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.