Jump to content

doakie

Saints
  • Posts

    59
  • Joined

About doakie

  • Birthday 10/10/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Lochwinnoch

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

doakie's Achievements

Youth team sub

Youth team sub (3/14)

110

Reputation

  1. Absolutely correct. It's farcical, a betrayal of our tradition, our identity. There has been numerous complaints about the club's attitude to this issue but the chairman, the board, Smisa and Kibble seem to care not a jot - nothing gets done about it! I get that it's not a big deal to non-traditionalists but many of us believe that our strip represents who we are and the lame arguments about "contractual considerations" are, like many issues at our club, vague and illogical! When the team came onto the field today impersonating Aberdeen again, I decided that I will never enter the club shop again. What's the point in buying black and white strips, scarves, hats etc when the club elect to betray our colours on a whim? No, I'm spending no more in the shop when the club treats our tradition, our colours with such disdain We are St.Mirren, not Aberdeen. We are black and white, not red!
  2. No, I'm simply replying to bazil's comment about he and I finally agreeing on something. Sorry for raising your hopes😃
  3. Is this a windup? I guess so but, if not, you forgot to mention that his qualifications for a managerial position are , mmmm, zero! No managerial experience whatsoever. Can I point out that managing requires a completely different skill set than playing the game.
  4. If, and it's a big if, the Record story about Scott Brown is true then the obvious question is this: Who among our decision makers is so out of touch with the fanbase to even consider employing such an abrasive, divisive character? I can't believe that anyone from our board would be so stupid? Nah, it simply can't be true. Can it?
  5. I've said many, many times before: don't believe me, don't believe any other poster - Ask a Smisa rep! Ask a director. But, no, you'd prefer to keep trying to score childish points on this forum. Grow up and go ask questions of the right people instead of casting aspersions on well meaning fans.
  6. You weren't present so you still take the information with a pinch of salt? Wow! There's a stunning lack of logic right there! If you ever had any credibility (doubtful, mind you) that's it blown out of the water now with that nonsensical, contradictory statement. It's patently obvious to me and my contacts on this forum that you are an attention seeker, someone who enjoys arguing black is white in a childish attempt to provoke others. My son used to do that when he was a child too but he grew out of it. It's obvious who has an agenda and it's not those of us who are worried about the club at this time. Now, please, leave the adult conversations to the grown ups but, as is my norm, I'll leave you to have the last word that you so desperately crave.
  7. Animal's is a pretty accurate summary of proceeding, especially his point about Vice Chairman Gillespie's demeanour. When the chairman's wifi went down it was embarrassing as I, for one, fully expected the vice chairman to do his job and literally chair the meeting however his downright rude, monosyllabic grunt in reply to one question - his one and only contribution to the meeting - gave away his lack of respect for the shareholders and the meeting itself. It was very revealing - as anyone who witnessed his petulance would agree. The "probing financial questions on the current position" - and there were many of them from the former chairman - were avoided or glossed over until the chairman conceded that, since the period that the financial report covered (May 2021), the club had been making a loss. However, he would not go into detail. Stewart Gilmour pressed the issue and referred to a page on the financial report but the chairman didn't have a copy of the report so couldn't respond. The reports we've all read about the club losing money at a speedy rate of knots seem valid and are worrying. Of course, in spite of the chairman informing us that the club is losing money, there will be people on this forum who did not actually witness the meeting who will dispute this and offer a different slant but no one who attended and heard what he had to say will be in any doubt. There were many shareholders upset at the stop/start nature of the Zoom format. Its limitations were exposed as shareholders simply could not type quickly enough to ensure a smooth conversation. In spite of the chairman saying that we would be able to ask questions verbally at the end of the meeting, this did not happen. I can't speak for anyone else, but I tried to flag up that I wanted to actually speak but to no avail. One person called it a farce and others chipped in with their complaints. I'm told that this was not an AGM in the true legal sense as shareholders were not allowed to ask questions verbally. It should never happen again. I would also question Mr Gillespie's suitability for the role of vice chairman when, on an evening that the chairman was offline for a period, he did not step forward to chair the meeting as you'd expect from a vice chairman. Gordon Scott contributed to the meeting, Alan Wardrope contributed and Mark McMillan contributed but the sullen Mr Gillespie gave absolutely no indication of any respect for the vice chairmanship, for the shareholders for the club or his fellow directors. To balance that, I will say that Mark McMillan spoke well although, when asked about the number of Kibble employees were working at the club, I felt he was evasive when he answered "one". He is a politician, after all. The questioner was clearly trying to ascertain how many young people from Kibble (employees or young people in care) were working at the club and replacing St.Mirren staff e.g. ticket office, front desk etc. When asked a second time he maintained that "One Kibble employee works on secondment at the club" When he was asked about what Kibble have done for the club he stated "delivered fan ownership". I disagree that Kibble delivered fan ownership although, again, I'll balance that by saying that he said Kibble are effectively doing some work at the training ground work free of charge and that is why that job didn't go to tender. The tendering process for other contracts was brought up but was quickly dealt with, albeit in an unsatisfactory manner in my view. The conversation went along the lines of "Was there a tendering process in place"? "Yes". No further detail was offered. This is about as much as I can remember but the overwhelming feedback from the shareholders about the Zoom format was damning and I would have been much happier