Jump to content

Brilliant Disguise

Saints
  • Posts

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Brilliant Disguise

  1. I agree that everyone is an expert other than the people on the committee. Thats human nature. You only have to look at the 65m people in Britain that are Covid experts. The issue with cliques is that they close ranks to ensure that the “experts” don’t get a chance to be heard or voted on. I’m only looking from the outside and can see that the paying SMISA representatives only 2 occasions have only been able to vote for a single candidate. The “selection process” was undertaken by the SMISA committee before they got a chance to vote. That seems a very closed book way of being open to all.
  2. That sounds like a golf club committee. Run by cliques who don’t like anyone advising them of varying opinions to their own. Voting their own on to positions. Sounds the very reason why fan ownership will never succeed. This handing the members one person to vote for in an election is straight out of the dictatorship handbook. Suppose its one way of ensuring that your members only get to see the people you want them to see. Thus keeping the clique cycle going.
  3. All of this is hypothetical until real facts are released on the perceived issues. First the McGinn money if forthcoming is the clubs money not the shareholders funds. This could not be used to purchase the shares (technically it could, however the club would become the shareholder, which makes it unlikely to happen) If Kibble have an issue with the board and the representatives then It should be addressed at board level. If and its a big IF Kibble have gone legal on their own board then this is fundamentally wrong on many fronts and potentially dangerous. Going legal on a board is bully boy tactics to drive your own agenda, particularly when you have the financial resources to take on the board. Again another IF. If this occurs the problem lies fully at the door with SMISA on a number of points They should have checked who they were getting in to bed with (£35m/year business V £12/month/member organisation). David verses Goliath (only David has the largest shareholding and Goliath has the resources, funds and supply chain in their back pocket) They should have checked who they were pushing through on to the board. Giving their members one candidate to vote for or against is not a democratic process. (What background checks were done on JN. Why was he told not to post on social media after his appointment) Keeping quiet on the whole JN issue has done them no favours, especially when the Kibble threw him under the bus. Then People very close to the SMISA treasurer promoting crowdfunding to pay the JN fine, sends out the message to Kibble that JN comments are acceptable.
  4. The “notwithstanding” part of the wording of the act would supersede any shareholders agreement on protection of individual Directors. If not then a Director could sit on any board unopposed irrespective of his/hers actions. The board are purely representative of the shareholders, the ACT ensures that the shareholders hold the voting rights of the entity.
  5. They agreement maybe to protect who can become a director. However the Companies Act 2006 states 168 Resolution to remove director (1)A company may by ordinary resolution at a meeting remove a director before the expiration of his period of office, notwithstanding anything in any agreement between it and him. This gives SMISA the ability to remove the Kibble representatives from the board., irrespective of what’s in the Shareholders Agreement. At that point it gets very messy and there will be winners.
  6. If Kibble are threatening or even are taking legal action against SMISA then SMISA have a duty to advise the members of this action. I have not seen anything to suggest that SMISA have done this. Also worth remembering that SMISA are the majority shareholder on the SMFC board and Kibble are a minority. They can have the ultimate voting rights on any decision on the board. If Kibble are taking action against SMISA or their representatives then they are jeopardising the board and ultimately SMFC. Separately at the time i did wonder why a Rangers fan would trawl through the Chairman of SMFC twitter account to find these posts from way back. In all intents and purpose John Needham is a nobody to these fans, therefore why was he targeted when i am sure every other clubs representatives have similar posts on their social media. If as you say this is the Kibbles workings and it can be proven then the Kibble are jeopardising SMFC not SMISA then SMISA would have a possible legal argument to remove Kibble from the board. Read extract from legal advice on companies (caveat is that there is a shareholders agreement in place to protect Kibbles place on the board, however not sure where this agreement would stand if they were taking action against their own board) The Companies Act 2006 and the normal rule is that a simple majority of shareholders can remove a Director from office. A minority Shareholder who holds less than 50% of the shares is, conversely, in a weak position as he is unable to control the board
  7. You have to separate the he is a fan aspect to he is a representative of the club management. Some on here can’t differentiate from the two. The fact he has apologised is an admission that he did not behave professionally. Let’s see if hypothetically a fine of say £20k is handed out tomorrow what fans and the boards reaction will be.
  8. Furthermore any sanctions imposed by the SFA are on him. The club had the ability and the time to distance themselves from this and chose not to. Fear a melt down on Friday !
  9. If John does decide to go by mutual consent we could always ask Gerald Ratner to take his position on the board. He has been looking for something to do for the last 30 years For the youngsters Gerald learned, the hard way, that when you have the privilege to be in the higher echelons of a business that its best to keep your opinions to yourself.
