Brilliant Disguise

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

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

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

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 £30m turn over and over 600 staff.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

I think he is you

Again more innuendo. Is it profit ? Profit is where you buy for a price and sell for a greater price. The friends bit is just blatant lies

I think its him also

You were part of the inner circle, you sold me the BTB dream. Why did you allow GLS to control SMISA

You should change your alias to Irony Man. Smear Campaigns. That all you do. Nothing constructive just smear, agenda, innuendo, bitterness with sauce for the massive chip. It started with Richard Atkinson and when he left you moved on to the next target.

SMISA current have over 25% of shares. This technically allows them to have this magic “veto” that everyone keeps alluding to. In fact we are being brainwashed to believe that GLS not only runs SMFC he runs SMISA with a strangle hold equivalent to Kim Jong Um. Yet he only has 51% shares in the club. Now that apparently SMISA will only get 51% they will have no influence on how to run the club Wake up and smell the pish

Is this you disclosing facts or innuendo on the inner going’s of the SMISA board

The Stockport/Kennedy situation is not the same as the SMISA/Kibble one. Kennedy put money in to the club as a loan to bankroll them and prevent them going under. He stipulated conditions for the repayments of his loan. I appreciate that there is irony on how that all turned out. It’s not the same as buying £300k of shares to get on a board where you have no control to force your own agenda through. You may have a “veto” however to use it continually would question their role on the board and their own agenda. Ultimately the business would fail with blatant use of the veto. Like most people i am slightly sceptical of why KIbble are doing this and what they get from it. However they have a long established business that has been developed on Core Local Values. They do not have a reputation of being parasites or asset strippers. They appear to have a desire to build and work with from within on another long established business. Idealistically its not the fans ownership that i romantically dreamed of. However what is the alternative. Fans with agendas and chips on their shoulders trying to run a £m business as if it was a bowling club. Businesses are not run by committees, they are run by a strong board of flexible Directors who can adapt and move with the times. The Directors of a business are the custodians of said business. It is their responsibility to ensure that they leave it in a better place than when they started.

Back again Div? Nope. Nor am I GLS, JLS or Bazil (mad as a) I’m Spartacus

The £300k i presume gives the Kibble a guaranteed opportunity to pitch to the board their ideas that would be mutually beneficial to both the Club and the Kibble. Without the shares they are just another 3rd party pitching. There have been moans by others of a lack of additional revenue schemes to date however they are also against a body wanting to prove their track record of generating a revenue stream. The other points re the veto. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board then deliberately sabotage the running of the club. Surely all members on a board should work together for the benefit of the company. That’s what being a Director in law requires you to do. There will be times when board members disagree. However a good Director swallows his pride accepts the decision and moves on. A egotistical huffy board member with their own agenda spits the dummy out, goes on line to advise all that want to listen about how the big boys stole his baw, proceed to resign from the board then continually berate every movement that the former board do. As i have stated already. In my opinion SMISA running the entire club is a disaster in the making. I have yet to see anyone to date with capability of running the club and drive it forward. On line you now start to see individuals old and new trying to get themselves noticed as potential board candidates. The BTB needs a 3rd party to assist in running the club.

Sonny you hit the nail on the head. The continual debacle that goes on with the same 3-4 people on every £2 vote and the kibble bid proves that Fans Ownership is a potential disaster in the making. It has proven that for Fans Ownership needs help from an outside experienced party capable of running a business and making decisions for the good of a business.

What Division Most of the people who are posting on here, such as you, who are against the idea are not even SMISA members. The Kibble debate and the fall out from some pros and against has proven that Fans Ownership is fraught with division. Some people, such as you, would start a campaign because you were not consulted on the colour of the toilet paper that was selected. Others will maybe not agree with the points put forward, however will accept the democratic majority decision and move on Selling shares for what you bought them for is not generating or facilitating anyone profit. The delusion that the Kibble who have existed for 180 years are plotting to take over the club with their 27% is way beyond shit stirring of the highest level. Rather than hiding behind your continual innuendo why don’t you ask proper relevant questions. Question 1 - What mechanism is in place In the interim period to stop the Kibble and GLS (combined 51%+) amending the BTB agreement further without SMISA input

Smoke and Mirrors. The magic number to have overall control of a company is 75% of the shares not 71% or nearly 75 %. It’s 75% SMISA were never going to have the magic number. They always going to be accountable to the remaining. 29% of shareholders. Look it up So having 71% or 51% does not change much on the shareholding control

I would not let LPM look after my dog never mind giving him a role in the Club. The BTB scheme was always going to come to this point on who and how they run the Club/Business when they take control. Your correct in that SMISA have shown to date that apathy exists in member engagement and the lack of experience in running. A business such as a football club. Kibble at least bring a tried and test knowledge of being able to run a business that is 20 times the size of SMFC. The question is can they run a Football Club.