animal

And this ......

From today's Paisley Express - Double page store with photos.

FROM SCOTTISH LEGAL NEWS Lord Clark dismisses defamation action by two directors of football club against ex-director By Mitchell Skilling Two charity employees and directors of St Mirren FC have lost a defamation case against a former director of the club based on statements he posted online and made to journalists while seeking election to the board of the club’s supporters’ association after it was found they were based on his honest opinion. James Gillespie and Mark Macmillan alleged that comments made by Alan Wardrop while he was seeking election to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters’ Association were defamatory and had damaged their reputation. The defender maintained that neither statement was actionable, either due to the defences of honest belief or public interest, or a lack of evidenced reputational damage. The case was heard by Lord Clark in the Outer House of the Court of Session. Pugh KC appeared for the pursuer and the Dean of Faculty, Dunlop KC, and Breen, advocate, for the defender. ‘Huge cover-up’ In February 2020, a charity named Kibble Education and Care Centre, which the pursuers were involved with, became a 27.5 per cent shareholder in St Mirren. As a consequence, the pursuers were appointed to the club’s board of directors and remained directors at the time of the action. The defender became a director in 2016 and remained in that post until November 2022. For many years Kibble had sought to build a Wellbeing Centre to develop a new model of care and support for vulnerable young people, intended to be somewhere in Renfrewshire. In May 2023, the defender sought election to the board of SMISA, which held 51 per cent of shares in the club. As part of his campaign, on 1 May 2023 the defender made a statement, which was published online, in which he said that Kibble planned to build on St Mirren owned land and the pursuers failed to disclose this to the other directors. A second statement was made that month to The Herald newspaper in which he said that he had been “made out to be a liar” by Kibble and the board of SMFC and that there had been a “huge cover-up”. For the pursuers it was submitted that there was no plan, secret or otherwise, to build the Wellbeing Centre on SMFC land. The defender’s statements plainly suggested that they had acted in conflict of interest by failing to disclose such a plan and had perpetrated a cover-up and then lied about it. As the only persons involved with both Kibble and SMFC, it was clear the statements included them. Senior counsel for the defender submitted that the evidence, including a reference in the business plan for the Wellbeing Centre to opportunities predicated on Kibble’s purchase of SMFC shares, illustrated that the opportunity to develop SMFC land was a critical factor in Kibble’s decision to invest in the club. The reasonable reader would understand the campaign statement to have been made in the context of a dispute between the pursuers and the defender regarding the ongoing governance of SMFC. The quote in the Herald did not name either pursuer, and there was no evidence of reputational damage. Viewed in context In his decision, Lord Clark said of the general credibility of the parties as witnesses: “I am not persuaded that any aspect of the evidence of the pursuers or the defender, on the matters of specific relevance to the alleged defamation, falls to be treated as not credible or substantially unreliable. This is not a case in which one side was telling lies in the evidence put before the court. The court is left with the need to have regard to all of their evidence when determining whether there was defamation.” Considering whether there was a plan by the pursuers to build on SMFC land, he added: “The SMFC land was plainly not big enough for what Kibble had in mind, when the requirement was 4 hectares and it was just a little over 1 hectare in size. The first draft of [Kibble’s] Stage 1 application refers to developing 1.15 hectares of unused land opposite SMFC, which is closer to the scale of the SMFC land. However, as things developed it became clear that a larger area was needed, and 4 hectares was mentioned in the round 9 Stage 1 application. The defender argues that this larger area could include the SMFC land, which is a possibility, but there is no real evidence of seeking to acquire an area of land owned by more than one party.” Turning to the defences of public interest and honest belief, Lord Clark said: “The nature and gravity of the allegations do not stray beyond what [the defender] felt able to infer from the information he had. There are certain steps, identified on behalf of the pursuers, which he did not take to verify his belief. It is true that, if asked, they may have provided fuller information about the more detailed issue of having no plan to build on the SMFC land, but it had already been said that there was no conflict of interest. It is apparent that, viewed in the whole context of what had occurred, the defender could, objectively, believe that his statement was in the public interest.” He concluded: “Based upon the true facts, it is clear that an honest person could hold the opinion that the pursuers covered up, denied and lied. When one has regard to the whole of the evidence that is not the true position, but it is a conclusion that could fairly have been reached by an honest person. It has been established that the evidence upon which [the defender’s] expression of opinion relied on were facts which existed at the time the statement was published, as well as what was asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement made available before, and things that the defender reasonably believed to be a fact at the time the statement was published.” Decree of absolvitor was therefore granted in favour of the defender.

