Search the Community

🤷‍♂️ You can take from what I said, what you like. It’s just fact. Not like you to want an argument.

I have made this overwhelmingly clear, if you still can’t grasp it, that’s on you. I am NOT SAYING the initial application/ submission never happened. I’m saying the scenario never happened. As in, St Mirren land wasn’t sold, wasn’t built on, funding wasn’t secured, nothing crystallised. And it never would have without St Mirren board approval. As such, it’s a trivial matter that presented no material risk to St Mirren assets. Accept that, deny that, reject that, it’s irrelevant in it being fact. For people still to be crying about this a year later, after several fact finding meetings is ridiculous imo. But it shows a nature in some of our fans, that of just not being able to let things go. Maybe I should take my own advice here & leave the moon howlers to fume over a bit of paper, while I enjoy the very successful ownership model that has supported us to 3rd in the league with our best league start for decades. 😀

But honestly never thought I wouldn’t, or maybe you’ve not been paying attention over the years. Always been self admitted I’ll give the fishermen what they want, regardless of how dated the act is. As for Gogic, number of slack passes on Saturday. That’s a matter of fact. His overarching performance aside from that, well that’s individual opinion. He’s played far better for us in mine.

It’s factual that our academy & training facilities aren’t completely separate so I don’t understand why you’re looking at one & ignoring the benefit of the other. Morgan was a year before he made his senior debut after coming to us as a youth, McLean was around 18 months before going out on loan for senior football. They both factually developed through our training & youth facilities before being ready to play. Gus also didn’t run the academy, his incorrect views if anything show the benefit of our academy in keeping an (apparently) unwanted player on track. So to summarise Significant transfer income - fact ✅ a steady flow of promising talent right up to this day - fact ✅ Training/ academy facilities that have coincided with a better period in our history than the same period immediately before the facilities - fact ✅ A steady flow of first team players for the club - fact ✅ Several youth players still playing at better quality clubs who could generate future income in transfers - fact ✅ I would wager if any other username made these points you’d accept them. Your bias is showing.

‘I thought we would have given it more fight. ’ ‘Murray out, put up a fight’ Spot the difference in statements of fact/ opinions 😂😂😂😂 You f*cked it, just accept it. 👀👀👀

How do you know he put up a fight? Are you making this as a statement of fact? 👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀

Many clubs our size were hugely impacted by Covid & the additional costs/ drop in income that came along. The last accounts pre-date this season though so I'm not sure why you're both bringing up the point. You can criticise the board all you want, that's any fans right. It won't change the fact though, this board has overseen a club finish, higher than we have seen for close to four decades. They absolutely deserve their part of the praise for that. Neither of you being willing to give it, but blaming them for everything else is double standards. As for most of your later points AB, they aren't correct/ good comparisons. St Mirren cut costs this season given the hit we took, last financial year. They didn't gamble by spending more. Even at that, we have had a successful season. Well done to all involved (including the big, bad Kibble )

Double standards, no one can claim it as fact we are better off because of the two stand situation & not the greatly improved on park performances. It also can’t be said that we wouldn’t be better off still had we kept the two arrangement. I get some fans are really bitter about it but hell mend them, not attending only hurts our club. I’m not sure where you are getting me making statements of fact regarding who would & wouldn’t attend games or what our results would have been.

