doakie

Not being a lawyer I can't say but I certainly look forward to whatever response comes from these guys. As I recall, at the AGM when AW first brought it up, one of the Kibble guys answered AW's criticism, saying something along the lines of "what does it matter, it didn't reach the next stage". That was met by a huge collective groan - I guess everyone in the room knew it was the alleged misleading application that was important - not whether it was successful or not.

Guys, there's been a few of you saying that evidence of these accusations is required. Statements such as: AW hasn't produced the evidence. If AW has a smoking gun. I’m inclined to believe AW is giving us just one side of a story. I guess we’ll just need to wait and see if there is substance to his claim. Alan Wardrop by the sounds of it is withholding information. These are all valid points and part of what's been, in the main, a very healthy, respectful debate but can I just point out that every applicant to the Smisa board is limited to 500 words in their application form. Consequently, I imagine that the evidence that we're anticipating couldn't be explained in under 500 words. We'll just have to wait and see what comes next - probably at the upcoming AGM?

Congratulations on what is, in my opinion, yet another meaningful post with some valid points. Well said. p.s. My understanding is that Kibble's agreement means that they are allowed two directors on the board whereas Smisa are allowed four

Well said that man.

Just to be clear and I'm pretty sure you'll be aware of this: There is a difference between the Smisa board and the club board Furthermore, neither served on the club board at the same time as the other. Sorry if I'm being pedantic 😁😁

Yes, I hear you but, for the record, I'm not advocating that you (or any Smisa member) vote for any particular candidate - that's a completely separate issue. The purpose of my original post was to highlight/publicise what I perceive to be a hugely controversial issue. I admit that my gut instinct tells me AW would not make such an accusation without having solid evidence - he's not a stupid man - but I'm sure all will be revealed in the very near future. Time will tell.

Kibble employees who are directors of St.Mirren Football Club being accused of not acting in the best interests of the club and the shareholders sounds like "a dispute over a tiny bit of land" to you? Your response simply lacks credibility. Me? I'm inclined to believe AW but, either way, I'm not arrogant enough to casually downplay such serious allegations by labelling them as "a dispute over a tiny bit of land". Irrespective of how this plays out, it is undeniable that this is an extremely serious matter, no matter how much you try to paint it as something frivolous. No need to reply, everyone on this forum knows your response will be pro Kibble.....as always

This isn't a dispute over "a small piece of land", Bazil, but your attempt to deflect is unsurprising. So let's get back to the point: This thread is about Kibble employees who are directors of St.Mirren Football Club being accused of not acting in the best interests of the club and the shareholders. This is about accusations of a lack of openness and transparency when an application for a £2.65 million grant has the name of the St.Mirren charity as a joint applicant with the Kibble while the charity knew nothing about it. Furthermore, according to AW, the two Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St. Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members. At the club's AGM it was stated to the shareholders that the land concerned was not St.Mirren owned land. AW claims otherwise and, if he's right, the implication is that shareholders were lied to. Smisa members and our supporters need to know what is going on at board room level and these accusations need to be answered openly and honestly.

Valid post but, in my defence M'lud, I'm arguing that point to highlight that my instincts tell me that more regular updates is a positive, a step in the right direction. You are correct, however, in your view that one is not evidence of the other. Let's not be side tracked though - the burning question revolves around AW's statement and the implications.

We'll have to agree to disagree, Sam, but, for me, the incentive for any fan to sign up is to safeguard the future of the club. That's the priority. As far as Alex Dillon is concerned, I can tell you that Eddie Devine resigned suddenly and an interim chairman was required to take the chair for a short period i.e. until the AGM. Alex was voted in and again my view is that it's no coincidence that communication has increased very noticeably in that short time. You make valid points but the only way to have any real influence is to join and help shape the direction of the club - that's an incentive in my book. The current board are evidently listening to the younger fans hence Jack and Stuart being co-opted. I hope you - and many other younger fans - change your mind.

"I’d wait until everyone has heard both sides before making any assumptions." That's obviously a fair comment but I am a bit puzzled. Which potential Smisa board member has been withholding information? ("a potential board member withholding information like this from fans isn’t making me want to sign up any quicker.") Surely you don't mean Alan Wardrop? I apologise in advance if I've misunderstood but it's been well documented that he went public on this issue a few months ago, revealing the alleged conflict of interest at a pretty stormy meeting. He followed it up at the last Smisa meeting, promising "there's more to come". In the interim, I'm sure he'd have sought legal advice and would only have issued his statement if he was confident that he was on solid ground. We'll soon find out. "I’ve been put off joining Smisa for a while because of the secrecy of the whole thing" Secrecy from Smisa? Sorry, but I disagree - nothing could be further from the truth. They send out updates regularly (including news about those being co-opted).....to members! If you're not a Smisa member I struggle to understand why you'd expect to be kept fully informed about Smisa business - it is a member's organisation, after all. Having said that, it is obviously a practical idea to provide fans who aren't members with access to the Smisa website where up to date information is readily available even for non members like yourself. The information is out there - it just comes, quite rightly, to members immediately. There's also regular updates on Twitter, Facebook etc. I myself was very critical about the previous board's "anonymity" but the current Smisa board are, in my view, much more pro-active, more transparent than what we've experienced in the past. I hope this gives you food for thought and perhaps re-evaluate joining. The club needs to attract more fans to not only join Smisa but to get involved, to attend the meetings and to engage in the debate and I'm lead to believe that increasing membership is a top priority for the Smisa board. Increased membership is one certain way of guaranteeing a secure future for the club, a future when we will be entirely fan owned.

