doakie
-
Posts
128 -
Joined
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by doakie
-
-
7 hours ago, animal said:
* Kibble then go back to press to call for John Needham’s resignation
Not forgetting Kibble issue legal letter to Smisa demanding Needham's removal from the board.
-
27 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
There is no conceding. I never claimed it would be trivial.
If you want to give me a few more hypotheticals, giving my view on them ALSO wouldn’t be conceding. Glad I could educate you on that 👍
Duly noted. Let's see what is and isn't hypothetical after tomorrow's AGM.
-
8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
"Hypothetically if the Kibble board members have been found to have lied, is that a trivial matter that has been blown out of proportion. "
No, I don't think it would be a trivial matter.
For the record, I'm glad you concede that it would not be a trivial matter.
-
Alan Wardrop has just issued a statement to the members of the 1877 club:
1877 Club Update
Monday 15th May, 2023 at 17.05 (after the Smisa election voting closed)
Dear 1877 Club Member
You will no doubt be aware that I have been banned from the stadium by the St.Mirren Board of Directors.
Therefore, I believe this would be the right juncture to hand things over to a new committee of 1877 Club members to take the club forward. I welcome any interested member to get in touch and I will set up an initial meeting to take it forward.
However, I also need to make you aware of a board plan to take away the kids zone in the 1877 club affecting 21 of our junior members and their parents and replace it with a sensory room.
Personally, I think a sensory room is a great idea but I think the area under consideration is wholly inappropriate due to the close proximity to a noisy and fun supporters club.
I have suggested what I believe is a far better location situated between the family stand and west stand corner where I had been working on building executive boxes. This area already has planning permission and could provide an excellent sensory room with dedicated access and fantastic views.
However, I now think this is getting personal and I believe this is the start of the dismantling of the 1877 Supporters Club to be eventually replaced by additional corporate hospitality and the club moved to an outdoor venue such as a fans zone.
If this proposal continues I would hate it to be because of me, so I will end my roles as club host and membership Manager as soon as a committee can be formed. Please contact me if you are interested in forming part of this 6 person (my suggestion) committee.
Our club Chairman John Needham, an 1877 club member. contacted me at very short notice requesting I pass on all your personal information to him as football club Chairman which I chose not to do. Your personal information was supplied to the 1877 club and requires your permission for it to be passed from one organisation to another organisation, albeit closely linked. The 1877 club is an independent supporters club , therefore the football club has no right to your personal information without your consent .If you wish me to pass your data to Mr Needham as club Chairman please email me with your consent and I will pass it on in due course.
The current situation is a sad state of affairs and if you want your voice heard please email club Chairman [email protected] or [email protected]
As I am banned I will not be attending the last game of the season but will pass on the POTY trophies to be awarded by the SLO’s who do a wonderful job as volunteers and I would like to highlight their efforts. I also have new membership cards ready for collection, so perhaps someone (new committee member) can organise their distribution at the same end of season home game.
Finally, this e mail gives me the opportunity to share a few wee secrets with you that only a few of my closest friends know. All the financing of the POTY trophies, buying memorabillia for display in the club, buying junior members Christmas gifts, buying food and drinks for members as a thank you for their support during Covid and providing the Buddy Bus service for free have all been at my expense.
Life has been good to me so I try to give it back to the people I care about, you, my fellow buddies.
Hope to see you all at away games in the future and thank you for making the 1877 Club the St.Mirren supporters club I dreamed of.
Best wishes
Alan Wardrop -
2 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:
I feel I’m repeating myself but a simple question that remains unanswered:
Why did Kibble and Renfrewshire Council not make this significant government funding application with the prior consent of St Mirren FC Ltd and the St Mirren Charitable Foundation?
This would surely have stopped this “Wardrop-Kibble” issue from occurring in the first place.
I'd add the caveat that there is a second important question that remains unanswered i.e. why did Mr. Gillespie then say in his e-mail to Smisa that the council made an error in producing plans showing the development was taking place on St.Mirren owned land only to have, according to the Herald, the council contradict that statement.
