Jump to content

doakie

Saints
  • Posts

    128
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by doakie

  1. 5 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

    Surely trying to secure the funding in the way they are alleged to have done so, is tantamount to fraud?

    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.

  2. 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?

  3. 2 minutes ago, hamlet said:

    I declare that I am a shareholder in St Mirren Football Club. What I fail to understand is why SMISA and Kibble each are allowed to appoint, not nominate, two representatives on the Board of St Mirren Football Club.  When I purchased my shares I had the opportunity to vote in or out each and every Director at an AGM. This opportunity has now been removed. Even if Mr McMillan is found to have done a wrong, Kibble could continue with his appointment to the Club Board of Directors. If its true with the allegiance of two of the Directors elsewhere they should be nowhere near our Boardroom. At least in the past we new the Directors were wearing Black and White scarves. Will they declare their interest in the event of any relevant matters that may come to a vote.  e.g. B teams in the pyramid system. I would certainly not have voted for Mr McMillan, being polite, since his body language at the AGM to me said it all.

    To continue to be successful on and off the field the Company require a united front and I don't think that is going to happen under the current convoluted management structure. 

    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

  4. 13 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

    So maybe, just maybe, the last great club that fell on it's arse was just a few miles up the road who's fans never asked enough questions.....other than being a SMiSA member and having a few original shares, pre-SMiSA, I have no real skin in the game but, f**k me, to not at least ask questions is bat-shit crazy.

    I love the fact that we are top six and maybe heading for Europe (I've done all that before right enough) but would swap all of that for survival, we nearly lost all of that before. I'm not for a second suggesting that that's where we are but to not ask questions, especially when we are apparently fan owned, is beyond due diligence. I don't know AW personally but I've been around the club for a long time and don't believe he'd do anything deliberately to harm St Mirren.

    The "nothing to see here" argument falls on it's fat arse every time and everything, in good business, is challenged every time....it's why it works.

    Let it play out and hopefully the truth will out.

     

     

     

     

    Well said that man.

  5. 17 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

    A board with SG and AW  on it ,have we not been here before?

    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 😁😁

  6. 1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:


    Regarding openness, AW hasn't produced the evidence regarding the land and as you wrote "IF he's right" then I for one can't vote for someone that hasn't produced the evidence for what he claims on an IF accusation.
     

     

    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.

  7. 19 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

    Meh, sounds like a dispute over a tiny bit of land to me. 

    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

  8. 2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

    What mess is the club in? Off the park we are seeing record crowds, players sold for cash, other sellable assets, income from a league position we haven't met in over 30 years and potential income from European football. SMISA have over £1 million worth of assets saved up, which is going almost nowhere but to the betterment of our football club. 

    There can't be many clubs in the UK that have had such a quick turnaround in fortune from disappointing annual accounts. 

    If our biggest moan is a dispute over a small piece of land, between the Kibble and a former board member, I'm a happy man.  

    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.

  9. 52 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

    I’m reluctant to join this debate as I have no real axe to grind either way on the topic. I’ll confess to just “blindly” paying my SMISA subs and justify it as supporting the club I love. 
    However, just one point of order. In the above post (and others) you appear to be using the regular SMISA updates as evidence of transparency. I’m not sure that is necessarily the case is it? Surely it is only evidence of such, if it can be proven that those regular updates contain ALL of the pertinent information. 
    I’m not saying they don’t by the way, just that one is not evidence of the other. 

    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.

  10. 5 minutes ago, SamSmith99 said:

    Alan Wardrop by the sounds of it is withholding information - he obviously knows more than he’s detailed in his application but again, we’ll need to wait and see what comes with that.

    I think my point on secrecy is entirely fair to be honest. In the last few months we’ve had someone co-opted on to the board and made interim chairman on the fly along with the previous chairman leaving without any explanation.

    I’m friends with members who say the same thing - communication is poor and it would need more than a handful of updates in 2 months to change their opinions. I think more needs to be done with this to encourage more members to join and also more needs to be done to include members who can’t make meetings due to other commitments or living away from Paisley. 
     

    I’d be happy to sign up in the future but at the moment I just don’t see any real incentive to join, especially as I fall in to the younger fan category and not much is really done to encourage us to sign up.

    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. 