Many saints fans have known since day 1 that Gillespie is a Rangers fan and McMillan a Celtic fan.

"has anything been released from the Foundation?" Not as far as I know but this story has got legs and will run and run, of that I'm certain.

As I keep saying, I feel there are much bigger fish to fry i.e. AW's revelations around Kibble directors behaviour. If, however, you require an apology or explanation because you were not informed about every single protocol involved around the three members who were co-opted etc. then I suggest you write to Smisa - I'm confident that they will respond speedily. I'm sure the constitutional guidelines would have been followed.

I understand your desire to get to the bottom of this asap - I'm sure we all feel that way - and on 23rd March Smisa published the attached statement which makes clear that they were waiting for further information. I would hope that AW's subsequent statement in his application to join the Smisa board is being reviewed by Smisa but it is, as Smisa say, a "developing situation". AW has stated that there is more information to come. That information is his to reveal, not Smisa and I hope the AGM gives us all the chance to find out more. As previously stated "I can only assume that AW has taken legal advice before putting on record the information he has shared with 1200 Smisa members. As I said, surely the evidence will be available after the election at the AGM" KIBBLE: Following a question from a member at the last meeting, Ex Club Board Director Alan Wardrop informed the meeting of a developing situation between the Charity and the Kibble Club Board Directors. This was raised at the Clubs AGM in January. If, as Alan stated there is more to come on this issue we will review any further information if or when it is made available to us. SMISA is the majority shareholder at the Club and all Club business is by default of interest to SMISA.

I reiterate, the purpose of posting Alan's statement was to highlight his statement regarding the Kibble directors. If you feel that I'm speculating on the land issue then, rest assured, that is not my intention. There has been such speculation elsewhere but, as I've said, that just muddies the waters around AW's statement. Furthermore, I should think that the possibility of Alan responding to your question on this forum and before the AGM is, shall we say, very slim. While I can't control what posts are made on this thread, I am of the opinion that the crux of the matter is the alleged behaviour of the Kibble directors and feel that it would be sensible for contributors to focus on that issue.

I agree it would be a good idea to share the shareholders agreement and don’t believe Smisa would have any problem with doing that with their members. Re Evidence of wrongdoing by The Kibble and their reps, I can only assume that AW has taken legal advice before putting on record the information he has shared with 1200 Smisa members. As I said, surely the evidence will be available after the election at the AGM (on the 17th May)

You asked “How can anyone build on St Mirren owned land without the permission of St Mirren? As I asked previously yet no one could or would answer. Makes you wonder why when some are so vocal until asked for facts” I'll try to help you out: The vast majority of fans on this thread are not lawyers, surveyors or planners and therefore have no way of answering your questions. Moreover, this thread is about AW’s mission statement and his intention of being rid of the two Kibble directors. I’m pretty sure he would not make these allegations unless his FOI request contains hard evidence but we won’t know until he’s heard at the AGM. In the meantime, speculation about what is and isn’t St.Mirren land should be left to those who are expert in that field – which excludes the majority of contributors to this thread. It's very evident that this is the reason no one has answered your question. Mind you, the possibility of building on St.Mirren land (or not) isn't the issue. The issue is, and I quote, “the application named St. Mirren FC Charitable Foundation as a partner when the charity had no knowledge of it and had not granted permission to submit it on their behalf”. That is the crux of the matter. Hope you don’t have to wonder any longer.

This is the most sensible, accurate response on the thread. Talk of civil war is nonsense and your final sentence is absolutely on the ball. As I said in my original post “On field and off field are two separate issues.”

I'd imagine AW will have more to say at the AGM and, yes, I agree that he won't be using it merely as a campaign point. After all, the key sentence in his statement is this: “I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble’s directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them.”

Cover it up? I've just given you a detailed summary of the increased transparency and communications from Smisa i.e. the complete opposite of a cover up. Are you capable of sensible debate or are you simply trying to cause mischief? I suspect the latter. Cover up - what a nonsensical statement.

Interesting viewpoint. Would the main Kibble board want to hang around if their representatives were indeed making false representations? What a scandal that would be but, at this point, I guess it depends on what further revelations come from Alan Wardrop. I look forward to the AGM more than ever.

You misunderstand - you're obviously such a Kibble cheerleader come what may that I guess you have him on speed dial and so I'm just welcoming him to the chat.

Ah, good afternoon Mr Gillespie. I wondered when your sycophant would raise his head above the parapet.

No updates? no say? I' don't accept that. Since the so-called new Smisa board have taken over, communication has never been better. Four updates in March, three in April - communication has never been better. Check it out here https://www.smisa.net/ There's been regular meetings - some of which have involved robust debate. If you "don't have a clue what's happening" - your words, not mine - then I suggest you check your e-mail for the regular updates or attend the meetings. Smisa are putting information out so it's totally inaccurate to claim there's "no updates". The information is easily found even if your e-mail isn't working There's a pretty important AGM coming up - why don't you attend and see the vital work that, for example, the likes of Stewart Gilmour, Alex Dillon and Willie Bell are doing. Over and out.