The club's relationship with Kibble is supposed to be open, transparent and honest but the evidence suggests something else.
-
11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Don’t see how.
Quelle Surprise. In face of overwhelming evidence that you, sorry, Mr Gillespie issued a statement that is untrue, you still "don't see how". Are the council - who have no skin in the game - lying?
You cannot fool all of the people all of the time. You have tried your best but the truth is out and it is undeniable to all. Every St.Mirren fan that I know who follows this forum - and there are quite a few - laughs at the mention of Bazil85 and his blind, unswerving loyalty to his Kibble paymasters.
I know that you'll demand the final word - as usual - but the game's up. The council have shot down in flames Kibble's version of events and I, like many, now look forward to what ludicrous defence you and Kibble put forward to misrepresenting the truth. "Deny, deny, deny", no doubt.
This is the first time on this thread that I've become involved in personalities but, in my defence, I'm frustrated by your predictable response, which insults the journalist, the council and the intelligence of we St.Mirren fans.
-
Interesting question, @Albanian Buddy
-
23519622.st-mirren-faces-court-action-leaks-ignite-charity-care-centre-row/
Surely the Kibble directors and the club board weren't misrepresenting the truth? Alas, Emails from within the council contradict entirely what we've been fed. So it seems, after all, that it wasn't Alan Wardrop who was misleading the fans. The Herald has seen, as have various others within the club, council e-mails contradicting the so called "official" version that's been peddled.
The council e-mails state quite specifically that "The Council assisted with the bid but the content was produced and signed off by Kibble in terms of the parameters of the proposal."
"In the ensuing row, an email seen by the Herald on Sunday from Mr Gillespie said that the council "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 allegations are based on the "entirely false premise that there was ever any intention to build on land owned by St Mirren".
The Herald on Sunday can reveal that the council does not agree that areas of land indicated on a submitted map were produced in error and say the area earmarked in the application to Scottish Government was pinpointed by Kibble.
St Mirren's board insisted that the application was "unspecific" as to the precise location and that it was "not on land owned by St Mirren".
But leaked emails from council managers have told a different story - with a diagram submitted to the Scottish Government for public funding showing that land proposed to be built on was, in fact, on St Mirren land."
So, in summing up, first of all Kibble directors submitted an application naming the St.Mirren charitable foundation as a partner without their knowledge - a scandal in itself, which the board glossed over then, to compound that disgraceful decision, the Kibble directors submitted plans showing that the so-called non specific land was actually on specific land i.e. St.Mirren owned land.
In attempting to cover this up the board and Kibble claimed, in an e-mail sent to Smisa - that it was a council error whereas the council contradict that by saying that the content of the application was produced by Kibble. No error by the council after all, they simply followed "the parameters of the proposal produced and signed off by Kibble". This contradicts what Mr Gillespie stated in his e-mail.
It seems that both the club board and also Kibble directors have been, shall we say, economical with the truth. To add insult to injury and in an attempt to stifle free speech (i.e. AW's criticism of Kibble and not the club itself) the board then ban AW from the stadium? I suggest that there are a few individuals who may have to reconsider their position.
-
12 minutes ago, div said:
Any football club, be it fan owned or privately owned, needs to be led by good, competent, trustworthy and capable people at the top.
I'm not massively convinced we have that right now.
Agreed.
-
7 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:
Given the location of the proposed centre and the inclusion of the charitable foundation in the application our football club board should have been made aware by Kibble of this request at the planning phase and certainly before the formal submission.
Trust?
That is what has been clearly missing here since this wellness centre application was first considered by the Kibble and the council.
We must not lose sight of what SMISA through direct supporter involvement have achieved over the last two decades.
Please remember that this was not a mistake made by SMISA.
Absolutely correct @Albanian Buddy. Smisa have issued no comment so far and, clearly, there's a good reason for that.
