Jump to content

doakie

Saints
  • Posts

    70
  • 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)

139

Reputation

  1. Against my better judgement I'll allow myself to get drawn into Bazil's shitshow by pointing out that he's either now forgotten the original post or not even read it. "Imagine even calling it a conflict of interest when one of the parties, has no interest in it" he bleats when I laid out the scenario for everyone to read. Here's what I said: "Alan (Wardrop) said that, in August 2022, Mark McMillan of Kibble was asked by the St.Mirren board to engage with Renfrewshire Council with a view to growing the area around the stadium. The idea was to potentially switch the Academy from Ralston to this area. However, Mr. McMillan apparently failed to mention to his fellow board directors that he was already in conversations with RDC around a Scot Gov funding application made in June 2022 to transfer land “adjacent to the stadium” to Kibble ownership. So, of the six board members, apparently only the two Kibble reps knew about the application while the remaining four directors were unaware. Alan’s opinion is that this is a conflict of interest but the matter only came to light when the application for funding progressed to stage 2 and was announced publicly in September 2022." Of course, Bazil believes neither me nor Alan Wardrop even though he wasn't present at the meeting and didn't hear a single syllable but it doesn't stop him from disputing my version of events. Oh dear. In the meantime, I can't say for certain that either Wardrop's opinion or McMillan's opinion is more accurate - because I was not at the board meeting when the application was discussed but I do know who was more plausible at the AGM. By the way, not one single attendee has disputed my summary, funny that. You'd think that at least one attendee just might have posted a contradiction if what I said was misleading So Bazil, even though he was absent, has concluded that "one of the parties, has no interest in it". How would someone who was not present know whether one of the parties has no interest. Kibble have made no such statement but their PR guru defends them at all costs. The bottom line is that this braggard who boasts of his £400,000 house is merely a stubborn fellow who desperately and ungraciously avoids admitting that he is wrong. Anyone who disagrees then becomes embroiled in playground arguments in which he desperately tries to muddy the waters to satisfy his lust for proving himself right. Many shareholders left the AGM feeling unsatisfied but, because this doesn't suit his narrative, Bazil puts forward a catalogue of misinformation to try and persuade us that it was all nonsense. I'm told that the Smisa board will issue the minutes in the near future but, even then, I predict that Bazil, the AGM non attendee, will take issue with that. I won't hold my breath for an apology when the minutes are issued.
  2. Oh dear. I promised myself that I wasn't going to engage in any further dialogue with the Kibble PR team aka Bazil85 but I have to challenge this preposterous statement. Even a child could work out by looking at the financial report prepared for the shareholders that this statement is false. "handled by Kibble at no fee"? Nonsense! I'm reminded of that old cliche - there are lies, damn lies and statistics. In this case, I'd amend that to: there are lies, damn lies and Bazil's posts. "Should Kibble not have been there, we would have had to shell out on the project management" he says. The original budget was £80k for Ralston but the final bill ended up at £400k - this was disclosed at the AGM at which Bazil wasn't present - so it begs the question: how efficient was their project management when it went over budget by such a huge amount? The answer? Not very efficient at all. Want another example of his misinformation? He said "The AGM sounds blown out of proportion". He wasn't there so doesn't know what was said on the night. He cannot know if it's out of proportion when he wasn't present. Don't be fooled, folks, this guy's credibility is zero. His only interest is to counter any criticism of Kibble and, after recent revelations, his mask is slipping. My goodness, he even disputes first hand reports from the AGM - even though he wasn't present. How ludicrous is that? I, and about 100 shareholders, witnessed the stormiest exchange I've ever seen at such a meeting when former director and life long St.Mirren supporter, Alan Wardrop, accused Mark McMillan of having a conflict of interest. Tempers flared, concerns expressed and voices were raised yet Bazil, despite his absence, would have you believe that "The AGM sounds blown out of proportion" Of course he'll respond to this in a pathetic attempt to defend Kibble in spite of what I believe to be growing discontent among shareholders and supporters, (hence the almost total overhaul of the Smisa board but that's another story) Over and out.
  3. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (e.g. the embarrassing debacle at the AGM) the Kibble PR machine kicks in again, trying to persuade us that this is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Yawn. No need to respond, Basil, as your credibility has been in tatters for quite a while now. You are as persuasive as Mr McMillan was on the night i.e. not at all! No further comments from me - over and out.
  4. I'm not sure what details you refer to but, if you see my initial post on this thread, you'll read my recollection of events with a few details. Bottom line? Alan Wardrop claimed a conflict of interest. Mark McMillan denied it. I hope others in attendance may add their tuppence worth.
