Jump to content

doakie

Saints
  • Posts

    128
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by doakie

  1. 5 minutes ago, animal said:

    I feel I must vote for Alan Wardrop who has already proved himself to put St Mirren first.


    This of the utmost importance for the following reasons.


    This situation must be properly investigated (the chairman categorically assured a number of questioners at the club AGM that this application was NOT on St Mirren’s land, but on ‘adjacent’ land, which is in itself a possible issue depending on how this all pans out) and the application details and plans provided for SMISA members to see. If the accusation is without foundation then the matter ends.


    However, If this does turn out to be an attempt to take club property for Kibble’s use and profit without the knowledge of the directors or the SM Charitable foundation, then it amounts to St Mirren directors putting their own organisation first instead of the club’s interests (a clear violation of their duty in law to the club and its shareholders) by attempting to take a club asset from the people that own it without their knowledge. Those people are the St Mirren shareholders, both independents and SMISA collectively.


    If so this can only be a fraudulent application to achieve Government funding by using St Mirren’s good name.


    If my memory is correct Mr Gillespie did tell shareholders at the AGM when he took the mic that it didn’t matter because the application did not get beyond the second stage. A strange thing to say as it’s not the outcome but the intention that really matters. To protect the club I’ll be voting for Alan Wardrop.

    You're 100% right. The fact that it was apparently denied, if that is indeed the case, is completely irrelevant. 

  2. 2 minutes ago, alwaystrue said:

    I agree with your opening sentiments @doakie the importance of having a respectful debate is key to the process at all levels both the candidates and voters. The other key thing as you say is to vote, if eligible to vote engage in the process, be a contributor, ask the difficult questions respectfully, listen to answers. Personally I feel AW has had his time and I am looking for new ideas and initiatives. John is a guy I think can bring alot and I like what I have seen from Stuart so far.  Two things struck me with the AW blurb, he uses the phrase St Mirren SMiSA Director's a couple of times when detailing that they didn't know, does that mean the other St Mirren directors did know as its strange to make that differentiation. And the 2nd is a very personal point about discussing your personal wealth from selling your company, it just seems a bit, look at me, but then it's an election so probably fair game, just not for me.

    I hear you and I must admit that I'm not a fan on voting based on these mission statements. I don't know the answer but maybe a kind of hustings where each candidate can answer questions from the floor/ the members might be a way forward.  It's pretty clear why I'm voting for Alex and Alan but, as I said, that’s because I’m intrigued by this statement regarding Gillespie and McMillan.

    By the way, every director is a St.Mirren Smisa director (apart from the Kibble guys) as they are all on the club board only because Smisa selected them. The clear implication is that Alan, John Needham, Gordon Scott, and whichever Smisa director(s) were in position at that time, were kept in the dark. If McMillan did indeed make an application with St. Mirren FC Charitable Foundation as a partner when the charity had no knowledge of it, then that is a very serious accusation to make. That they failed to disclose to the St Mirren board, shareholders and fans Kibble supported plans to build on St Mirren owned land is equally contentious

    We need the truth and I look forward to the AGM with great interest.

    Good talking to you

  3. 19 minutes ago, alwaystrue said:

    Thanks Doakie, very helpful.  I think 4 of the 5 have came across well and I am leaning towards John and Stuart.

    While my preferred choices are different to yours, I think it's important and healthy to 1, have the debate and 2, to actually vote. Personally, unlike the other three candidates, I can't claim to know Stuart and Jack very well but I've been impressed with them when I've been in their company.  I feel that there are two outstanding candidates, one of whom is running on a single issue ticket and, for those of us who do not believe that Kibble have made a positive impact in the boardroom, the importance of that single issue cannot be underestimated.  For me, When Alan Wardop says that "I no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble’s directors serving on the board of St. Mirren" then we need to pay attention to him.. He is St.Mirren through and through. Gillespie and McMillan are not.

    Of course, the Kibble controversy has died down because Stephen Robinson has performed miraculously but on field success does not hide the fact that, until we drew Celtic in the cup, sold two players and got Dome insurance money, we were in a perilous financial state off field.

    That does not sit well with me, in spite of it being an amazing season. On field and off field are two separate issues.