Replying on behalf of the majority of St. Mirren supporters. That is those that do not work of have partners or friends who are employed by Kibble. The story was written by Martin Williams of the Glasgow Herald - Scottish reporter of the year. http://www.twitter.com/@Martin1Williams I am sure he would welcome your comments.😄

You will just have to wait and see 😟.

From Today's Sunday Herald. One of the country's oldest charities is being probed by the national regulator as it emerged it has funded a failed claim of damages by directors of one of Scotland's leading football clubs. St Mirren directors Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, who are also both key figures behind the Kibble care charity were found to have been defamed by former Paisley club boardroom colleague Alan Wardrop - but failed in their claim of damages as a Court of Session judge agreed there were relevant public interest and 'honest opinion' defences under Scottish law. The ruling has been described by Mr Wardrop's lawyers as setting a "crucial precedent" for free speech in Scotland. The claim for damages surrounded comments made by Mr Wardrop around the legality of an application on behalf of Kibble for public funds for a regeneration project including a well-being centre on what appeared to be club land. There were claims that Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan had a conflict of interest. The total costs of the case are thought to run to over £400,000 - and a future hearing is expected to thrash out who pays. Mr Wardrop's legal team say they would be surprised if they do win their costs in the case as the Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan's damages claim was dismissed. Court papers seen by The Herald confirm that the action brought by Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan is being funded by Kibble, the charity that cares for children with complex needs at sites across Renfrewshire. Mr Gillespie is the chief executive of the charity, while Mr MacMillan is director of corporate affairs and both are Kibble representatives on the St Mirren board. According to court papers seen by The Herald, the judge Lord Clark said of the funding that "this can...give rise to some degree of concern". The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) has said that it was "aware of the situation and is in the process of carefully considering the judgment as part of our ongoing inquiries into the charity". It is understood that there were concerns raised with the regulator about the funding of the case by the charity. And is believed that the regulator will look at whether the case funding was in the best interests of the charity. Kibble is one of two that has "significant control" of the Scottish Premiership club according to Companies House with more than 25% but not more than 50% of the shares. St Mirren became fan-owned in the summer of 2021 when the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association (SMISA) bought out the remaining shareholding of chairman Gordon Scott to become majority (51%) owners of the Buddies in what it called "a historic day". The move to fan ownership of the Paisley club came after Kibble became part-owners in March 2020. It purchased a 27.5% stake in the club. SMISA said the deal helped to safeguard the future of the club – formed in 1877 – by placing it in the hands of its supporters, "the people who care for it the most". An OSCR probe into the charity was believed to have been put on hold pending the outcome of the defamation case but has now been reignited. The judge dismissed Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan's claim for damages, which might have amounted to £80,000 because he believed that Mr Wardrop's comments were in the public interest and were honestly held based on the evidence he had at the time - both defences under the Scottish law around defamation damages. Mr Wardrop said: "I, like many, would question how it was ever appropriate for charitable funds to be used in that manner, particularly where the action was destined for failure because of the defences available to me. It is quite frankly an astonishing waste of charitable money." In a statement, David Nairn, chairman of Kibble said: "We are extremely pleased that the judgment underlines the facts in this case and vindicates the board's unanimous decision to support Jim and Mark in what was an important action to protect their reputations and that of Kibble. “Kibble is a very highly regarded national charity, which takes its responsibilities extremely seriously. The board has acted with the utmost propriety in this matter at all times and has, of course, kept regulators fully abreast of our actions and will continue to do so.” Key to the case were remarks made by Mr Wardrop in a row over what was alleged was a "secretive" plan for the project including a well-being centre on St Mirren land. Alan Wardrop, a lifelong Saints fan who made the step up to the club's board in July 2016 after championing club ownership spoke out two years ago as concerns arose over Kibble's partnership with St Mirren and an alleged plan to develop a wellbeing centre in Ferguslie Park. According to documents sent to the Scottish Government, Kibble – which cares for children with complex needs at sites across Renfrewshire – appeared to want to build a £13.4 million wellbeing hub next to St Mirren's SMiSA Stadium. A map of land supposedly earmarked for the Kibble project submitted by Renfrewshire Council was alleged to have pinpointed St Mirren land - while seeking £2m of public money by way of grant from the Scottish Government. But an email seen by The Herald from Mr Gillespie and shared with candidates standing for election to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association (SMISA) said that the council had "wrongly shaded in an area of land owned by St Mirren" and gave a "categoric assurance" that club land would not be used. As the dispute emerged, Kibble said Mr