The board, Kibble and the council have made statements on the issue but I'm certain that, in the aftermath of the upcoming AGM, Smisa will have something to say to the club board and to the members.
Come Wednesday tough questions will, no doubt, be asked of the club board as to how this situation was allowed to develop, particularly if/when further information comes to light.
-
1 hour ago, djchapsticks said:
Initially yes. But the rebuttal didn't come from the Kibble, it came from the board. Wardrop has then disregarded this explanation and gone to the Herald to wilfully repeat his misinformation so has clearly also willingly made an enemy of the board in general.
35 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:Really?
AW has certainly highlighted that the land in question was not Kibble land and they said the council had made the error plus the “joint application” with the charitable foundation was without their permission or consent.
I’m not sure even the Kibble lawyers would say there is not a “shred of evidence”.
I certainly knew nothing about this until he brought it to our attention.
I don’t think he has an anti-SMFC agenda.
If you had said anti-Kibble then I’d agree.
Those are the facts, @Albanian Buddy. Well said. Also - why has AW been banned by the club when his criticism was of Kibble and their alleged conflict of interest.
-
4 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:
There is a clear and distinct difference to be drawn between criticism (which is fine) and making an accusation, having that accusation rebutted with dates, times and people present (again, fine) but instead of providing further evidence or having further discussion to say why you disagree with this turn of events (which would be the correct course to take) you run to the press and repeat your first accusation with the sole purpose of it being heard by a wider audience when you know it has been disproven and you've provided no further evidence for your stance.
I don't think there is such a law in Scotland but elsewhere that is more or less slander. The club are well within their rights to tell him to GTF on this one. Had they banned him without him doing the Herald thing, I'd have had a very different standpoint but he did do it and he's f**king goosed himself in doing so.
A well written response but there's a key element that no one has picked up on as far as I can see: I could be wrong but weren't AW's criticisms (and the Herald article) aimed at Kibble rather than the club? If he has only had a go at Kibble then why have the club board banned him? As an aside, I strongly suspect that the board have exceeded their authority in banning him. I'm no expert in the club's constitution but I doubt if there's a clause insisting that one can't criticise Kibble without running the risk of being banned.
-
5 minutes ago, HSS said:
Has the concept of free speech been discussed at board level?
What next? Will local councillor Kenny McLaren be banned from the stadium after the article in the Daily Record?
Will any poster here be banned?
This is alarming.
-
1 minute ago, faraway saint said:
Uncalled for with the "sexual predator" term but..............................
The same could be said of your good self, positively slavering over anything, or nothing, reaching hysterical levels.
While I'm not in Bazil's boat who sees no evil in anything St Mirren there's a complete lack of balance in your posts, WANTING things to look as bleak as possible for what can only be seen as an agenda to make changes that suit your own ego.
The term was clearly aimed at Donald Trump, who, as of two days ago, is a proven sexual predator.
-
6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
It’s over, it was a non-issue (as usual)
Sensationalising by rag papers don’t change the facts highlighted in the club statement.
I've tried to maintain objectivity but you remind me of Donald Trump's followers. Those people who blindly continue to support a proven sexual predator As I've said, there are further revelations to follow but no doubt you'll continue to fly the Kibble flag.
-
21 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:
Here's some of the pertinent points from the attached article. As I've said previously, there is even more to come.
"The local authority stated in the proposal that land, owned by the club, had already been identified for the wellbeing centre and the sale was proceeding."
"Paisley North councillor Kenny MacLaren reckons the whole thing stinks and said: “Kibble have used the reputation of St Mirren FC Foundation to make this scheme look like a partnership, to help with their grant application.
“It has been a dodgy move by Kibble who have been using another organisation’s names without their permission.
“They have failed to be open, clear and transparent about any of this. I would have concerns that an organisation that acts like this can access public money. They need to come clean on the whole process."