  4. Here is Alex Dillon's statement. Alex impresses me every time I hear him address a Smisa/club meeting. In my opinion, we need to have people of his calibre onto the Smisa board on a full time basis.

    p.s. Sorry about the font but I can't seem to change the black background

    Alex Dillon

    Having supported St Mirren fan for nearly 40 years it would be an honour to be elected onto the SMISA board.

    I have been a season ticket holder for over 35 years and attend the games with my father in law, brother in law and my 2 children.

    St Mirren runs deep in our family. It is more than just a football club........it is a way of life.

    That passion is what led me to join SMISA many years ago and, with fan ownership delivered, to seek opportunity to support the club further by serving it, whilst still involved in supporting the Charity Foundation and commercial department presently.

    I remember the days of Reg Brealey and the genuine concern that our club may disappear, i want to ensure along with the rest of the SMISA board supporters of today never have that feeling.

    Majority fan ownership of St Mirren will guarantee the future of our club and I want to be part of a board and organisation that ensures St Mirren is here for generations to come.

    In my current employment as role of General Manager running a business with a multi million turn over I am responsible for over 150 employees and their wellbeing.

    The huge experiences i have gained in Retail Leadership i believe will allow me to make extremely effective contributions not only to the SMISA board, but beyond.

    I have extensive experience of delivering excellent Customer metrics, Leadership, Networking, Budget Controls, Colleague Engagement and achievement of many other performance measures.

    Utilising all of these skills, and more, i know i can add value in the role of a Board member with SMISA and in our essential working relationship with SMFC club board.

    I fully support the ideology that our club, St Mirren should be "Fan OWNED but NOT fan run". I also firmly believe that my job as a SMISA board member is to represent the views of you, the SMISA members, and ensure that by collaborating with the St Mirren board we deliver a successful St Mirren ON and OFF the park.

    I also believe the CURRENT SMISA board must continue to be more adept at communicating with our membership, continue increasing the transparency of the SMISA board and ensure our constructive influence and cooperation is recognised in the governance and management of the club when required, as per our constitution.

    My Vision for SMISA would be to increase our membership by 50% within 3 years and I have many ideas on how we can bring this to fruition.

    This would give more supporters a say in running our club, safeguard our club further from unscrupulous owners like we see in England and also generate even more money back to the club via SMISA for investment.

    If fortunate to be selected I'd make sure ordinary members views are represented and St.Mirren supporters traditional values are maintained ensuring our collective voices are heard at St.Mirren FC board level both now and in the future.

    COYS

    Alex

     

     

  5. The applications to join the Smisa board are on the website. I've attached Alan Wardrop's below (in blue) and it's dynamite. 

    There are two key messages as I see it:

    1. The lack of transparency and openness by Kibble board representatives.
    2. A lack of trust and confidence in their conduct, actions and motivations

    It seems that he feels the actions of Kibble directors on the St Mirren FC board conflict with the guiding principles of fan ownership which is to manage St Mirren FC transparently and openly with the fans and SMISA members in the best interests of the club. This is no secret, of course, as he revealed his concern about the alleged conflict of interest at the club AGM. Nevertheless, it is a damning condemnation, bearing in mind his statement alleging that "the application named St. Mirren FC Charitable Foundation as a partner when the charity had no knowledge of it". Wow! Here it is:

    ALAN WARDOP

    Why I want to be on the board

    To protect the best interests of the fans and owners of St. Mirren FC, SMISA members, and to restore trust and confidence in the board.

    I’m concerned about transparency and any conflicts of interests undermining the fundamental principles of fan ownership and management.
    I’m a lifelong supporter and want to use my experience, insight and knowledge of the club to ensure transparency and engagement with fans and to better protect the club’s future.

    Professional Skills and Experience

    As a former director of the club for six years and a trustee of The St Mirren FC Charitable Foundation, I understand the management from both a boardroom and day to day operational perspective.

    I was Chairman of the St. Mirren Fans Council and pivotal in the creation of the SMFC 1877 Supporters Club in 2016. To this day, I remain the club host and membership manager.

    As a trustee of St. Mirren’s charity since its formation, I have contributed financially and with my guidance and time – being in the fortunate position to give something back to the club and community after selling my £2.5 million turnover local business.

    Why Members should vote for me

    Each St. Mirren director has a clear fiduciary duty under the Companies Act 2006 to declare any potential conflict of interest and act with openness and transparency and in the best interests of the company ie St. Mirren Football Club Limited.

