  11. Of course they were going to fill the table on the evening to launch the initiative with the beauty parade. What was the alternative fill the table with you, LPM, Melmac and BIEK to tell the SMISA member how great it is not to be a member of SMISA and that it was a shit idea. Let’s see how the vote goes and see if it was worthy of you special resolution and 66/33 vote. Open debate only works when you are debating facts not the continual search for the Smoking Gun. We are back to the magic Veto again. the veto that is now being played out as the Kibble revoking the business plan of SMFC being a football club. Your last paragraph appears to be your attempt to get support from SD(Scotland) to block a vote for an organisation that you are not even a member of.
  12. Since you have referred to their specific reference. Are they wrong about Wonga?
  13. You are presuming that the SMISA membership will get to vote on every aspect of running the club. If that is completely illogical. SMISA should be asked to vote on Directors that will represent them not refer continually back to the membership on every aspect of running the business
  14. What is the Clubs business plan other than running a football club. What else are we planning to branch in to.
  15. Is that the white flag I see. Lol Your agenda is well documented on here for all to see. What you don’t realise is that you and one other who is pro SMISA actually stifle proper debate on any matter that is brought up. You come on her with a smidge of a fact and turn that in to a smoking gun of bullshit. Some buy it others don’t You never respond to facts when challenged or provide substantiation for your argument
  16. I believe that beating companies sponsoring football clubs is a conflict of interest. As well as being morally wrong. that just my opinion. If the Kibble veto such a decision i would welcome their governance
  17. LPM tactic number 1. Do not answer the question asked. Go for deflection Clause 4.2 is that todays smoking gun. Lost cause. The SMISA members will decide with a democratic vote on what they wish. That the powers of fans ownership
  18. I don’t know why the Kibble have included the clause. However i have already given you a plausible reason to why they wish to to be in place. They wish to protect their Name and the Brand from a band of fans who may be willing to sell the mane of the club to a strip club, drug dealer, money lender or some other unsavoury organisation that would devalue. You must be aware of the ongoing debate on the morality of football clubs being sponsored by betting companies. Does the club wish to be associated with an organisation that brings misery to millions of people. Scenario (Completely Hypothetical as the scenario is not legal, but go back 25 years) Benson & Hedges wish to have their name on our shirts and are willing to pay £1m per year. Is this in your eyes what is more important brand or money
  19. So the Kibble sell their services out with Renfrewshire therefore that makes them not a Local Company. Yet they have 4 premises in Renfrewshire, they employee people presumably local to them, they pay local business rates but they are not local. SMFC are therefore not local. If the Kibble was only selling services locally they would not have a ÂŁ30m turn over and over 600 staff.
  20. So where else do the Kibble operate from other than Renfrewshire. Give me registered premises not some pish that they take vulnerable kids from Cornwall.
  21. The only flaw in that plan is that Kibble... are not a local community organisation. They operate across the uk. That is a crock of shit and from a small minded individual with no concept of a good business model. The kibble “no we only take people form Renfrewshire, you go and find your own local organisation” The kibble are based and resourced in Renfrewshire. That is what make them local. That’s like saying SMFC is not a local club. We have employees and players that were not from Renfrewshire and we take money from fans that are not from Renfrewshire. Therefore in your ivory tower we are not a local club.
  22. What could go wrong with these clauses. From what i can see the conditions being applied are good governance for any business.. Kibble wish to stop SMISA aka the Club associating themselves with brands, names and organisations that may bring a quick buck but ultimately tarnish the club and the Kibbles name. The clubs legacy is one of its major assets that require to be protected. This clause is not the doomsday veto that is being mooted on here by others. The clause does go beyond the normal stature of company law However its not the smoking gun that some are looking for. The clause does not allow Kibble to force their will on the club. It stops the Club selling the brand or its colours to a strip club, money lender, drug dealer the list goes on. The Director clause is the biggest hurdle to overcome in that a Kibble Director in theory could n not be removed. However i suspect that should their presence be continually obstructive or create bad blood then Kibble would remove possibly remove them.
  23. I thought your issue was that thew whole deal benefited the Kibble. Now it benefits GLS who structured the original BTB deal deal to bank roll the purchase of the shares with SMISA then to sell the said shares to SMISA. The only benefit he is getting is selling his shares early. To allow that to happen SMISA have put it to a vote to allow the members to decide. If the members say no then we are back to where we were and GLS get no early sale of his shares
  24. What is the legal definition of the Veto. Can someone post an extract from it. Its not on the SMISA webpage and i am intrigued to see what it actually allows the Kibble to do
  25. Your now changing your claim of the earlier post from quote “benefit to one member (GLS) by facilitating his profit in share dealings, contrary to the constitution,” To now GLS is diminishing the SMISA settlement of getting 51% of shares for 51% of the cost. Is the reduced percentage really that relevant
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...