Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


sally02 last won the day on August 5 2019

sally02 had the most liked content!

About sally02

  • Rank
    Reserve team regular

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. At last - a post full of common sense and reasonable logic. 👏
  2. So they have 27.5% of the company and can exert decisions through vetos, whatever way they want, but they would only get a small percentage of the overall value? You squared that circle really well. I
  3. The match has been cancelled tonight because Kibble require the pitch for a Rice planting work project! Will St. Mirren or Kibble get the rice?
  4. The Foundation of Light appears to be an excellent model of a Charity working alongside it's parent organisation, however suggesting this would be the model for SMFC to follow is not straight forward, as there are vast differences between the 2 Clubs and their abilities. FOL is a charity associated to Sunderland AFC Sunderland has a turnover generally over £100m and more when in the premier league Sunderland has a Stadium that can seat 49,000 people Sunderland AFC has a far larger core staff than SMFC with all manner of skills and abilities, and facilities at their disposal. Sunderland AFC also has large Debt Levels. FOL as a charity has a group of Trustees who are all nationally known names incl. Kate Adie OBE, Sir Tim Rice, George Clark, Paul Collingwood MBE, Steve Cram CBE, Baroness Estelle Morris, Sir Peter Vardy, Sir Robert Murray CBE, Lady Tanni Grey-Thompson. FOL received over £400,000 from Sunderland AFC in a recent financial year in cash and kind by providing free seats, facilities, etc. So in that case it looks like the bigger company assisting the smaller charity to allow it to grow. SMFC has a turnover of £3m - £4.5m depending on where we are and how we are trading. Kibble has £32m turnover and vastly superior resources and business know-how. SMFC has a Charitable Foundation, is involved in Street Stuff, Community Projects, etc. etc. which we do reasonably well with, I think! If we multiplied our turnover to match that of Sunderland i.e x 30, I think our charity and community work would look pretty astounding. We don't have the Stadium or the fanbase to achieve that, and we don't have the national household names with the pull they have to call on as trustees. So for me following that model would not fit SMFC's profile as well as it does for Sunderland. However, as far as I can see, we do have an opportunity with the proposed Kibble involvement with the club, including their proposed board member places and 27.5% shareholding, to achieve a lot of the things that we would wish for from our Club, as majority owners, if the venture can achieve growth for both through joint participation throughout the business. Kibble doesn't have directors looking to increase their personal dividend on profits, they have paid employees, some of which are on the Kibble Board of Directors, who strive to create profit and growth to re-invest in the charity to reach and help more Children and Young People in real need, and above that a group of Trustees who are in place to oversee the safe evolution of a Charity which has existed since 1841. I don't think they present a hidden threat to us. If the "veto" or not "Mutually Agreeing Card" is used continually by either side, in which case no progress would be made on a plan, proposal, or other event being discussed, this might suggest that the future aims of both parties have diverged from the original aims, then I would imagine that the agreement that should be reached is that the partnership isn't working anymore, and that to dissolve the partnership may be the best route, either by Kibble offering to sell their shares to SMISA as agreed, or as was suggested perhaps donate them back as a gift to SMISA/FANS but essentially St. Mirren Football Club. I don't see any huge pitfall in any of that, and I honestly don't see Kibble using the "veto" to achieve their own ends while disregarding the club, as their reputation is one thing they would not want to tarnish. So I have decided to vote for the proposal today. Gordon Scott getting his money back earlier or profiting from the sale of the extra 8% of shares is neither here nor there, as he was the one person who put his hand in his pocket and allowed the club to move on four years ago.
  5. I know who you are - I was asking you who Slarti was? Irony ? - An Edinburgh punter asking his new burd if she can press clothes!
  6. Lord Above - oops! Lord Pity Me? Someone in the House of Lords! Screaming Lord Such ? Only the Lord knows! LPM - who is he?
  7. You really are a piece of work! Just reply to the voices in your head, because I'm not really interested in what you think!
  8. The Veto I think that a lot of people have taken a fairly basic view of the fact that Kibble would be able to Veto any major decisions relating to SMFC Ltd, as they would be 27.5% shareholders in the company. Obviously if you invest in a business to the proposed level, you would want as much influence as possible to protect your investment. My take on the reality of the eventual working of this would be that SMISA with 51% of the shareholding and majority fan ownership would have a complete right to Veto any proposals and plans as they saw fit and proper, with no real recourse for Kibble to challenge or object. On the other hand, if Kibble vetoed a proposal or plan put forward by the board majority, and the SMISA members and the rest of the fanbase were not happy with Kibble's position, in that situation I am sure the case would make the public domain and the press would no doubt put their various twists and slants on it, which leaves Kibble open to scrutiny, questions regarding their overall motives in the partnership, and potential damage to their reputation. Was their veto for their own benefit only, for the mutual benefit of both partners, etc etc ? Kibble will be very aware of this. If the boot was on the other foot, I don't think SMISA would be under scrutiny in that way, as in general, Football Clubs and their Boards are perceived as only one event away from a crisis and often weekly managed anyway - certainly the case in Scotland! So I would suggest that the veto is not as powerful a tool to Kibble as you might first think - it has its dangers for them as well as SMISA.
  9. Maybe Kibble could extend their secure unit to cater for members of the adult community in need of care and protection from themselves. Criteria for care package:- Inflated ego trippers Chip on Shoulder Jealous Sorts Mis-conception of IQ levels Wannabe Lawyers/Accountants/Experts in everything and anything All day keyboard addicts with f--k all else in their lives Etc. Etc. In fact Solitary Padded Cells would work better. A few on here would be right at the front of the queue. This thread displays all that is worst in debate/discussion/decision making - always those that think they are always right, better informed, it's my way or no way attitudes, and I would say it's a fairly safe bet that the majority of SMISA members don't want to read all about the personal vendettas and shit throwing going on here. If you want to get answers, hunt down Gordon Scott, Colin Orr and Jim Gillespie and ask them directly.
  10. Well seeing he's got a Union Jack flying above his office, it might be the Govan Union Grizzlies !
  11. What's that got to do with the price of chicken? They will both be employees of Kibble and duty bound to do their best for that organisation, and if Kibble are shareholders in St Mirren, then SMFC as well. The Governor of the Bank of England is a Canadian ffs!
  12. If Danny and Cody want a game then get Goody told your'e willing and able to play RB
  13. Everyone who thought the agreement Scott signed with smisa would be hounered. Does that get to you? Does what get to me? Everyone who is a member of SMISA and paying to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC you mean, don't you?
  • Create New...