melmac

Try https://www.saintsshop.co.uk/category/retro-shirt

f**king clueless, this ain't the bowling club.

So, if there has been no 'virtual' AGM, where people all sat at their computers, listened in / contributed / voted, then it must follow that there have been no decisions made, despite what has been heralded. A virtual AGM should allow members / shareholders to attend the meeting from the comfort of their own home / office. As such, the AGM needs to use appropriate technology, to allow the member / shareholders to actively participate in the meeting. Crucially, the technology must enable the individual to both speak and vote at the meeting.

So, we know how many voted but how many were in attendance at the virtual meeting? Did a virtual meeting take place or was it just the usual ballot?

Good to see the topic go the same way as all the others that baz gets involved with. It may have been covered in the previous 40 or so pages but the only reason I can see why GS would want Kibble involved is because he can't trust SMiSA. If Kibble (or any other well run business) get on board, they will be calling the shots for everything and SmiSA will be able to do nothing about it. Any services coming from Kibble to the club, you can be certain the club will need to pay for (they are a charity remember) can't just give assets (staff; time etc) away for nought. There is a reason why someone would want to have 75% or as close to 75% of the shares, if you dont know, look it up.

Should the present SMiSA board incumbents step down if this goes against them? Think David Cameron.

Thats just for a quorum.

SmiSA and Scott sold BtB on the basis that there would be a legally binding agreement to acquire his shares etc, fans would have control. Now, what is being proposed is somewhat different - fans ain't necessarily going to control anything, bar their egos thinking they control a top tier football team.

I don't really have an issue with Kibble, no doubt they will be a well run organisation - if they were a schiester organisation, I suspect they would not have the trustees that they have. This is about smisa / scott thinking they can do what they want whilst they have 1200 members gullibly paying money for one thing and in reality, they are getting something entirely different. This is something that should be going to an egm with the required amount of punters being required to vote for it - not an open ended online vote. If members don't speak up, then they deserve everything that is coming to them. By the way, how much legal fee's you reckon this will cost members - if approved by the members? My guess, £5k as a starting point.

Well, I heard of one going south only today. Wait til Brexit kicks in.

Company Law people, 75% needed to do what you want. Simple majority doesn't cut it and this was not what was advertised at outset - control. Kibble go tits up, as businesses often do, and RBS be chapping the door.

Be careful what you wish for. What is in it for Kibble? It will be interesting when Kibble want to do their due diligence. I'm sure their will be well intentioned people who would be willing to share their opinions / thoughts with Kibble as to regulation / scrutiny. Bear in mind, Kibble have a floating charge to RBS. How will this sit with the club's bankers, who themselves have a floating charge. What happens if Kibble go belly up?

The ordinary meaning of "surplus" is "something that remains above what is used or needed". So, if the £2 over-payments is not surplus and there is no provision in the Rules for, erm, "filtered funds" what are they? I think in most people's understanding, the over-payments would be termed as "surplus" and should be dealt with accordingly in terms of the Rules. However well intentioned the £2 pot was / is, its certainly not funds to be used as / how the club wish. No response needed.

As regards the 3 monthly spend pot, I'm presuming this money should be considered as being "surplus". If that is the case, how the surplus should be applied should be decided at an AGM. Any change to that must be done by changing the Rules, for which a meeting with a quorum of "not less than one quarter of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has more than 1000 members" with 75% being required to carry the vote. I suspect SMISA have never had 250 members at any of its meetings.

Why would a drone even be considered when the ground is within a no fly zone?