slapsalmon
-
Posts
746 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by slapsalmon
-
-
29 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
my original point was BTB is over 120% of financial plan. I clarified this in the second point. People don’t need to believe it but that’s simply true. Do you genuinely think I don’t know 1,100 odd is less than 120% of a 1,000 target? It’s basic maths.
Now your twisting and saying 1100 is less than 120% of the plan.
What you originally said was it was 120% AHEAD of the plan Which would be 2200.
As I said, you meant 20% ahead.
Your post that I quoted was factually wrong however you twist it.
Again. That is a fact.
-
19 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
BTB is currently over 120% ahead of original plan. That is complete fact. If anyone wants to interpret that different fine, it isn’t my issue.
No its not. Its 20% over the original plan of 1000 members at 12 per month(possibly} , not 120%. The membership numbers as you originally stated are however not 20% over the original plan, never mind 120%.
Either way your post that I've quoted is factually wrong.
That, my friend. Is complete fact.
-
1 minute ago, bazil85 said:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
2 minutes ago, ford prefect said:
Anyone remember the 1993 b and q cup final against Falkirk? That open terracing in wind, rain, then sleet was the coldest and wettest I've ever been at a football game. Result didn't help either
Funnily enough I was just thinking that. Probably my first memory of being at a game. Jacket soaked right through
-
Whatever way anybody voted the outcome being so clear is probably a good thing. By rough calculations the yes votes make just over 66% of total membership which was what a few were arguing to be the required amount.
-
15 hours ago, St.Ricky said:
Thanks Mykey.
The story was then that his own bank normally made charges for accepting cash and coin and the manager approached Oaky to mention this. Oakys wife goes in and no mention is made. Oakey keeps sending her in and do avoiding paying the fees.
f**king hell ya clown. It wasn't about charges. It was about not accepting deposits of less than a full bag of coins.
You've got to be at it.
-
3 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said:
SMISA current have over 25% of shares. This technically allows them to have this magic “veto” that everyone keeps alluding to.
The new deal appears to have a veto drawn up in a legal agreement to allow them to block more than what would be deemed normal under company operating structures. Something which is not there now for smisa. At the moment smisa as a 25% shareholder have the right to block special resolutions. The question being asked I believe is why are kibble being afforded more power than this.
-
9 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:
but before that was in the manager of the BOS branch
Hope he wore a condom!
-
I can't tell if this thread is comedy gold or absolutely tragic 😂
-
1 hour ago, Sweeper07 said:
You just need to believe - a wee hat-trick and he would manage it.
Got a double last time against them... but time is running out
A hat trick would've taken him to 8 ya f**king crackpot 😂
-
1 minute ago, div said:
Yes sorry, I meant through the transition period.
I don't doubt that 3 way veto would be benificial in that period, afterwards there is absolutely no reason for it that benefits smisa though
-
8 hours ago, div said:
The veto clause is as much to protect SMiSA, and the club, as it is to protect the interests of Kibble.
It only affects the following explicit decisions;
- appointments or removals of a director of the club
- the sale of the stadium, changes to the club’s name, colour or badge, changing the club’s grass pitch to astroturf, and the appointment of major sponsors;
- any major borrowings, major contracts outwith the normal course of business, and approval of the club’s business plan;
- any major structural changes to St Mirren as a company, such as any reorganisation of its share capital, or changes to the club’s articles of association.
I think that's all pretty fair.
The major sponsors one is the only one I'd have any concerns about but again I'd assume the clause is in there to protect SMiSA and the club as much as it is to protect Kibble. Be very easy to email SMiSA and ask for clarification.
Why would the veto protect smisa as much as kibble(I see someone replied similar, but the veto isn't only for the interim period}) when GLS is out and smisa have 51% what do they need protected from? This seems strange int erms of usual company structures. The veto is Only there to the benefit of kibble, no one else.
-
If its a good deal, why can smisa not buy the shares, have a vote and sell some to kibble and the money would then go into St mirren. Smisa are seemingly ahead of target with extra money in the bank. Smisa balance would decrease St mirren would increase. Would fit with the aims of smisa IMO.
ETA not even sure if that makes any sense actually 😂
-
2 questions here.
What will kibble provide that St mirren or smisa can't avhieve any other way?
