alwaysabuddy
-
Posts
66 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by alwaysabuddy
-
-
1 hour ago, alanb said:
Seems a decent guy
Decent guy he may be but, I still find it strange that smisa members are asked to confirm his appointment without knowing who the other candidates were.
-
-
-
Result from Friday
Club Academy Scotland U18 League
Cormack Park
Aberdeen 9 St Mirren 0Yes there are problems at the academy and I have also heard that coaches are leaving.
Worrying when you add that we are not entering the reserve league
-
From Official site
"Tony Fitzpatrick Family Stand season ticket holders can still move their seat to the Main or West Stand and will still be able to get them at the reduced price of £10 for adults and £5 for concessions if purchased before 2pm on Tuesday 21st December."
Does this mean that season ticket holders must pay £10/5 for the privilege of being tossed out their seat and moving to an alternative stand ?
-
On 8/14/2021 at 8:31 PM, Maboza said:
I would argue that being overly trusting of essentially external parties who have influence in our club is a risk. Although I do also recognise that this is balanced with the fact that fans can’t expect to be privy to the behind the scenes aspects of the club finances and contracts.
I don’t know anything about family connections that others have posed. It would seem however, if the mention of appointed companies is correct, we have a Darren Baillie at Asigura, a Liam Baillie at Renderworks - both winning contracts with SMFC. Both from Airdrie. Are any of our Directors from there?And here is the real question.
It would appear that SMFC are appointing companies that not only have Kibble connections but are family related.
We don't know if the tender process was above board and fair but coincidences like this will invite legitimate questions.
-
1 hour ago, Doakes said:
Why would Kibble risk their (many) decades of good reputation to f**k over St Mirren?
160 year old charity
144 year old football club
Yet to see any evidence of an anti-St Mirren conspiracy from Kibble
Surely in their best interests to make the relationship work
It looks like a whole raft of recent appointments throughout the club would appear to be Kibble associates/staff.
Were these positions advertised or tendered for ?
If as suspected the answer is no then we have our answer as to why Kibble are involved.
Whether the appointments are good or bad for the club remains to be seen.
-
1 minute ago, Buddymarvellous said:
Can’t seem to get audio from StMirren TV . Only offers video then prompts for subscription. - what am I doing wrong ?
same for me
-
-
On 2/18/2020 at 5:38 PM, stlucifer said:
I'm as concerned about the terms of this proposal as you LPM but, quite frankly, you're talking pish.
Scott paid for his shares to allow SMISA the time to take control. SMISA were/are obliged to pay for them ergo GLS gains nothing extra from this proposal. he just gets some of his cash early.
mmmm - wrong
as previously confirmed GLS shareholding with the Kibble proposal will be well under 1%
under the original deal he would retain 8%
therefore he will be selling over 7% more via the new proposal and to quote div many pages ago "he ain't giving them away"
So yes he will gain from the proposal as apart from getting his cash early (and I have no real issue with that) he also gains by selling more shares
-
22 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
The completion of the deal earlier is also not a benefit, it's returning his capital.
How can it not be a benefit to get "his capital" returned early and in addition get a little extra on top
-
8 hours ago, div said:
Div - re the 8% shareholding
By selling his shares to Kibble either
GLS will actually be receiving more cash that he would be under the current proposal where he is left with the 8%
OR
He is receiving the same money in total therefore effectively either SMISA or Kibble are paying nothing for them, which begs the question of who gets the "free" shares ?
8 hours ago, div said:My understanding of that would be the former. He's not going to be giving those shares away!
So GLS gets cash for his minority 8% shareholding yet the remaining circa 20% of mainly supporter held shares get nothing.
I have no agenda against GLS and have not yet decided which way to vote, just pointing out that GLS not only gets his cash earlier than planned but actually gets more.
-
7 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
If the Kibble reps are part of the board that produces the business plan, why would they veto it?
I've been part of a few boards where I didn't agree with a lot of a BP's content.
Funnily enough the major shareholder had the final say
and 27% of the shareholding certainly couldn't veto it !!
-
7 hours ago, div said:
If Kibble wasn't giving Gordon £300K then SMiSA would be.