  11. 10 minutes ago, SamSmith99 said:

    There’s 2 sides to this story and so far we’ve only heard the side from Alan Wardrop - I’d wait until everyone has heard both sides before making any assumptions.

    Wardrop using an accusation like that as part of his election message is pretty bold and could end up looking very daft if he happens to be wrong. I guess we’ll just need to wait and see if there is substance to his claim.

    I’ve been put off joining Smisa for a while because of the secrecy of the whole thing (co-opting guys on without announcement, lack of updates etc) and a potential board member withholding information like this from fans isn’t making me want to sign up any quicker.

     

    "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.

  12. 14 minutes ago, Tommy said:

    I am someone who not been a member of smisa for a few years and don't know anybody who is involved in it.

    Because of that, i don't know what to believe.

    If it is true that 1 of the Kibble director is a Ranger fan, then i am shocked and amazed that had been allowed to happen. 

    Surely the only people who should become directors of our club are saints fans. 

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

  13. 12 minutes ago, alwaystrue said:

    Thanks @doakie I hadn't seen the statement you shared. The other party in this that hasn't been mentioned often is the Foundation themselves. I am aware AW is on the board there, i may have missed it (not like me) but has anything been released from the Foundation?

    "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.

  14. 1 hour ago, InMehmetWeTrust said:

    How many of those “never better” updates were apologies for not telling anyone that someone had been co-opted on to the board before making them interim chair?

    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.

  15. 49 minutes ago, alwaystrue said:

    That really is my point as well, the information needs to be made available now to allow it to be reviewed and a determination made on a legal basis as to any wrongdoing. 

    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. 

     

  16. 10 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:


     

     


    I can only think of two ways of building, with the landowners consent or by compulsory purchase.




    Where he has mentioned building on St Mirren owned land TWICE as quoted below








    Hawd the bus, you're now speculating it isn't St Mirren owned land and if it isn't a issue why was it mentioned TWICE.



    So Alan can you provide us the evidence now for clarity.






     

     

    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. 

  17. 1 hour ago, Albanian Buddy said:

    On the subject of buying out Kibbles share.

    This has been asked at a previous SMISA meeting and to my knowledge has never been answered honestly.

    That legal agreement (now that the deal is concluded and Gordon Scott no longer the majority shareholder) should in my opinion be made public to the SMISA membership. 

    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)

  18. 19 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:


     

     

     

     


    As I asked previously yet no one could or would answer. Makes you wonder why when some are so vocal until asked for facts.

     

     

     

    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.

  19. 9 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

    I understand why posters have a difference of opinion about Alan Wardrop.

    Let’s put that to one side as not everyone sees eye to eye on everything.

    For AW to resign from the club board and then look to take direct action against a group (who are minority shareholders) who have significant influence and power in the boardroom he must have evidence of significant wrongdoing by the Kibble. 

    It’s still not clear to me why AW resigned. I don’t think we have heard the truth behind that. Some say he was pushed out but I’m not so sure if that is accurate. 

    I was critical of AW leaving before the accounts were published but he must have had good reasons if it was his choice. 

    Unfortunately I was not at the club AGM so not sure what was said. 

    I don’t buy into the “civil war” aspect.

    If there have been moves made by a 3rd party to exploit land owned by our club we should deal with that issue and not just sweep it under the carpet.

     

    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.

  20. 1 hour ago, alwaystrue said:

    Well this went down the usual pattern quite quickly. Not wishing to fuel the fire, but these are serious allegations that I can't imagine have been made lightly, as such has anyone seen any of the documents in question.  It strikes me that this is quite easily resolved, if AW has information of wrongdoing he has a legal obligation and a moral one to make this available. It can't be used solely as an election campaign point.

    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.

  21. 33 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said:

    Can cover it up anyway u want but appears to be absolute shambles.....wouldn’t give SMISA a penny...

    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. 

  22. 9 minutes ago, HSS said:

    Could it be if the Kibble plan is deemed illegal it could make the whole partnership null and void?

    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.

  23. 10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

    IMO the last thing the club needs right now as our crowds soar, we push for European football and our income almost certainly increases significantly, is a civil war.

    Continuity candidates for me, Wardrop can get right in the sea. As Billy says, two sides to every story. 

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

  24. 17 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said:

    Said it from day one mate, folk putting money in and don't have a clue what's happening. No updates, no say, board members coming and going...

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...