"A spokesman for Kibble failed to explain why the foundation was named as a lead partner in the application without prior knowledge and how land owned by the club had been identified as the location for the proposed hub." https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/in-your-area/renfrewshire/charity-blasted-over-secret-plan-29953458?fbclid=IwAR1IJnYwaFu9nKwUCQzNvC2ehGGfZ4ySVj_jQai_8MXXGHSUNM-NUURnKiw
-
9 hours ago, glen said:7 hours ago, djchapsticks said:
-
10 minutes ago, garzo said:
This is interesting & on First reading of it, I agree with the comments.
Couple of things;
Why is application graphic in name of St Mirren?
What are St Mirren @smisa directors playing at here? The dynamic seems to be they didn't know about any of this, didn't care when it was brought to light and waved it away, like there is no issue and now, if the club released statement is endorsed by all directors, are party to interference in a smisa election and "dodgy" PR style , statement full of deflection & potential inaccuracy.
I know a bit about the RCGF applications. They are a council led application for Scottish government funding.
I can't argue with any of your points.
-
30 minutes ago, HSS said:
Just found out I can’t go to Wednesdays meeting,I was looking forward to it
Raging 🤬
You do know that the meeting isn't this coming Wednesday but the following i.e. 17th?
-
Guys,
I’ve been sent this analysis of the board’s statement from a fan who wishes to remain anonymous – simply due to the amount of personal criticism that’s been posted here towards other contributors and towards Alan Wardrop himself. I asked for replies to be respectful and I repeat that plea. What follows is one fan's opinion and you may agree or disagree. I offer no opinion i.e. don’t shoot the messenger but I do feel it is worthy of your attention.
Make up your own mind about this analysis but I will highlight that the deadline for stage 1 applications was 17 June 2022.
ST.MIRREN CLUB BOARD STATEMENT
SMISA members and fans will be aware that an election process is underway to fill vacancies on the SMISA Board. One of the candidates referred to a grant application, initiated by Kibble, for funding under the auspices of the Scottish Government Regeneration Capital Grant Fund (RCGF). Given the nature of the wording within that candidate statement, the Club Board wish to clarify the details regarding this matter, including the diligence undertaken in September/October 2022
[Comment] – The timing is only one aspect of AW’s criticism of Kibble. The content of the application is the subject of deeper concern. Here, the Club statement confirms that the Board conducted “diligence” 3 months too late, and that it had no knowledge. Stage 1 Application submitted in June, Scot Gov RCGF announcement 5th September and Club Board meeting 29th September.
During the September 2022 Board meeting the Directors became aware of, and discussed, a proposal to build a Wellbeing Centre in Ferguslie Park and a funding application to the RCGF. All St Mirren Football Club Directors were in attendance. A Stage 1 Application had been submitted for RCGF funding and it was successful in moving to Stage 2 of the process. The application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application, the Club nor the Charitable Foundation had been engaged prior to the submission as this was very early stages of the process. It should be noted that historic discussions and meetings around the development of the Ferguslie Master Plan, including the potential development of a Wellbeing Centre, had taken place with Club Board members, Renfrewshire Council senior officials and other stakeholders.
Comment –
- “The Directors became aware of”. Obviously, this relates to only the SMiSA appointed directors. The Kibble directors knew months before September. So, only some of the directors “became aware of”. Misleading and an attempt to deflect.
- The Statement says, “…historic discussions and meetings … with Club Board members …” Which “Club Board members”? Surely they are not trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by referring to the Kibble representatives to the Board! They obviously had no authority to represent the Board as the matter had not been brought to the attention of the Board until September. The “hat” they wore during these discussions was that of Kibble and not the Board. They cannot seriously contend that the Club Board knew merely because the two Kibble directors knew.
- Clearly, the first the Directors became aware was September. They neglect to say when the Stage 1 Application was submitted (June 2022) – which is a damning fact in itself. One of Alan’s points was that an application was submitted in the Club’s name without the Board’s knowledge nor approval. The two Kibble directors had no authority to make such a submission. The Club Statement admits as much but attempts to divert attention by claiming it was “…very early stages.”