  5. Very good questions indeed, Maboza. I'm not the only person who has wondered whether or not Kibble have been paying for the "enhanced placement". I also admit to being suspicious to their motives in wanting land adjacent to the stadium, particularly with the total lack of transparency displayed by Mark McMillan at the AGM. As Maboza says, of all the land available in Paisley why would Kibble want to build next to the stadium? Forward planning perhaps - and I don't mean the kind of planning that would benefit the club. Naturally, this is mere speculation on my part but, as I said earlier, his performance at the AGM was unconvincing. That view was shared by every single shareholder that I subsequently spoke to - and that was quite a few. The common view is that jargon combined with vague answers only arouses suspicion. Of course, I didn't speak to every shareholder so I cannot claim to speak for all but I've yet to hear anyone claim that his responses were satisfactory whereas everyone I spoke to was supportive of Alan Wardrop's line of questioning. Was there a conflict of interest? The question should have been answered properly and in plain English.
  6. I spoke to a few fellow fans yesterday who could not see any chat around the rather stormy AGM. A contributor called “Glen” posted an accurate summary and there were various replies but, due to the fact it was on a different thread (More redundancies. Where are you SMISA?) I thought it might be an idea to open a separate thread as the AGM had a controversial ending. Since the AGM there’s been much talk about Alan Wardrop and his comments. Here’s a brief summary: Alan said that, in August 2022, Mark McMillan of Kibble was asked by the St.Mirren board to engage with Renfrewshire Council with a view to growing the area around the stadium. The idea was to potentially switch the Academy from Ralston to this area. However, Mr. McMillan apparently failed to mention to his fellow board directors that he was already in conversations with RDC around a Scot Gov funding application made in June 2022 to transfer land “adjacent to the stadium” to Kibble ownership. So, of the six board members, apparently only the two Kibble reps knew about the application while the remaining four directors were unaware. Alan’s opinion is that this is a conflict of interest but the matter only came to light when the application for funding progressed to stage 2 and was announced publicly in September 2022. Mr. McMillan claimed that there was no such conflict but, due to his reluctance to speak in plain English as well as his use of technical jargon, his response did not convince. This is a brief summary but there are other comments on Glen’s post.
  7. Glen has given an accurate summary of events. I would add, however that the Alan Wardrope / Mark McMillan clash was the equivalent of a hand grenade being thrown into the meeting. The former director , Alan Wardrope, was pretty convincing in his claim that Mark McMillan had deliberately made an application which, as Glen explained, was a conflict of interest. Mark McMillan, however, seemed very uncomfortable in his reply and resorted to using vague, hard to understand cliches. Indeed, one man went so far as to storm to the microphone and accuse McMillan of using tactics normally used by slippery Westminster politicians in an attempt to muddy the waters of the issue, while one woman sat and loudly repeated "Wow". The anger was so obvious that Jim Gillespie took the microphone from McMillan who had only been successful in antagonising the shareholders. There was a lot of anger and frustration in the room, particularly with McMillan's refusal to speak in plain English. His reputation was not enhanced on the evening and many shareholders hung around afterwards to share their thoughts with words/phrases such as "arrogant" and "economical with the truth" being bandied about. Not a good evening for either Kibble or, in particular, Mark McMillan. A little humility would have been in order from this individual but that was not the general perception from the shareholders.
  8. "he's quite clearly got another few members of the board "in his pocket"." Wow! That's some assumption from someone who, presumably, didn't witness what was discussed at the Smisa meeting and therefore doesn't actually know the facts of the situation. Seeing as I prefer to deal with facts, and not theories or assumptions, I reiterate, he is one of seven democratically elected Smisa board members, each of whom have the same vote as he does. That is a fact, not an opinion. Furthermore, I assume you don't know Jim Cumming, Eddie Devine, Kenny Lang, Wullie Bell or John White personally because, if you did, you'd be very aware that all of these individuals are able, strong people who would not tolerate being in anyone's pocket and would laugh at that suggestion. p.s. I can't comment on Dougie McMahon simply because I don't know the man.
  9. I must admit that I struggle to see the connection between the facts that I laid out for the forum members information and your then forming the opinion that SG is toxic. I reiterate, he is one of seven democratically elected Smisa board members, each of whom have the same vote as he does.
  10. There are currently seven members of the Smisa board i.e. Jim Cumming, Eddie Devine, Stewart Gilmour, Dougie McMahon, Kenny Lang, Wullie Bell and John White. The normal complement is nine ("The number of directors to be elected by the members will be no more than nine") which was the case until this weeks resignations. Constitutionally, the Smisa board is run on a democratic basis and no individual holds more "power" or “influence” than any other. This obviously means that no single person can "do what he likes". Furthermore, being a member of the Smisa board has nothing to do with becoming a club director. This information - and the constitution - is freely available online. I hope that clears up some of the confusion on this thread.
  11. 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!
  12. No, I'm simply replying to bazil's comment about he and I finally agreeing on something. Sorry for raising your hopes😃
×
×
  • Create New...