So "you know" and "you think" at the same time? Make your mind up. The fact that you always assume that I am doing something that I'm not says more about you than it does about me. You have already admitted that when you say "fact", you really mean your "opinion", so I'm continuing with that. I do want to know though, what word will you use when you mean "fact"? Seemed like you really tried to let it go lol. Where are you quoting me saying "think" on this point? I imagine this will be a running theme but as I have said before, I have no interest in getting into the semantics of the word fact with you. There is no point where it becomes pedantic to ask for validated evidence. If it is something obvious, e.g. gravity, all you have to do is say "Google it". As for your dice rolls, I will say it again, you obviously have no grasp of what probability demonstrates. What it doesn't demonstrate, unless the probability is exactly 1, is if something will definitely happen. It doesn't matter how close to 1 it is, if it isn't 1 then the event might not happen. Also, things that have a probability of almost zero happen regularly. As I previously said, you can pick any number you want, it doesn't matter. Your "view" on the matter has no bearing on the truth of it. OK, show me where i was being "pedantic" under another username. Go on. Bet you don't. And, it's "saw" not "seen". Maybe that demonstrates your ability in basic English perfectly, mind you. This is a point of disagreement, I think when things are painstakingly obvious, people can use this approach to slow down, derail and hinder an argument or debate. You are one of these people, it's a technique you have used many times & is very ineffective as I have adequately highlighted in the dice roll example. This is my view and it is what will drive my approach to this argument, hence why I will not get into the semantics of words to pander to your pedantic nature. You also continue to get confused on my grasp of what you are saying vs me rejecting it as a valid way to have an argument. I'm not going to immediately pander to you and show where you were being pedantic under another username because it would likely take some time to check back but I'll give an example and we can see if you agree it happened (to save lots of time, get it yet?). Under your old username some months (maybe even over a year now that I think about it) you got hung up for weeks on the use of a word, the word itself escapes me but do you deny we had an argument on this? Side note reverse psychology used in this manner won't work on me. English police. I know I'm better than you, but I'm not Jesus. If you do say so yourself... You don’t need to simplify anything. The fact that you don’t understand probability has nothing to do with pedantry. Your example is flawed. I already told you that I knew what you were TRYING to do, but the fact that your dice example was almost the very definition of something that requires accuracy shows that it was flawed. There is no pedantry in mathematics, there is right, there is wrong, there is no in-between and therefore nothing to be pedantic about. Your example also was not analogous to your claim. Where did I say, or imply, “prove it” to your dice example? The odds against at least one 6 coming up in 10,000 throws is irrelevant, extremely unlikely things happen all the time. It would not be totally rational to accept that statement if the person making it had not seen the results of the throws. That’s just another example of you not being able to see why your example is flawed. The only way that your example could be classed as analogous is that they are both examples of you trying to appear smart – and failing. Now you know what others have seen without them admitting it? FFS. OK, you have no answer to any of the above, good of you to admit it. Again reverse psychology wont work in such manners. A simple, though drastic, third option, would be if I killed you. That is not a threat and I'm not wishing any ill will on you, just stating the most obvious other option (there are others which would take longer to type) that proves that those are not my only two options. I expect that you will argue about this and/or try and change the goalposts. Lol it would be sweet relief at this point of such a consistently pedantic argument style. No you are right that would be a perfectly reasonable, sound and acceptable third option, you haven't yet again been pedantic at all.

You're clearly just incapable of understanding the point I am making, I have tried very hard to explain it but it does seem beyond you. Let me try one more time even though it's likely futile. You're about to roll a dice 10,000 times. I say "you are going to get a bunch of six's out of that number, fact!" no one needs you to go "well actually, by definition we don't know that is fact, despite the odds being almost zero, the odds can't possibly be completely zero because it is an event in the future based on mathematical probability so technically that isn't a factual claim" Your suggestion I don't understand what you are saying is nonsense, I have made it very clear it's the technique I am showing to be ineffective. That would be an example of you being pedantic and you have done the same thing millions (not literally) of times to me alone over our history on BAWA. You did the same thing regarding lockdown deaths. "Lockdown has saved lives, that is fact" "sHoW mE pRoOf It Is FaCt?!" Do you see yet the point I am making? You drive to the pedantic over the semantics of words, you do it often. My missus has just picked up some steaks for tonight "Steak for dinner that's my favourite, fact!" I don't need you saying "well actually there may have been something else that would be considered your favourite that you haven't tasted before or it was such a long time ago you forgot. Or maybe the steaks are just for her, you can't say it's fact you'll be eating steak which is your favourite." If you genuinely still don't get the point I'm making I would kindly ask you to maybe ask someone to explain it to you verbally, it would be a lot better way to help you visualise my point. (note please don't come back saying "how do you know it would be better?" To your other point, on "sufficient evidence" we've touched on this before as well. There is no need to evidence lockdown saved more than zero lives in a country of 66 million people, your claim is ridiculous that it might not be the case. Of course it's the case. I didn't win the lottery five times in a row earlier this year, do you need proof of that?

Nothing you have said suggests to me the Kibble were not equipped to provide project management for this. People are welcome to assume they were not but that's all it is, an assumption. As for the legal side of things, I have Deja vu about some of the SMISA arguments, remember St Mirren & SMISA were breaking laws with some of our £2 fund spending decisions? Wonder whatever happened to Dicko's whistleblowing attempt. Your last paragraph is practically a mirror image of my view. There is no way in a month of Sundays (this is my view, not a statement of fact, just caveating that because similar triggered Slarti for multiple years & he's still not over it... Although that time, he couldn't accept the factual nature of what I said)that the project was just a reflection of what was initially thought and it happened to cost around 5X the price. I feel it is almost certain they had to go "back to the drawing board" and re-evaluate what was actually needed to bring Ralston to an acceptable level.