- The Statement says “…application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application.” They do not say that the Club was also named as a participant in the project. An inclusion in June without knowledge nor authority.
- So what does this paragraph tell us? The Directors admit that they (only the SMiSA appointed directors) first became aware of the RCGF application well after the process was initiated in June.
From the discussions that took place at the St Mirren Football Club Board meeting on 29 September 2022 it became clear that the matter would require further conversation with the Charitable Foundation and that the Club should maintain interest in this matter to establish if the project offered any tangible benefit going forward. It was agreed that timely and appropriate discussions must take place regarding any potential projects in future to ensure that all stakeholders, directly involved or otherwise, were aware of the approach that was being taken.
[ Comment] – The approach being taken by Kibble and not the Club nor the Foundation – yet each was declared in the application to be an integral partner and developer.
Regarding the suggestion that St Mirren Football Club was expected to offer its land for the proposed Wellbeing Centre, this was not the case. The application was unspecific as to the precise location of the proposed building, but a crucial element of the plan was that the Wellbeing Centre would be built on one of several long-term derelict sites in the Ferguslie area, not on land owned by St Mirren.
[Comment] – While the narrative in application document may have been non-specific, an artists’ impression and location map submitted as an exhibit with the application, clearly demonstrates that Kibble had targeted St Mirren assets for use in the project. The artist’s impression and location map, together with “Land ownership transfer” identified as a “Key next step” in the application document, demonstrate Kibble’s true intent. Use of St Mirren land was an integral part of the plans well before the SMiSA appointed Directors knew of those plans.
Given the need to align other stakeholders, a meeting with the Charitable Foundation took place, and subsequently the Charitable Foundation Board agreed to support the Stage 2 application for RCGF funding, given the complementary nature of the establishment of a Wellbeing Centre in the area.
[Comment] – The meeting with the Foundation took place at the instance of the Foundation (not Kibble) after it was surprised by a congratulatory message from another club at moving to Phase 2. At that moment, it had no knowledge about the application nor the pivotal part it was said to play in its conceptualisation and development. This occurred a mere 3 days before the Phase 2 deadline. Clearly, that was insufficient time to get acquainted with a project that had been under consideration by Kibble for at least a year and 4 months of an application process. The Foundation was not going to stand in the way. The Foundation did not, however, “support” the Stage 2 application. In fact, the material presented to the Foundation prior to submission, and used during the discussions, did not match the application actually submitted. The Foundation was misled.
The Club Board, having confirmed that alignment on the proposal had been achieved, was content that the matter had been concluded appropriately from a St Mirren Football Club perspective. As highlighted, a watching brief on the progress of the application was applied to establish it there were any opportunities for the Club arising from the initiative. The Club Board will always be supportive of any regeneration and development of the area surrounding the stadium if it is complementary to the best interests of the Club.
[Comment] – What steps did the Board take to “confirm alignment”? Did it:
-
Review the application material?
- If not, questions must be asked about the integrity of the enquiry process to “confirm alignment” and whether a failure to review the application and map was a failure of the Directors’ fiduciary duties to the Club.
- If so, then how could the Director’s condone the misstatements of fact in the June 2022 application?
-
Was the Board presented with a copy of the artists’ impression and location map?
- If not, then at least two of the Directors (with full knowledge of the artists impression and the intent to use St Mirren land) were not forthcoming to the other (SMiSA) directors. These two Directors had a fiduciary duty of transparency to the others and to make a full disclosure.
- If so, how is it that alignment could be confirmed when the project was intended to be located on St Mirren owned land?
Notification that the application was unsuccessful was received in January 2023, and the matter is now closed.
[Comment] – While the application may have been unsuccessful, the matter is far from closed. The events leading up the development, preparation, and submission of the application, made on behalf of the Club without Board approval, and the part played by Kibble, is an extremely important governance matter. This issue is exacerbated by the extent of the misstatements and misrepresentations made in the application materials, attributable to the Club and the Foundation, without their knowledge.