Wardrop's concerns over the legalilty of the bid titled "St Mirren Regeneration and Wellbeing Masterplan" were based on the "entirely false premise that there was ever any intention to build on land owned by St Mirren". The spokesman for the charity went on: "There simply was not." But Renfrewshire Council did not agree that areas of land indicated on a submitted map were produced in error and said the area earmarked in the application to Scottish Government was pinpointed by Kibble. St Mirren's board insisted at the time that the application was "unspecific" as to the precise location and that it was "not on land owned by St Mirren". But the row spilled over into an annual general meeting of SMiSA which is the majority owner of the club and which called for an investigation. The judge in a ruling decided it could not accept a council officer's evidence that said the Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan had identified St Mirren land for the project. He decided therefore that the "central claim" that Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan had a plan to build on St Mirren land was not established. He described it as a "false application" that was "in reality poorly worded and wrongly expressed but with no actual intention to gain public money on a false basis". But Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan failed in a bid to win a total of £80,000 in damages over what the judge decided were defamatory comments arising from the row after he decided that there were defences to breaches of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 which were met. They included that Mr Wardrop reasonably believed that comments complained of about the funding application made in a campaign statement and in the Herald were in the public interest. The judge said the issues around the applications for millions of pounds worth of public funds "certainly raised issues on matters of public interest" and that Mr Wardrop "reasonably believed" that published comments were "in the public interest". There was also a defence of "honest opinion" on other comments made in the Herald that was also met with the judge stating that it was "genuinely held" based on the evidence he had before him at the time. Details that the charity was funding the case emerged in evidence from Duncan Sloan, a Kibble trustee. According to the judge, Mr Sloan "confirmed that the pursuers’ conduct of the present litigation is being funded by Kibble". He adds: "As submitted for [Mr Wardrop] this action has not been raised on behalf of Kibble, but charitable funds have been used to facilitate this action. This can also give rise to some degree of concern, but ultimately it is a matter for the board of Kibble to determine how and when to spend funds and the very fact of this financial involvement does not undermine the evidence given." In the wake of the land row, Mr Wardrop received a stadium ban by the club. He had previously been credited with making fan ownership possible by teaming up with SMISA to initially begin a buyout process in 2016. When SMISA became majority shareholders, they asked Mr Wardrop to remain on the board as one of their representatives and he willingly agreed. Mr Wardrop was the mastermind behind the 1877 Club in the main stand of the SMISA Stadium and has also contributed several items to the mini-museum inside the club from his personal collection of memorabilia. When he announced he was quitting the board in October 2022, a SMISA spokesman said: “Everyone at SMISA would like to thank him for all his time and effort on the board, both before and after he agreed to become one of our representatives." “Everything he ever did was undoubtedly with the best interests of St Mirren at heart.” It emerged that Mr Wardrop had resigned in a row over the project. At the time of the Kibble's share purchase in 2020, St Mirren said the charity which had been based in Paisley since 1840, "will bring its commercial expertise to St Mirren, helping bring in new income to be reinvested in the team, while working with the club to create new training and employment options for the young people in their care". Mr Gillespie said at the time: "This new partnership will allow us to grow the business of St Mirren and at the same time increase Kibble’s opportunities for employment, training and education as well as access to sport, health and wellbeing support. "Kibble will bring our commercial expertise to St Mirren, creating a dynamic partnership and complementing the existing set up by offering the support and expertise that a large charity has in areas such as HR, finance, marketing and communications. The strength in this partnership will help bring in new income to be reinvested in the team, which in turn will generate more non-footballing income to create a sustainable business model for the club going forward." Kibble's roots date back to 1840 upon the death of Miss Elizabeth Kibble, heiress to a large textile fortune. On her death she left a portion of her wealth to “found and endow in Paisley, an institution for the purpose of reclaiming youthful offenders against the laws”. According to Kibble, it has evolved for more than a century and a half from this point and has "always stayed true to its original mission: supporting young people facing adversity". The OSCR is the independent regulator and registrar for Scotland’s charities and plays a crucial role in maintaining public trust and confidence in the charity sector. A non-ministerial department of the Scottish Government, it is tasked with ensuring charities comply with the legal requirements under the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. Among its tasks is to ensure funds are used appropriately and that charities are governed properly. In 2023, OSCR investigated several charities following complaints of poor governance and spending irregularities. In some cases, trustees were suspended and funds were frozen while investigations were carried out.