The only real tangible benefits I see Gordon getting out of this is;
1) He is getting his money earlier than he thought
2) He's shifting the 8% of shares he'd have been left with in the original proposalDiv - re the 8% shareholding
By selling his shares to Kibble either
GLS will actually be receiving more cash that he would be under the current proposal where he is left with the 8%
OR
He is receiving the same money in total therefore effectively either SMISA or Kibble are paying nothing for them, which begs the question of who gets the "free" shares ?
.
-
5 hours ago, div said:5 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:
The veto clause includes...
"approval of the club’s business plan"
Holy moley... Seriously?
That doesn't concern you?
As a stakeholder with 27% and two directors on the board who will help to create that business plan and budget I don't really see much to worry about, no.
5 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:So an outside party with two directors will help shape our business plan going forward...
but despite being the minority, should they be overruled in the boardroom and not get things they specifically want, they can just veto the whole business plan?
Truly nothing of concern there?
You know the current Kibble guys... What about five or ten years down the line?
Personally I fear we are giving far too much control away here.
This could have major ramifications further down the line.Must say I'm with BEK on this one - the board produce a BP which the Kibble reps don't like they can veto it.
That cannot be right and is completely unworkable
-
3 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:
Might be best to do so after Thursdays meeting when there's some more clarity... Hopefully.
I am also struggling to see the benefit of passing part of our expected shareholding to a 3rd party.
From my attempts to understand the proposal the summary would be
1 GLS sells some shares early and receives cash early
2 Kibble get a shareholding that was not in original proposals
3 Final SMISA shareholding on completion of buy out will be reduced
So how does the proposal benefit St Mirren or SMISA and what do Kibble really get for their cash ?
-
Breadner definitely looks a player in the making and thought both full backs Grant and Walker played well.
Interesting to see that last years centre mids were both playing in central defence.
A bit disappointed with contribution from Oan D, doesn't look to me to be ready to take step up to top team.
-
On 3/12/2019 at 5:37 PM, Callum Gilhooley said:
Yes , I get that but sad to see a Pub based in Paisley which had been big supporters of the local team for so long simply turn their back on Saints to suck up to the ugly sisters .
Poor show
Eh ?
Why do they give 15% discount at all times to saints season ticket holders if they "simply turn their back on Saints to suck up to the ugly sisters" .
-
12 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:
He played the first half. I only saw 15-20 minutes of it but he looked ok. Wasn’t really tested much but done what he had to.
Have to say the big No5 playing beside him played well, done the simple stuff, no nonsense .That was Max Potter - thought we played better 2nd half after Mackenzie went off, Liam Miller also played well so we have two promising young central defenders who if they progress may be worth looking out for in the future
-
5 minutes ago, billyg said:
Lyness no longer going to Airdrie !
Rogers played for reserves last week
-
On 9/22/2018 at 9:00 PM, munoz said:
thanks Munoz, fame at last.
great night at the darts in Brighton
-
25 minutes ago, Hendo said:
There was a guy in Take the High Road who was a Saints fan, maybe played a character called Jocky?
Jackie Farrell - season ticket holder in W3
-
May well be ex rangers youth Lewis Muir who we signed in July. He was on the bench last Saturday due to Rogers being ineligible to play against parent club.
-
1 hour ago, BaldyOzBud said:
Finishes 5-0, well done Buddies
A stroll for the reserves against what looked like Dundee Utd's under 20's. Hard to have a view on individual players as game was so one sided but for what it's worth :
Captain Heaton won everything in the air, McPherson and O'Keefe tore them to shreds in 1st half with both goals for King coming from right wing crosses, Erhahon and McShane completely bossed the midfield, King looked comfortable on the ball. Cooke however whilst hard working missed 2 easy headers.
Of the youngsters central defender Potter was the pick.
Best for Utd was no 11 (Chalmers ?)
More redundancies. Where are you SMISA?
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
mmm
Quoting chairman "substantial losses made in year to May 22, measures in place for 22/23 and hope to break even, budget for 23/24 under way with a break even expectation, there will be player trading in January"
Player trading ? - could mean anything - fringe players sold/loaned out, could mean likes of Dylan Reid sold or could even mean bid expected for one of our 1st teamers. Whichever, to achieve break even player(s) will be leaving.
As for Mr Gilmour being quiet it was openly stated that he would be meeting SMFC reps next week to discuss/understand the current financial position. Until that meeting has been held what would you have expected him to say ?