    Kibble club board representatives, Jim Gillespie and Mark Macmillan, failed to disclose to the St Mirren board, shareholders and fans Kibble supported plans to build on St Mirren owned land.

    Together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65 million grant under the name The St. Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan. It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured.

    In addition, 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. It only came to light when the Government announced that the application had progressed to a stage 2 application.

    Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St. Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest.

    Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club’s AGM. 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.

    As a born and bred Buddy, from the high flats at Stock Street, Paisley, I have supported St. Mirren since a child in the mid 70’s when Sir Alex Ferguson’s, Fergie’s Furies got me hooked. I simply want to serve in the club’s and fans’ best interests and protect and build a successful future for our wonderful club
    .

  6. 5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

     

    Imagine even calling it a conflict of interest when one of the parties, has no interest in it... Some people. Or am I missing something? Did SMFC want to buy that land? Did they have vested interested in it's usage the Kibble are proposing? Do we even know what land it was?

    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.

     

     

     

     

  7. 1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

     

    "Yet to see minutes from the AGM and given the history of people posting, yes I think it was blown out of proportion." Despite admitting that you were not present and, seeing the board decided not to take minutes,  it is irrational make such a statement. You form an opinion without knowing what was said? Silly sausage!

    "Claiming and confirming a conflict of interest are different things. The Kibble (a Paisley institution) wanting to buy land (in Paisley) that isn't owned or anything to do with St Mirren sounds nothing like a conflict of interest to me."  I reiterate, you were not present therefore did not hear the debate so cannot possibly form an opinion on the alleged conflict of interest.....unless of course you have an agenda.

    So you force pro Kibble PR upon us even when you have no knowledge of the discussions that took place - that's playground stuff and I left that immature style of debate behind over 50 years ago. 

    I'm tired of this thread, no, I'm tired of your lack of insight and logic but I reiterate, your role as Kibble PR is growing ever so precarious. I'm also rather offended that you choose to insult the intelligence of myself and other fans on this forum with your nonsense. I suggest that the next time you post you do so in a mature manner and give your opinion on, for example, meetings that you have attended and not resort to ridiculing those of us who care enough to attend AGM's and Smisa meetings. You even equate the on field success with the off field financial crisis, a crisis to which the manager constantly refers whereas, if you'd taken the time to attend the AGM, you'd be aware that the manager was given hearty congratulations for performing so well under the cloud of the financial crisis surrounding the club.

    The point of this reply is not to win a debate with someone as illogical as yourself - that's impossible - but it is to highlight your foolishness. 

    Over and definitely out. 

     

     

  8. 23 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

    Renderworks - A Kibble contact and the Project Management was handled by Kibble at no fee. Should Kibble not have been there, we would have had to shell out on the project management.

     

    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.

     

  9. 36 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

    In these terms, it is the Kibble investing in the future of St Mirren. It is nothing but semantics. They have came in to invest their time and resources to grow SMFC in a way that also benefits the Kibble. It could not be a clearer concept. No one has ever claimed Kibble have came in and slung large values of capital at the club. :whistle

    The main investment in the club is Ralston (which seems to have went to the dogs over the earlier years), improvements to the gym, office areas, parks that will benefit the training of the first team and the youth academy. There has been other stuff around the ground that's changed like the murals and pre-match entertainment returning, Kibble's involvement in that, I don't know but I'm not one for separating the two regarding the operation of St Mirren. 

    The operating model has changed in the Kibble using contacts & their people to cover such points as stewarding and catering. We are also seeing wider operational changes in new/ changed staff vacancies and responsibilities as well. Been a few jobs up in the last month or so that have been shared on here. Someone else also mentioned the change in backroom staff numbers but I haven't seen information on that (nor would I expect to)

    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.

  10. 5 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

    I asked the other day about the grant application. This was a reply.
     

     


    So who is telling the truth, was there details given or not?

     

    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.

  11. 18 minutes ago, Maboza said:

    In terms of the ‘conflict of interest’ question - I’d simply wonder why, out of all the land available across Paisley,  why do Kibble want the land next to the ground? 
     

