Jump to content

sally02

Saints
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    356

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by sally02

  2. Coronavirus

    in General Nonsense

    Posted · Edited by sally02

    It looks as if it is directly related to travel patterns and not totally on Countries responses.  Oz and NZ are quite isolated in terms of mass travel, as is the rest of the Southern Hemisphere, where cases are generally much lower, whereas the whole of Western Europe has had huge unrestricted cross border travel for decades now, and massive tourist infrastructures and travel between Europe and US, through global hubs including London, New York,  Amsterdam, Paris, then I think you can start to explain the bigger numbers in Europe and US.

  3. Coronavirus

    in General Nonsense

    Posted

    1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:
    20 minutes ago, sally02 said:
    Tell that to the kids without their mothers tonight!
    Enough said, I think.

    Yeah, but he scored points on a football forum.

    Yep - 100 pages to post build and stroke his "look at me" ego!  

  4. Coronavirus

    in General Nonsense

    Posted

    On 2/15/2020 at 9:53 AM, faraway saint said:

    What a fuss about the flu, not a lot happening to see this warrant the amount of coverage and panic.

     

    Tell that to the kids without their mothers tonight!

    Enough said, I think.

  6. Season Now Over

    in General St. Mirren Discussion

    Posted

    32 minutes ago, shull said:

    This ia a Post made on the St Mirren Supporters Facebook Page by a fan.

    "Not too disappointed with result more the manner in how we lost the match. Getting to Hampden may have been a massive confidence boost but it may also have been a distraction to what is our ultimate goal and that is survival. We move onto Wednesday and again our support is vital. Well done to everyone in W7 for another great display. Whilst we all love to support our team, you people put a lot of thought, time and effort into making the team aware of our passion."

     

    The Scottish Cup is just a fecking distraction . so he says.

    A distraction for those that travelled to the Stadium and who paid Twenty fecking pounds for the pleasure. And on a freezing, pissing wet weather.

    And it must be a major distraction for 20000 buddies at Hampden in May watching their beloved Team hold aloft the Scottish Cup.

    And maybe the biggest distraction of all, Saturday night in May ruined celebrating our Team tour Paisley in an Open Top Bus.

    Fecking laughable Post.

    COME ON SAINTS, ASPIRE TO BE NOT 12th AND JUST BE BE PERMANTLEY SHITE

    Were the other 16999 in your house on Saturday night sharing your Indian?

  7. Is The Earth Flat?

    in General Nonsense

    Posted

    32 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

    Amazing. 

    Some people maintain their beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. We only need to look at our nearest football neighbours to see that. The resurrection of Rangers. Mad Mike had more sense. 

    Nicely hidden dig there!

  9. Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

    in General St. Mirren Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Dickson said:

    Jaybee, I watched the video again - admittedly with a few pints and a couple of drams in my system after a big family dinner - but I don't hear any mention of a guaranteed price. Jim Gillespie talks about how he might gift the shares to SMISA once the deal is concluded but no mention of a guaranteed price. On the SMISA website it says that if either side decides to sell off its shares the other would have first refusal, but again no mention of a price. 

    If you've seen a price guarantee can you point me in the right direction? 

    Price is guaranteed and you leave from Edinburgh at 6.45 in the morning and arrive in Kathmandu 19hr45m later - one way I'm afraid! 👋

  10. Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

    in General St. Mirren Discussion

    Posted

    28 minutes ago, jaybee said:

    The right to veto  "any major decisions at the club". in my view; and that of many others I would imagine, is a safeguard that precludes knee jerk reactions to potential future events within the club.  I welcome an organisation with a history of surviving and prospering (in difficult times) and whilst I appreciate that Kibble is not here primarily to aid St MIrren; in my opinion it is not here to do it any harm either.  As many have pointed out the Kibble directors have a duty of care to their organisation and it would be ludicrous to imagine they bought their way into a football club simply to sabotage it.  The scenario that they outlined in respect of adding to their training options for their clients through being partners with the club would appear to be win win for both parties, if they can reduce costs and improve output  / quality through their training programmes and bring their expertise in business management to the club, ultimately it should make St Mirren a leaner and meaner business, maximising resources is and has been at the heart of Kibbles operational management for many years.  Will they interfere in 'football business'? why would they?  Would they have issues should the current board wish to mortgage the club / stadium to banks? (hypothetical scenario here, so don't go ballistic).  Yes I rather think they would, and such a scenario is why I think they are a good partner.  

    At last - a post full of common sense and reasonable logic.  👏

  11. Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

    in General St. Mirren Discussion

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Dickson said:

    I don't think a dividend would be the most likely scenario. That would mean they'd only get a small percentage of the overall value. 

    More likely would be an insistence that the £1m be used to develop or expand in the facilities that Kibble want to use to enable their ROI. 

    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 

  13. Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

    in General St. Mirren Discussion

    Posted

    On 2/19/2020 at 1:34 PM, Lord Pityme said:

    Again...sigh...I have nothing but respect for the work Kibble do, and who it benefits.

    The facts are Smisa and the club are stating all that Kibble will do in this proposal will benefit the local community.

    When in fact it will benefit young people, and perhaps their communities across the uk.

    For me charity begins at home!

    Look at the phenomenal response to the 12 days of xmas food bank appeal.

    Local people, followers of the club coming together to benefit their own.

    That's what the club and smisa should be targeting not simply shifting responsibility for looking good to Kibble.

    Here's what it should look like...

    https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/

     

    We should be building our own charity, rather than letting one build itself in our nest.

    We need to build partnerships that make our club fans and community more resilient. Read through this... we could easily team up with a club charity like this to learn how to build our own.

    https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/business/

     

     

    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. 

  18. Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

    in General St. Mirren Discussion

    Posted

    8 hours ago, sally02 said:

    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. 

     

    7 hours ago, Dickson said:

    If that is your rational then it's bonkers. Seriously did you read what you wrote? Better than you did, for sure!

    Currently SMISA are heading for 7!% share ownership. We were all sold this as a great idea that secured the future of the club forever. When the deal is concluded the club would be under the control of SMISA members who can do pretty much as they wish. Did I say otherwise? I was only putting a scenario out there that may happen!

    You are voting to reduce that shareholding to 51%. I HAVEN'T VOTED EITHER WAY YET, unless you illegally voted for me.

    If that is carried a third party will hold 27% and won't just have the protection afforded in law to any minority shareholder with a 25% shareholding.(to veto any Special Resolutions) but enhanced powers to veto "any major decision". And you are going to rely on Chick Young and his pals to be interested enough, and to understand it enough to stop this third party using their veto for anything. All I said is Kibble would be more likely to be scrutinised for using a veto than SMISA/Board!

    I absolutely understand your other post with concerns about the ability of the SMISA membership to run a football club. If you'd stopped there then fair enough. You voted yes cause you want competent leadership. Again I haven't voted either way yet, oh condescending one!

    Fine, great.

    What I don't quite get is why you were so desperate to prove the point that the SMISA membership couldn't run a football club by showing you personally couldn't be trusted to work through the issue logically and to vote in a manner that made any sense.  This is all made up in your head, mate!

     

     

    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!

  19. Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

    in General St. Mirren Discussion

    Posted

    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. 

  20. Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

    in General St. Mirren Discussion

    Posted

    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.

     

     

  22. Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

    in General St. Mirren Discussion

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, shull said:

    I would assume the two Kibble dudes on our Board will definitely not be supporters of Sevco FC 2012 or Celtic. 

    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!

×
×
  • Create New...