If the deal is a good one, why not hold off until smisa buy the shares, then have the vote, sell a shareholding to kibble, which would then give a boost to the bank balance which could be used as the rainy day fund
-
20 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Show me a previous discussion which ended without you having the last word.
Bet you can't!
With any poster
-
4 hours ago, div said:
Unfortunately in the case of that particular poster his overwhelming negativity about everything to do with the football club for the past couple of years means his opinion is now pretty much worthless even if there are some salient arguments buried in there somewhere.
Hopefully the members will go along tonight in decent numbers and take in the presentation, ask some questions, and make their own minds up about the proposal.
If you can't be there then I gather it will be made available online for members to digest prior to the vote.
Whether the proposal passes or is defeated the journey towards fan ownership continues.
I get what your saying, I think basil is exactly the same though, My comment was on the fact the post I was referencing was actually reasonably balanced for a change. Something I've yet to see from his opposite number.
It's a rod he's made for his own back, but it was a fairly reasonable post and didn't deserve the shit storm that followed it.
-
1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:
It was quite measured by his standards. Why couldn't he have started like that instead of all the conspiracy and scaremongering shite? Makes you wonder.
I can filter that, the problem is when him and basil start. Both of them are the same just at opposite ends of the divide. I reckon LPM knows what he's doing, basil seems oblivious though.
-
To be honest I thought that post by LPM was probably his most measured I've ever seen, particularly by his standards and the response has turned into the usual borefest of shite after shite.
I don't think the response would have been the same if the post was made by someone else. Its absolutely tedious now.
-
1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:
Funny that because I was in a room with him on countless occasions when he said the exact opposite!
Why didn't he use that phrase when convincing over 1200 saints fans to commit to 10 years worth of funding?Couldn't possibly be because it didn't suit to get him his money back for the shares he'd bought could it.
Do I get a prize? Please let the prize be bazil getting his Internet connection taken away 😂
-
38 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
What you mean is, it’s a waste of time trying to change my opinion. That’s fine if that’s your view, it isn’t mine. My view will not be changed on this. I think it’s evident.
Now that's your problem. I'm not trying to change your opinion. Your arguing something that isn't there.
His opinion was that smisa should be doing it. He seems to have issue with a third party doing it. Still seems to think smisa should be doing it, doesn't fit your agenda though so in your words "the context is irrelevant"
you're as bad if not worse than him but at the happy clapper sook GLS boaby end of the scale. I should know better than to reply again but hey ho. Reply to this. Take the last word as usual. I definitely won't be replying again. Honestly you really are a Pr1ck
-
9 hours ago, bazil85 said:
I think it definitely is. He has completely ignored any point regarding how the Kibble could benefit our community involvement and enhance it.
It shows community was never his concern it was attacking GLS. We seen the same in his shameful approach to the Christmas Day event vote in 2018.Waste of time talking to you. His point was smisa should be doing it. Looks like they won't. He's been consistent but you want a dig. I'm out. As so many are when they talk to you.
-
1 minute ago, bazil85 said:
If you mean specifically regarding his 180 on community benefits. I've seen no mention of it from him since this subject has came up. It's almost all he went on about before.
It's not a 180 though is it? He said smisa should be doing more in that regard. The issue now is that kibble appear to be intending to.
Not a 180 if he still believes it should be SMISA rather than a third party.
-
Just now, bazil85 said:
The context of the announcement is irrelevant, that isn't what he has issue with IMO.
SMISA could announce that GLS is giving every St Mirren fan a grand, completing the deal next week and investing £10 million in the club. He'd still find something to talk down negatively about because it involves the chairman.
On the BTB subject he is only fuelled by a dislike of Gordon Scott. It is clear, observable and consistent.
That's not a response to what I said?
If 5he context is irrelevant why comment on his reaction to the context of the announcement. As I said he bangs on about a lot of shite a lot of the time, but he doesn't appear to have have a turn around on community benefit. The issue I'm commenting on is his issue with who provides it. Which IMO he's been consistent on.
-
Just now, bazil85 said:
Lol I think we all know that isn't what drives LPM on the subject of BTB. He's done a complete 180 on community benefit since this announcement... I wonder why.
In fairness to the guy as much as he bangs on, I don't think he has. He has argued that smisa/smfc should be doing it since the start. Another company coming in and doing it is not the same thing.
Motherwell v St Mirren SPFL Premiership 25/2/20 hieck
in Matchday & Travel Club
Posted
Did we play Partick as well tonight?