This is the important bit for me. OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION OPINION OF LORD CLARK Page 23 of judgement - Credibility and reliability of the pursuers and the defender First pursuer JAMES GILLESPIE [64] In contrast to the defender, the pursuers were not credible witnesses. In general terms, both pursuers repeatedly sought to obfuscate and to avoid answering the questions that were put to them. The first pursuer’s attempts to absolve himself from responsibility for the RCGF bid process in relation to the Wellbeing Centre were not credible. When it was put to him that, if Ferguslie was not by 2022 considered to be a potential location for the Wellbeing Centre then Kibble’s RCGF applications contained lies, the first pursuer sought to pivot his position by suggesting that J29 could have been a potential location had Kibble obtained geotechnical information. The first pursuer nonetheless accepted that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects. Second pursuer MARK MACMILLAN [65] On various occasions, the second pursuer had to have questions put to him several times and to be prompted by the court to provide a direct response. The second pursuer was asked nine times to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was predicated on the purchase of SMFC shares but did not provide a coherent response. His evidence that, as of 7 October 2022, he still had not opened the location plan attached to Alasdair Morrison’s email was wholly incredible: there were only two attachments to the email, one titled “application Form” and the other titled “Kibble Wellbeing Centre”. The notion that the second pursuer ignored the second attachment to that email at least twice defied belief. He was equally driven to accept that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects. The defender ALAN WARDROP [66] The defender was a credible and reliable witness who did his best to assist the court. He answered, in a straightforward and fulsome manner, the questions put to him in cross-examination. The defender made appropriate concessions where his recollection of matters was contradicted by contemporaneous documentary material. In relation to a Lord Ordinary in a previous case criticising the defender, that judge explained that he did not accept the credibility and reliability of certain aspects of the evidence given by five witnesses, including the defender, before concluding that he otherwise found thewitnesses to be generally credible and reliable. The judge’s assessment had no relevance to the defender’s credibility and reliability in this case. Disposal [136] I shall therefore repel the pursuers’ pleas-in-law, sustain the defender’s third, fifth and eighth pleas-in-law, along with the sixth plea-in-law (in part), and grant decree of absolvitor. In the meantime, all questions of expenses are reserved. If decree of absolvitor is granted, this means the pursuer’s claim has been rejected by the court. The pursuer cannot raise the same claim another time against the defender.

A bit fuzzy (bear 😃) for me but certainly not the worst we have had. Not so sure about the red. 😏

Hi the results of the auction are on the club web site. Seems the Celtic top did not sell.

Hi, Chill man. How's the weather in Arbroath ? Been to any games or dinners recently😄 ?

I would not touch either. I do not support sectarian sports clubs. I support the club in many ways including owning shares, SMISA membership, several season tickets, corporate hospitality, player sponsorship., shop income, regular contributions to 1877 club bar income. 😄😄😄

LIVE UPDATE Here we have our General Manager wearing a RANGERS TOP and someone else in the CELTIC top. Have we no respect for ourselves ? Will Rangers and Celtic be auctioning a St. Mirren top anytime soon? What message does this send to our young players and their families. Welcoming the Bigot brothers strips to our event. How about a wee sing song of the hits from both sides of 1690 after the auction. Up to our knees in ....... etc etc etc. Money is not everything. A new take on "selling the jerseys" for sure.

https://www.ibroxinsider.com/2024/09/12/gillespie-drops-out-of-ceo-race-bevington-steps-forward/

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-transfer-news/rangers-chief-executive-jim-gillespie-33484211 Rangers are reportedly set to name St Mirren vice-chairman Jim Gillespie as the new chief executive at the club.