if Stewart Gilmour's questions had been handled more efficiently. Of course, Tony's retirement played a big part in the proceedings but, for me and other attendees, the current financial position was the real issue. I would have preferred a more thorough explanation, particularly as it was admitted that we are making a loss but, I guess the lack of detail was only to be expected. Was this the reason that there were no auditors present, I wonder? Let me assure anyone who's reading this that absolutely none of my contacts who were in attendance (there were eight of us) were remotely impressed with the content or the manner of the presentation. There were pre-submitted questions that were simply not asked, mine among them, in spite of Lynsey McLean sending an e-mail asking for these questions. To quote one shareholder "This is no way to hold an AGM" - that comment, and other similar comments, were ignored. Let's hope for a return to a fit for purpose AGM next year, an AGM where every director and auditor is present as per usual business practice and where everyone involved is available to reply to questions from the floor. This was not an example of how an AGM should occur.
  8. I appreciate that but some information, given in confidence, can't be proved however I suggest that most contributors come on here with the sole intention of keeping other fans well informed, fans that might not have the same contacts within the club as others. Consequently, that allows the naysayers to come on and cast doubt on any well meaning fan such as Animal or Goodietwoshoes. When posters such as the afore mentioned two offer their views in an articulate, well thought out manner without resorting to hysteria I tend to find them credible. What I don't find credible are those who are so firmly entrenched in their pro Kibble stance that they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge other than the opinion that Kibble are great, Kibble are good, Kibble can do no wrong. I've said before: don't believe me or any other poster - Ask a Smisa rep! Ask a director. No one will tell you that the Kibble directors have a harmonious relationship with the club.
  9. For the purposes of accuracy, let me point out that the loan is not a financial asset, it is a debt. It has to be repaid so there are consequences if we start spending it recklessly. My understanding is that we accepted it only to be kept for emergencies but don't think for a second that any loan will magically put the books in a healthy position - it simply doesn't work that way, as any accountant or well informed person will tell you. I'm certain that questions will be asked about "such information" on Thursday.
  10. Basil, Rather than poke fun at the new poster ("very clearly trying to dramatize the position the club is in") wouldn't it be a better idea for you to ask one of the Smisa board about our financial position, assuming you know at least one of the many members of the Smisa board? Goodie2shoes makes an impassioned plea i.e. "I don't want to be ridiculed for my opinion" yet both you and faraway Saint can't help but do so - "As much as I agree with the summary of faraway saint" in response to a laughing face? Have I missed something because a laughing face isn't what I would call a summary? As it so happens, I've been told a very similar story about the current financial state of the club but I guess you won't believe me seeing as your modus operandi is to adopt a "Kibble are Good" position followed by a criticism on whoever posts a view contrary to yours. My information has come from a person I trust but, even so, I can't come on here and say that I know for certain that it's true so I struggle to understand your assertion that "there is practically zero danger there is a solid basis for the financial issues". How do you know there is zero danger? Have you had an update since May from the board? Of course, I understand that you're only offering a personal opinion but you have framed it as a matter of fact, not opinion. Due to what I've been told privately, I believe we could very well be in trouble but the AGM's accounts will not reflect that problem seeing as they only show the financial picture up until May last year. No need to reply to my rhetorical questions - although I concede that you seem to enjoy having the last word - but I suggest you don't rush to judge posters such as the new guy. He seems to be a loyal, concerned fan who is worried about the club. For the record, I find his post to be credible but I could be wrong, only time will tell - and that is merely my opinion.
  11. I do apologise, Callum, I expected a mature response to my original post ("As for the Zoom meeting ? Did I even mention that ?") More fool me. As I said before, have a good night and I'll leave you to have the last word that you seem determined to have, no matter how irrelevant to my point that may be.
  12. Yes, Callum, that's called trawling through the internet. I didn't say that it was difficult but I do say that it's Smisa's responsibility to make themselves known to us rather than us having to search for them. But why do we need to seek them out? They are supposed to be open and transparent. It's their duty, in my opinion, to make themselves known to us - that's my point. I'll give you a perfect example: How many of them attended the two meetings in the summer? Only two made themselves known and one of them has the roving microphone. Here's another: when was the last time that rank and file members of Smisa were invited to a run of the mill Smisa meeting? Finally - and you've not mentioned this in your reply - what reasonable person would agree to a Zoom AGM to a public AGM? "Am I missing something here", you ask. I respectfully suggest that you're missing my point i.e. the Zoom AGM and lack of communication from Smisa "a handy link to get in touch": It's seems to me that the Smisa board do not want to engage with the members at this point. What makes me think that? Well, I sent them an e-mail around this subject on Tuesday and received an automated reply stating that I should expect a reply in 2-3 working days. Have I had one? Nope! You have, of course, every right to disagree but Smisa's lack of communication and visibility in recent weeks should be a concern to us all. In the meantime, I'll continue to patiently wait for the reply they promised but I've got to say that, if they can't even draft a reply within their promised timeline, then it doesn't fill me with confidence that they can handle major issues. Have a good night.
  13. I'm told that there is a clause in the constitution denying that scenario. I can't be certain of the exact wording but apparently Smisa members are not shareholders.
×
×
  • Create New...