Haud oan a wee minute, in that post you quoted did he really say "accept you were wrong to make a claim a fact"? Jesus christ. Pot/kettle anyone. There it is, been a while. I was actually thinking he had finally got over this after several years. 😂

‘Zero’ PM, that was your claim. I showed the very likely situation, that the Kibble employ project managers. You then went on about project managing bird house building or some nonsense You are now going so far as to hint that there isn’t a benefit in project managers full stop. 😂😂 You have ducked, spun, changed the goalposts. Surely all that’s left is to accept you were wrong to make a claim a fact, that they don’t have anyone who has the experience to project manage Ralston? 🤷‍♂️

Surely this is double standards, if I’m taking the club at its statement, then you’re choosing to do the opposite & not believe it? Some of the specifics. Ralston - We have had Ralston for around 15 or more years. We have operated at break even since the original SMISA deal was put in place bar the last two years. That tells me we are more than capable of funding & maintain Ralston & that it is indeed, exceptional circumstances. League position - your take is just pessimistic. We have games in hand over every club above us & are in a league position we haven’t secured for over 3 decades. What I said about this being a positive is absolutely true. Attendance - there won’t be many getting freebies & I imagine most will be paying full price. There doesn’t appear to be strategy in place compared to previous seasons that would suggest a large number of people were there without having to pay. Multiple sellable assets - no one is saying that’s how the business is being ran, it’s just fact that we have performers on the park of a level where outside interest comes in. Manager - kind of does, better performing manager means more games won, more bums on seat, more league placement money. Again, it’s a positive. The loss - it is disappointing but it’s actually quite common for clubs our size. Before this season, we were possibly the only comparable club that hadn’t had a six figure loss over the last 5-7 seasons. People are definitely blowing this up bigger than it actually is.

Gilmour left us 7th in the championship on a downward spiral from the top flight. I’m eternally grateful for all he did while here but since he left, we have progressed on the park every single season. That’s fact, since SMISA came in we haven’t seen one season (until likely now) where we haven’t finished higher up the leagues than the season before. Yes we are in a new financial period, that doesn’t mean impacts from previous financial periods vanish. we are no worse than most clubs at this level, in fact due to good financial spending over the course of SMISA & GLS (keeping us in the black each year until Covid) we are probably in a better position. I get people are angry about the performances on the park & the managerial appointment isn’t working to date but this is exactly what some of our fans do. Instead of directing their feelings and views to the actual situation, they go off on massive tangents. Clubs finances, SMISA, Kibble, staffing decisions, etc, etc. Yes it’s frustrating what’s going on in football terms right now but financially, the club is in no danger whatsoever, we’re fine. BOD direction, we are less than a year into the fan ownership model, Kibble & SMISA aren’t magic wanding it, things will take time & making operational changes was literally part of the selling. Point for bringing in Kibble. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette.

What I stated was fact, I have been completely consistent on that, you queried it because despite the (also) fact that you agree with me, you’d rather dance around word games than admit that. I played up to your upset, regarding people using the word ‘fact’ on BAWA, even to the extent where I capitalised to elevate my point & you predictably nearly wet yourself with excitement 😂 You have shown you are such a small minded person, you won’t put this all behind us for the good of the forum. Very sad. Would you like the last word you’re desperate for though, is that the win you need?

No, I wouldn’t say so. If someone is going to make a completely baseless claim that we are in severe financial difficulty to the point we could possibly fold, they have burden of proof. There is nothing to back this up & his moans following it highlights there is quite a good chance of it just being an anti SMISA/ Kibble agenda. If I come on here and say Jim Goodwin is in serious trouble with the police & could be going to jail, I have heard this privately, Would it be fair for me to expect you to check that up with Jim Goodwin with absolutely no basis for my comment? Same logic applies imo. You may have heard similar, you may not. It may be reliable, I highly doubt it but will be the first to hold my hands up if something comes out. What I would say though, that seems pretty coincidental that you’ve also had a bit to say about the running of the club recently. What a strange turn of events it would be someone like that, that hears these rumours… As for your points on ‘kibble good’ and me framing things as fact. I don’t understand the agenda of some to hang the kibble at this point when very little has actually came out about what they’ve supposedly done wrong & it’s certainly a fact that there’s nothing in the fans sphere of common knowledge on these administration claims. You confirm this yourself by saying ‘private’ I’ll believe it when I see it would be a good way to summarise but I don’t think people should be let off on a fan forum not being challenge on these claims. As for your point on the ‘new guy’ it is just my view but I don’t believe it for a second. Your points on last words etc. i do enjoy this side of the debate on BAWA, I have never hid that but I would say I have relaxed on it recently 😀 (by the way, started typing this as a distraction to the poor second half start, what a goal though)

