melmac
-
Posts
1,185 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by melmac
-
-
Aye, suspect that's what will happen.
-
43 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Agree with most of this however I feel a 3-0 walkover tonight should be the way forward (and arguably any other game in the 14 day quarantine period), they need a hard line punishment to stop it happening again. Wishful thinking though.
Got to agree with this somewhat, clubs should be forfeiting games where players/officials have flouted guidance and put other people at risk. If the league gets suspended, I would have thought there would be a good case for clubs pursuing a legal recourse for lost revenues.
-
1 hour ago, john scott said:
Slightly off topic, sorry, but anyone know if buying a 1983/84 style saints top is possible anywhere? It was the Adidas 2 stripe one with the Grahams Buses logo on, although getting one with such logo on is no doubt asking a bit too much. Wore that shirt 1st season I watched saints and I think it was a great 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.
-
1 hour ago, Dickson said:
I agree with this. In terms of procedure should this change not mean that a SMISA EGM should be called and a requirement for at least one quarter of the total membership to vote before any change can be made?
Thats just for a quorum.
-
2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:
So, what are SMiSA selling? Shares they don't own? How much are SMiSA getting for these shares that they don't own. Will it be enough to cover the cost of GLS's remaining shares and buy a controlling interest in SMFC immediately? HMM, sell some of GLS's shares to Kibble and use that money to buy the rest of GLS's shares. Totally genius.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Doakes said:
When was the last time you heard a charity/not for profit organisation go belly up? Low risk since they are all about living within their means
One question I do have - Gordon Scott secured his "loan" against the stadium as an asset when he bought the club
Would this asset belong to Kibble after this agreement was signed? Or would the stadium belong to the club?
Well, I heard of one going south only today. Wait til Brexit kicks in.
-
6 hours ago, div said:
For an opening post this is quite an incredible mis-reporting of what is being proposed by the way.
Gordon isn't going anywhere.
Kibble aren't taking over.
Kibble are merely buying shares from Gordon that SMiSA don't need to complete fan ownership of the club.
That brings fan ownership into reality 5 years earlier than planned and brings us the expertise of a 160 year old Charity who have a turnover 10 times that of St.Mirren.
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?
-
I'm trying to buy tkts online, no joy.
-
Certain green n white websites saying they got considerably more than what they paid us and that we could be due upto 25% of the profit.
-
-
Be funny though.
-
I reckon the big lying ex snooker player could be done under this: -
Send him down (under).
Treason Felony Act 1848
Offences declared felonies by this Act to be punishable by transportation or imprisonment.
U.K.
If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her to change her measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing . . . . . . F1 or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . . . . F2 to be transported beyond the seas for the term or his or her natural life
-
He's the new shuggie murray, you know what you get.
-
This thread is not value for money.
Scott Brown as our new manager? Surely not?
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
Hearing from a v good source that Fergie coming back for a second spell, until end of season only though.