  10. Taking the Old Firm cash is the lazy approach by the club. By continually referring to the cash they bring, as a business requirement, shows a complete disregard to the SMFC fans, the duty of the board and the duties of the people employed at the club. Rather than look at the Old Firm cash why don’t we look at how many extra fans we need every home game to offset this perceived cash cow. Without going in to the numbers in detail it equates to circa 400 extra paying fans every game to offset the extra numbers from the old firm over 3 home games. Thats the target for SMFC marketing team to keep the ground ours and avoid losing and displacing fans. 400 extra is well within our means. These 400 missing fans have previously been at the ground and been selective of games they attended. In summary the market is there it just needs tapped in to. Using the old firm cash comes at a cost of extra security, damage to the stadium, losing home advantage etc. If SMFC’s employed team is not going to market the club then it falls to SMISA and the W7 fans to sell it and keep the ground ours for all games. If these groups can demonstrate that increase in fans then it forces the club to either stop the selling off of the stand or admit they love the old firms money at the detriment of their own fans.
  11. It’s not just “Fitba” its a business and he’s is the front man of that business. The comments he made are not becoming of a Director of any business irrespective of the “banter” that is thrown about between fans. For a person that was in the roles that he held at RBS you would have expected better. He has tarnished the SMFC brand and allows other that are undeserving to take the moral high ground to deflect from their own issues. It’s your opinion that he is amusing. However other clubs fans and their Directors are now laughing at him not with him.
  12. Hypothetical Question If SMFC are fined for these tweets. Who is picking up the tab 1. SMFC 2. SMISA 3. John 4. The shareholders (which is predominantly SMISA & the Kibble) Apart from the Tweets, the real stupid part was not deleting them when he became a Director, then Chairman. Making the bridge tweet as a Director of the Club in my opinion lacks professionalism, irrespective of what club it was referring to. It brings the Club into disrepute
  13. You could try. https://www.smfctickets.co.uk Albeit when it tried it wasn’t working. There is also no link to it from the SMFC webpage
  14. Alanb thanks for posting. It certainly stops Animal having a meltdown. The timelines and the the certification that was required to get the capacity gives a possible insight to why we only got 1000 in for the Hearts game.
  15. You should ask Miss Marple for that answer KibbleWorks look after social enterprises called FrameWorks, MowerWorks, RoadWorks & ServiceWorks. I’m sure that RenderWorks working for SMFC have no connection to Kibble and the name is a coincidence. Also is Asigura was connected to the Kibble it would have possibly been called StewardWorks
  16. Who is the we you refer to. Is that a give away to your employer.
  17. Are you claiming that all of the issues relate to the change in ownership and operating model. My understanding of this that the shareholders of the club changed not the management. The Directors had a wee game of musical chairs. (2 of which were already the kibble) Or are you claiming that the running of the club was put on hold until the shareholders changed hands. Your excuse a poor smokescreen to key aspects to running a football club. ie How do get your consumer to give you money. Simple Give them something to buy.
  18. Well when the club have that much management yet manage to make an arse of all of the issues that come out of this summer then questions need to be asked. What do they discuss when they meet. the lottery numbers Interesting that you mentioned Motherwell Season ticket renewals issued on time. In fact PR stunt on offering season ticket holders the chance to cash in from last year Sponsorship Deal sewn up Shirt Sales in place prior to start of season Stewarding Company in place for start of season Pie Stall in place for start of season Club Shop in place for start of season Complaint certification for emergency escape lighting] More than 1000 fans for first home game (after freedom day) Fans have season tickets to attend games Visiting fans and non season ticket holders able to buy a ticket from their webpage So if Motherwell have the same management structure yet get all of those things right. What are ours doing to get them all wrong all at the same time or have they proven Peters Principal correct. The aspect to that appears to be forgotten is that with a Pandemic being in place the club had more time than normal to get these in place.n In isolation one of these is a minor teething problem. Accumulatively these infer there are fundamental problems with a lack of proper management and leadership.
  19. My last point was a generalisation of how the private and public sector are working. I don’t know the inner sanctum workings of SMFC. (I will leva that to you) However i note that we have the following A CEO, Chairman, GM, Directors, Non Exec Directors, Commercial Mangers, Head of Brand Management to name a few. Seems top heavy to me. Do we have a Head Chef to make the sausage rolls
  20. Typical deflection as usual. The Fred analogy was used to demonstrate that Fred was unlikely to be accepted to take the same role elsewhere as he was still the scapegoat for the RBS failure, when you were stating people should not be judged on their failures in previous roles. In the real commercial world,(unless your a civil servant) your only as good as your last job. The Peter Principal “employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another” The problem we have in our current workforce is we have a reverse pyramid. Everyone is a manager, line manager, executive, director or other buzz line. All of them managing no one including themselves. This brings no accountability and an inability of management to ever admit they got it wrong.
  21. Someone’s ability to undertake a role they failed in should have a significant impact on their ability to be employed to do that role. How did the interview go Q: What what was your previous role. A: I worked as GM of a company that got wrapped up because it lost £1.9m. It was losing money for years we could not make it work Q: Thats great. What’s your favourite colour So by your taking Fred Goodwin should easily walk in to a role at say Santander as the new CEO. After all he will have learned his lessons from the fck up at RBS
  22. Possibly Gavin Whyte, a trainer of business leaders and advocate of positive thinking and mindfulness, https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15009172.patience-saint-tony-fitzpatrick-mindfulness-positive-thinking-power-perseverance/ John Melrose ???? Logistics Director at Malcolm’s
  23. Well now you mention it there is a tangible link. Fred at the midst of the financial crisis allegedly was caught with his face in a pie. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/details-shamed-banker-fred-goodwins-1103422
×
×
  • Create New...