Jump to content

dumbarton_bud

Saints
  • Content Count

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dumbarton_bud


  1. 26 minutes ago, Tommy said:

    If Dickson and LPM are right and Kibble gets the freedom of the ground for their 27.5%, what does smisa get for their 51% ?  

    Access to Kibble staff to grow the commercial side of the club and to make savings where possible ie vehicle maintenance. 

    It also sounds like Kibble will give us access to their little black book of commercial contacts, but I may be misinterpreting the video 


  2. 10 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

    Read the post! Once/If..? Smisa take ownership of Scott's shares they are an asset of the community benefit society Smisa 1877. And cant be sold, unless the proceeds of that sale benefit the community. I.e smisa members, saints fans, all the local groups that the club/trust does or should work with/for.

     

    I have read your post, and I have questions - hence the post. What is it that Kibble are proposing is about to become illegal?

    Direct me to the draft legislation, please. A URL 

    I think your biggest issue is not from the point where SMISA take control of the 51%, but during the transition period where there's no majority shareholder - is that correct? 


  3. 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

     

    If you are a current, former or potential smisa member you need to understand this!

    Smisa is a Community Benefit Society, the crucial reasons for Smisa taking the lead in Fans owning the club are possibly much more crucial and fundamental than you may consider?

     

    Yes if the fans ( Smisa & small shareholders) own over 90% of the club, then no one organisation or individual can come in and run the club to suit the aims, which may not be in the club's best interests.

     

    But there are much more deeper, fundamental reasons that the club chairman, Smisa committee and shockingly an outside organisation are being allowed to "condition" you into believing "it's a done deal so just agree" and not consider before deciding how to vote.

     

    A community benefit society can only sell its assets if the proceeds of that sale benefit the community. The club chairman, Kibble and smisa committee know this, and know this sale of over a quarter of the club to Kibble could not happen when Smisa takes over!

     

    So their joint aim is to deceive/convince you this is "the greatest deal ever" as they need you to do it now, before it becomes illegal.

     

    In essence they are trying to play you to agree whilst They benefit from it.

    There is not one reason why the club could not start to deliver almost every service that Kibble offer!

    The hard fact is Kibble want YOUR community asset to be able to use it to provide services to people from all over the UK. That's their business, why should we hand over our communities asset to benefit Kibble?

    Indeed the club actually make money at present from hiring facilities to Kibble that go directly into benefitting the community!

    There is no reason why, if required we couldnt hire/partner Kibble, or any other providers of the type of service we cant deliver ourselves, until we were able to deliver it ourselves without selling our community asset!

    But that crucially doesn't bebefit Kibble as much as it does OUR community!

    They are desperate for you to let this shocking stripping of your community asset NOW... before it becomes Illegal.

    So the simple question I believe Smisa members should consider is... " do I want to benefit my community with our assets, or Kibble and our chairman's bank balance?

    There are so many things others have said the club could never do, or be, that we have done and become. Play the long game, hold onto your community asset and use it to benefit your club and community.

    This below is what we should be building ourselves, not subbing it out in bits and pieces...

    https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/about-us/

     

    So tell me, what is it Kibble are proposing to do that's about to become illegal? 

    And, if I'm reading the Q+A properly, big decisions like selling off club assets requires unanimous support on the board. How do Kibble and their 2 directors get this through a board meeting when their in the minority with SMISA? 


  4. 37 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

    Yet you call this democracy... you total hypocrite!

    They won't win... let's not give them the voting option!!! Let them eat cake!!!

     

    As for the second point... how many community projects that were previously denied funding would still appreciate investment? 

    None? Not worth investigating? Reconsidering?

     

    At least you are true to form!

    The club and SMISA can do no wrong... hang on whilst I bend over... how deep would you like it?!!!!

     

    I'm afraid there has to be a level of gatekeeping, otherwise the SMISA board would be inundated with requests that aren't included within their charitable aims on the off chance it might just get funded. 

    For example, if I knew that every request went to the membership vote, what's to stop me putting in a request for the Dumbarton_Bud Really Needy Fund? 