It is also worth noting by way of background information that the Club own a parcel of land adjacent to the stadium. Any sale or transfer of that asset, or any other element of the St Mirren estate, would require to be subject to a robust process. This would include being professionally valued, recommended by a majority of the Directors and approved by Club Shareholders as part of the legal Shareholder Agreement.
To reiterate the information outlined above regarding the RCGF application, no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion hence these arrangements were never required.
[Comment] – The artists’ impression and location map, prepared by Kibble, clearly show that St Mirren Football Club land was part of the application.
There have been other parties who have proposed the development of the stadium facilities and these, when they have been suggested, have been treated in a similar manner to the RCGF application by the St Mirren Football Club Board.
[Comment] – The difference is that these other projects:
- were discussed by the Board before steps were taken to gain government funding
- they were not proposed by DIrectors who had a fiduciary duty to the Club
- did not include applications for government funding that contained serious misstatements of fact and material misrepresentations.
Like all fans, the Club Board are looking forward to the next five games that see our Club in the Top Six of the SPFL for the first time, we want everyone to enjoy the games, get right behind the team and are looking forward to a positive end to one of the most successful seasons in our Club's history.
-
5 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:
Can you send the whole document?
There must surely be more information available.
Regarding the land issue - who actually owns the area across the road from the stadium shaded in red?
Stewart Gilmour ?
Gordon Scott ?
St Mirren FC Ltd ?
St Mirren Charitable Foundation ?
Kibble ?
Renfrewshire Council ?
It looks an oasis of calm that “well-being centre”
The Masterplan ?
Whoever thought that up must be a fan of the Gallagher brothers who we know are Celtic fans.
@Albanian Buddy , it's attached to my reply - you simply click on Cookie Monster's post and it opens up, however, I'm going to try and attach a screen shot so you can see it fully. This image was provided by @Cookie Monster who got it through FOI
AW, who also got the image through FOI, insists that the shaded area is land that has been owned by St.Mirren since 2007. Hope my last post makes sense to you now that you have both images.
The shaded area in each image is the same piece of land yet the board are claim in their statement that "no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion".
That doesn't add up to me but I'm confident there will be further developments in the next week.
-
On 5/5/2023 at 7:44 AM, Cookie Monster said:
I've been unsuccessful so far trying to find the disclosure log where the FOI requested would have the relevant information.
What I did find was the land registry documentation detailing the ownership of the land that was purchased by SMFC on 1st June 2007.
Interestingly, I've just been sent the attached photo of the planned regeneration and Wellbeing plan which was submitted by Kibble . If you compare it with Cookie Monster's photo of land bought by the club in 2007 - shown above in his post - then it certainly seems to me that it is indeed St.Mirren land that the application refers to.
As I've said before, I'm no lawyer nor am I a planner but these two images show the same piece of land which is owned by the club yet the club claim that "The application was unspecific as to the precise location of the proposed building". The land shown on the document looks pretty specific to me.
They go on to say "no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion" yet the attached brochure seems to contradict that statement
I wonder who drafted the club's statement and I also wonder if all club directors agreed to the wording.
Does the club’s statement prejudice AW’s chances in the upcoming Smisa election? Does the club's statement misrepresent the truth? Are we being misled? Make up your own mind but, while I accept that there's differing opinions, may I ask that any replies are not of the "I told you so" variety or such like. This has been, in the main, a healthy debate with differing views - let's keep it that way.
I can assure you that there's more to come on this story and I've got a feeling that those who have been vocal in their criticism of Alan Wardrop might find their criticism's should have been aimed elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong and, if so, I'll hold up my hands but time will tell.
Now, at this point I'm going back to on field matters and getting ready for a trip through to Edinburgh COYS
-
23 minutes ago, SamSmith99 said:
Excellent statement by the club and clears up the questions most people had on here.
I'm not so sure that it clears it up at all, Sam. My point has always been about AW's assertion that an application was made by Kibble, naming the charity as co-applicant without their knowledge. That, for me, was the crux rather than what land belongs to the club.