Again you double down on your pedantic argument, I have said I have no interest in getting into a debate on the semantics of the word "fact" I won't change my view on this because lockdown has saved people's lives. You got what you wanted out of your engagement which is an argument and I am willing to continue that with you but regarding your desperation to debate if it's a point of fact or otherwise, I won't be going into that with you. My view will remain the below. If we again take the dice example, if the event is in the past, I don't need to see a validation study to know it'll be fact that at least one six was rolled lol. That's where you can't grasp you are being pedantic. Lockdown has saved more than zero lives in the UK, fact. No amount of moon howling will get me to move on that view.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. The point you've jump in on is the claim from Andy that "zero" lives have been saved by the lockdown regarding Covid19. let's put it at it's simpliest here. Do you think it's likely certain fact that more than "zero" people in Britain are still alive today that would have died linked to Covid19 had there been absolutely no lockdown? Simple yes or no will do but feel free to elaborate if you wish. Now to address your specifics. We do know that ONE of the ways Covid19 transmits is through contact, therefore it is completely accurate to say less contact equals less transmission. We have evidence of this, where if people hadn't been in contact they wouldn't have had the virus transmitted to them. Care homes, football teams, businesses, etc, etc. As such my point stands. Covid19 does kill people. People that would have been alive today are dead because of covid19. You are again being pedantic regarding if there are other factors linked to their deaths or if Covid19 has hastened death. It isn't a strong defence technique (it is very much your go to though) back to first point & the running theme of pedantry, do you agree my "opinion" is likely "fact" regarding the "zero" death point? that's pretty much another way of saying it is pedantic. I'm about to roll a dice 10,000 times, at least one of those rolls will land on a 6. "You don't know that, that's opinion over fact" That's what you sound like to me. Ah great, so we are getting to the bottom of the issue here, again do you think it's likely fact that people have been saved due to lockdown? Dice rolling example is again relevant here.

Well, I disagree. You hinted at it, it was clearly a tactic and quite a disappointing one from a St Mirren "fan" No, I do not support or like either Celtic or Rangers. That would be at odds with your claimed kind nature. Can we both now accept you are in fact, a liar on that claim? Spin noted. I don't accept bigotry. I am a realist regarding the situation Scottish football is in and the unfortunate stronghold the bigots have on it.

Nope, it was a mistake, typing too fast & not overlay paying attention. "Surely, most wouldn’t be so backwards as to not enjoy the result" I think they are being needlessly bitter. It's empty seats versus money in the clubs pocket. So yeah, you can't show where you have admitted you were wrong. I could. It isn't very common on here. The main point in all this is it is largely opinion (all but fact that we would generate more income with the two stand arrangement). My opinion stands that we should still be taking the bigot brothers for every penny we can. I get it is divisive, I get it is emotive, but sometimes people will just have different opinions and there isn't much that can be done about it.

You have the person hung before a trial. It's more you just won't accept other opinions. Regarding you, me or anyone else, we have absolutely no idea of the level of success this person will have in the job role long-term or their capability to complete their duties. Your view is there is significant risk in this approach, I don't agree with that. The person is still accountable to the Kibble as an employee and will have responsibilities in his role to meet. I don't think the fact he's coming from & paid by the Kibble automatically means he'll fail. IF he doesn't have the capability. Can you confirm the person does not? I agree with all the other risks in a person not competent in the role but why does the fact he's being paid by someone else automatically mean he'll fail?

He might be, but it's only his opinion, not a "fact". We can all have different opinions, and argue over them, but when someone claims their opinion is absolute fact because ... well ... just because, then it's time to get out of the discussion. No doubt, if his opinion is later proven to be correct, he will claim that it proves his opinion was a fact after all. He'll be wrong, but he'll do it.

It seems you've misunderstood Oakster, Salrti's obsession is over his point that you can't prove lockdown has saved even one life, not that it has worked overall (which I believe it absolutely has). It is a fact that at least one person (there will be many) is alive today that wouldn't be if lockdown measures were never put in place. This is where the pedantic and trivial nature of this poster comes in (not for the first time) and they simply can't help but keep bringing it up. This is why my example of the 100,000 dice rolls comes into play, if I was to say "at least one of those dice rolls would have been a six, fact" I'm sure any reasonable person would agree that someone saying "yOu CaN't KnOw ThAt As FaCt!" would be making a rather pedantic and trivial point. This is what Slarti does, he's done it before, he'll done it again, it's his way of kicking up an argument. I refuse to pander to him by entertaining that approach. He'll cry about it many more times I'm sure, he got upset and put me on ignore (that worked a treat haha) it's just his way of coping with not being able to bring me down to his level. I would hope you wouldn't stoop that low either only as a means to argue. We have plenty more tangible disagreements to argue over. 👍

@Slarti is Just absolutely obsessed over this. It’s been years & he still can’t get over me calling him out on his pedantic nature. One fact I could use, he’s factually incapable of just letting it go…