    I have noticed in Kibble Twitter recently that they’ve been hosting kibble events at the stadium. I’d really love to have assurances from someone that Kibble are paying the going rates for the use of our facilities.  Also, their advertising and branding (stadium boards, and interview/media boards) seem to have benefited from enhanced placement.  I’d love to know the marketing revenue that we’ve made from Kibble pre-involvement, compared to now - to ensure that there’s been no drop off. Indeed - has there been an increase? 
     

    Has anyone asked those questions of the club? 
     

     

    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.

  12. 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.

  13. 39 minutes ago, glen said:

    The AGM confirmed the rumours were correct, we produced a shocking loss of £1.25 million and more. 

    The first 20 minutes was taken up by a slide presentation from John Needham as to why this was so bad. He said this would answer a lot of questions. Around 100 shareholders thought differently and a succession of questioners forced answers as board members stared at their feet. Covid was he said part of the problem, that and a failed transfer, our final league position being lower than budgeted for and a huge overspend at the academy. It was pointed out that the board should have budgeted properly and that they had failed in their duty having spent without planning. 

    The chairman laid the blame for the academy on Tony Fitzpatrick, saying in football as in banking you have to “take a chance”.

    A shareholder pointed out that the club was losing £4,000 per day. JN agreed but said ‘steps were being taken’. He then confirmed there was no financial director. So who was in charge of Tony was asked. The board looked at each other and the answer was ‘no one’. The questioner said surely at least one board member would have known and asked why Gordon Scott’s construction expertise was not used. ‘I wasn't asked’ said Gordon.

    At times John Needham looked to be reading from notes from Mr Gillespie.

    I felt sorry for the manager. There was hardly a football question but he raised a smile from the board when he said he would like another £1 million but this wasn't the place to ask. He said that due to the financial situation he could not bring players and that more would be leaving. There was a question about VAR too.

    A shareholder with a list of questions said the board’s failure was mismanagement and was a resignation issue. JN bluffed through and said he hoped to be standing there next year with a better picture.

    Former director Alan Wardrop spoke. To be fair he said he was partly responsible for the dire state of the finances having been on the board. He asked searching questions of Mark McMillan of Kibble who immediately looked very uncomfortable. Mr Wardrop went through his questions 1 by 1 which were he said based on conflict of interest.

    Mr McMillan looked shaken saying loudly ‘we are 27% owners of St Mirren’ as if that mattered. Mr Wardrop explained the deal was for a project for Kibble partly funded by government close to the stadium.

    Mr McMillan denied any conflict of interest but did not really explain why.

    Mr McMillan said to Mr Wardrop that it was only his opinion or interpretation but Mr Wardrop replied that 'it's a matter of record and can be seen online, or I can share it now with the room if you like'.

    People were becoming angry .Mr McMillan was asked more than once if this was done for the good of St Mirren, when he refused to answer a voice said, ‘I’ll take that as a no’. He then blurted out ‘Kibble and Renfrewshire Council’.

    Mr Gillespie tried damage limitation and made a decent job of a half explanation but no one believed a word even when he said the project had been cancelled with no explanation.

    A SMISA board member sat shaking his head. There is certainly more to this than meets the eye, it's a serious charge. 

    SMISA was also criticised for not doing enough regarding the finances but the chairman assured shareholders SMISA receives regular monthly management accounts, which looked to surprise a SMISA board member. It was a car-crash performance from Kibble and the chairman and leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

    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.

  14. 19 minutes ago, FTOF said:

    It does when he's quite clearly got another few members of the board "in his pocket".

    I don't think anyone could be so naive to think that he's acting as an "individual".

     

    "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.

  15. 2 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

    How many does that leave on the Board ?  ,in  the constitution  it needs a minimum  of 5 to govern  , is it now down to 4?

     

    3 hours ago, Sonny said:

    Am I missing something? One guy joins the Board and almost everyone else resigns leaving the one guy to do what he likes? Instead of walking away why don't they stay and vote him down on issues he brings up?

    Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
     

    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.

  16. 2 hours ago, shull said:

    Just watched the highlights.

    Why the hell are we wearing an Aberdeen type strip ?

    We are playing Motherwell where there's no colour clash.

    We should be wearing black and white stripes.

    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!

  17. Just now, munoz said:

    Would be an aye for me. Why not. Has played the game at the top level , club and international.  

    I don't get the backlash. 

    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. 

×
×
  • Create New...