    A lot of charitable trusts/foundations work in this way - partly to fulfil their charitable aims; and partly as there isn't an infinite amount of money to donate.

    The Trust administrator/secretary will remove applications that aren't relevant before handing the rest to the Trustees for discussion. If you get funding - awesome! If you don't, usually there isn't any appeals process, regardless how good your project is or the benefits it may provide. Generally speaking, you need to wait a year before reapplying - believe me, its a pain in the hole. 

    The same goes for the Tesco/Asda charity token schemes. Hundreds of good causes will apply, but (usually) only three will be selected for funding in a particular region. 

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly happy at being asked to buy a drone for the club - with our proximity to the airport, the thing would likely get shot down if ever used during a game - but if no other projects (community or otherwise) were deemed suitable for consideration then there's not much we can do. 


  5. 5 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

    Lots of content on this topic but most of it focused on seating arrangements when the OF come calling. My own opinion.. The club are steadily improving. Crowds continue to rise, Community involvement continues to grow. Leaving out the OF seating arrangements.. What would you do to improve our reach, crowds and revenue? 

    I'm probably not alone in this, but I'd like to see us utilise the digital billboards on the main roads into Paisley to advertise our games, in particular the one up by Reid Kerr. 

    I'm sick and tired of seeing ads for Sky Sports on those billboards that have images of Tavernier and Brown of the OF or a still from the EPL, and not one of a St Mirren player or a still from one of our games. 

    I'd imagine the cost of this is somewhat prohibitive but if the council can afford to advertise cultural events on these billboards then I don't see why we can't take a look (if we haven't done so already). 


  6. On 9/26/2019 at 8:56 PM, TPAFKATS said:
    On 9/26/2019 at 8:24 PM, dumbarton_bud said:
    Would prefer that to be the main stand, personally. 150th birthday (I think) coming up at the end of the season too. 

    I don't get the joke?

    Not a joke. If I remember Caifters article right, it would be his 150th birthday towards the end of the season


  7. Not fussed about him departing, just as I wasn't that fussed with his arrival. 

    My missus, however, will be disappointed. Apparently Heaton and his missus frequented the cafe she works in fairly often and tipped quite handsomely. There goes a wee portion of her income... 

     


  8. 35 minutes ago, Wendy Saintss said:

     

    Unfortunately it’s not liquid assets.

     

    The £9m asset you refer to is the ground.

     

    The reserves are a liability on the balance sheet as they belong to the shareholders.

     

    Assets minus liabilities to 31 May 2018 were £327k.

    Fair enough. Not going to lie, my main experience is reading Trust and Foundation accounts where reserves are a bit different, usually as there's no fixed assets. 


  9. On 7/12/2019 at 9:46 AM, Lord Pityme said:

    A few buds wondering now if Qarabag ever put an offer in, based on the fact they couldnt register Hladky for European football at present?

    was it jus a ruse by Scott because the club needs the funds after paying Oran off? Ouch... no wonder he is breaching confidentiality agreements, thats gonna smart!

    Do we really? 

    A quick look at the last financial report indicates we had reserves in the region of £9m at the end of FY 17/18 to keep the club going in the case of no income. 

    It also showed that it cost about £2.5m to run the club that same financial year, with a surplus of about £77.5k at the end, which would be reinvested into the club. Along with the surpluses from FY's 16/17 and 15/16 (approx £160k, I think) 

    Now I appreciate that these accounts were released before the Stubbs debacle, let alone Kearney, as well as any income from McGinn's move to Aston Villa or Jack Ross' move to Sunderland, but there's no way in hell we've blown through that amount of reserves in just over a year.


  10. The question I have, if Hladky stays and helps keep us in the Premiership this season then leaves on a PCA/free, are we not still earning a profit off him by still being in the Premiership and the riches (!!) that brings? 

    I'd imagine if he goes for a free at the end of the season, he'd have recouped any transfer/signing on fee paid to get him many times over through the increased prize money.

×
×
  • Create New...