The statement says: "During the September 2022 Board meeting the Directors became aware of, and discussed, a proposal to build a Wellbeing Centre in Ferguslie Park and a funding application to the RCGF. All St Mirren Football Club Directors were in attendance. A Stage 1 Application had been submitted for RCGF funding and it was successful in moving to Stage 2 of the process. The application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application, the Club nor the Charitable Foundation had been engaged prior to the submission as this was very early stages of the process."
I struggle to understand why an application can be made on behalf of the foundation when neither "the club nor the foundation had been engaged" and the club statement seems to back that up. That just doesn’t make sense, does it? It’s completely illogical. How can an application be made when neither the club nor the charity had been engaged?
On the matter of the land, I’ve been told that the land situation will be addressed in the coming days but, of course, this will involve planning, technical documents and the like. I await those revelations with interest.
This will be my last post on the matter for a couple of days because I’m going out tonight and, like the rest of us, have a rather big day tomorrow.
-
1 hour ago, bonzoboys said:
Couple of points
AW application to become a Board Member of SMISA.
It is up to the individual members to determine which of the candidates gets elected. We could ask ourselves if AW genuinely wants be elected to work to benefit SMISA or is he using this an an avenue to exlore a single agenda. An agenda he has probably not been getting any resonse on now, he is not a member of the ST Mirren Club.
The AW Point
This matter of the grant application is very much a matter for the Club Board. All Directors should be accountable to the Board for their actions. If the other directors consider that some club directors have acted in appropriately, they should do something about . SMISA appointed a majority of the Club directors and those apointed should be following this up. Despite all that many of us talk about Kibble, they are a significant Charitable organisation and if they consider that two people have acted wrongly and mis-reresented the Club, they should do the honourable thing and have them step down, and appoint 2 new directors. Were they acting on behalf of Kibble or the Club, if shown that they were acting on behalf of Kibble, in a way that was in conflict to their duties as a directer of the Club, they should go. KIbble would not dare to veto any action to remove a director if he, they were proved to have taken action to harm the Club. Directors have a duty of care
Would the party who was hosting the Grant application not be very interested in any impropriety in an application. Kibble are a huge Charity, have full time staff working on grants, they need to have a spotless reutation regards grant alications, they have far more to lose than simply this project. This series of ongoing discussions must be equqlly frustrating to their management.
This matter has been dragging on for a while. Perhaps we normal suporters may never get to know the full story. We only own the shares, the actions of the Club are run as a business and any such compromising discussions may be considered a closed matter.
All of the above presupposes that AW has a valid point, if there is no smoking gun, the very least the Club could do is report that the matter has been investigated internally and closed.
Perhas at some point, we may get back to talking about football, we have a game this weekend!!
COYS
Excellent post!
I’ve got a couple of observations:
“We could ask ourselves if AW genuinely wants be elected to work to benefit SMISA or is he using this as an avenue to explore a single agenda”.
I suspect the former but only he knows the answer but, either way, he seems determined to highlight these allegations.
“This matter of the grant application is very much a matter for the Club Board”. “Perhaps we normal suporters may never get to know the full story”
The board should indeed be seeking answers from the Kibble representatives but my only issue is that the board answer to the majority owners, Smisa, who, in turn answer to the fans. Consequently, we need to be made aware of whether or not AW’s allegations have been proved to be correct.
Nonetheless, yours is a very good analysis of the situation. Well done.
Explosive Smisa application
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted · Edited by doakie
It was a dramatic evening as the video that was shot will show when Smisa release it. Amongst other things, it was decided by the members that Smisa will hold an investigation into the wellbeing application. AW took to the floor and had a "firm and frank exchange of opinions" with two members of the club board while Paul McNeil only spoke briefly to say that he'd resigned from the charitable foundation. AW pointed out the coincidence of his resigning the same day that the complaint from the charitable foundation was given to Kibble to which he briefly replied that he resigned due to pressure of work.