Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
HSS

David Nicol To Stand Down..........

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Hmmm?

well in last years accounts a new line appeared indicating directors were being paid. Wonder if it will be a significantly higher figure this year?

Was the director salary not TF? Can't think of anyone else it would be..

Can't see any evidence that it would be significantly  higher this year. Don't imagine you have any. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

TF, like CS are both club employees and paid in their respective job roles.

And 'Director' is a very generic expression utilised by organisations. It doesn't specifically have to mean remuneration for a company board director. You are just jumping to the most negative possibility as per usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

And 'Director' is a very generic expression utilised by organisations. It doesn't specifically have to mean remuneration for a company board director. You are just jumping to the most negative possibility as per usual.

What's negative about it? There was a line on last years accounts for Directors Pay, which had not been there during the last board's tenure. Whats so difficult to understand in that line?

a couple of questions at the AGM would make it clear which directors were being paid. TF and CS will be paid in their respective employee roles, not as directors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

What's negative about it? There was a line on last years accounts for Directors Pay, which had not been there during the last board's tenure. Whats so difficult to understand in that line?

a couple of questions at the AGM would make it clear which directors were being paid. TF and CS will be paid in their respective employee roles, not as directors.

Well we know it's not GLS or DN based on what has been quoted in the buyout. As TF sits on the board as a director it is most likely him and has been widely quoted as him with no one refuting it.

There is a big difference between someone getting paid a salary as part of a BOD and taking profit from a company (the club) we also know that is not the case and won't be the case as we continue into fan ownership. 

Your negativity stems from the off the cuff comment that it could go up. Like I say, all your comments resonate to the negative as an automatic stand point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Well we know it's not GLS or DN based on what has been quoted in the buyout. As TF sits on the board as a director it is most likely him and has been widely quoted as him with no one refuting it.

There is a big difference between someone getting paid a salary as part of a BOD and taking profit from a company (the club) we also know that is not the case and won't be the case as we continue into fan ownership. 

Your negativity stems from the off the cuff comment that it could go up. Like I say, all your comments resonate to the negative as an automatic stand point. 

Bawz! Your comments are gash.

it could go up simply because the last accounts didnt cover a whole year. You seem to be corroborating your own take on the basis of not actually knowing anything about it! 

I on the other hand suggested a couple of questions at the AGM to clear it up.  No one, as far as i am aware has actually asked the club secretary, and he would be duty bound to answer at the AGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Bawz! Your comments are gash.

it could go up simply because the last accounts didnt cover a whole year. You seem to be corroborating your own take on the basis of not actually knowing anything about it! 

I on the other hand suggested a couple of questions at the AGM to clear it up.  No one, as far as i am aware has actually asked the club secretary, and he would be duty bound to answer at the AGM.

I've never claimed to know what it is. I'm simply calling you out on always assuming a negative. You clearly don't know anything about it either.

Not even completely sure what you want cleared up. It's part of our accounts regarding an outgoing, we have many. Unless you are assuming (as usual) it's something negative? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

And 'Director' is a very generic expression utilised by organisations. It doesn't specifically have to mean remuneration for a company board director. You are just jumping to the most negative possibility as per usual.

In terms of the Companies act, it does refer to and only to appointed company directors (i.e. board appointments). It covers any remuneration paid to these directors during their time as a director either for the full financial year or the part relating to their tenure. If their hold other roles e.g. CEO of Company Secretary this is irrelevant for disclosure purposes.

Directors remuneration is all of their payments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I've never claimed to know what it is. I'm simply calling you out on always assuming a negative. You clearly don't know anything about it either.

Not even completely sure what you want cleared up. It's part of our accounts regarding an outgoing, we have many. Unless you are assuming (as usual) it's something negative? 

Bored with your trolling now mate.  Tattie bye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Radar said:

In terms of the Companies act, it does refer to and only to appointed company directors (i.e. board appointments). It covers any remuneration paid to these directors during their time as a director either for the full financial year or the part relating to their tenure. If their hold other roles e.g. CEO of Company Secretary this is irrelevant for disclosure purposes.

Directors remuneration is all of their payments.

I think you might be talking about Non Executive Directors (NED) 

Directors can be employees of the company and be salaried. Not saying it is the case at the club but they can be. Like I say, we know GLS and DN do not take an income from the club and no one else takes profits currently. I imagine the £40k is very likely the way they do TF salary. It's been well commented on and never denied which it usually would be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomination period for new SMISA director on the board opened yesterday (16th October 2018)

The period runs until Sunday 4th November 

Voting begins on the election Monday 12th November and closes Monday 26th November. 

As for a previous query on here, DN will step down after his two year period ends in November, not at the end of the season. 

Full details and election rules are available to download from their website. 

Not much in the rest of the update. Meet the manager night being arranged next month and £2 spend for October is just being finalised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, alanb said:

It may now be prudent that the Club board do not be seen to endorse any of the candidates

 

 

48 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

You'd think?

even if they manage to resist compromising the election, Scott has a veto on whoever wins.

They won't endorse any of the candidates, not seen any evidence they did for DN.

Regardless of GLS having a veto, he won't likely use it. Him having a veto is not only acceptable, it would be down right ridiculous if he didn't ,given how much financial exposure he currently has to get the deal through.  A genuine St Mirren hero, selflessly and without profit , moving us to fan ownership deserves safeguards.  My opinion anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

They won't endorse any of the candidates, not seen any evidence they did for DN.

Regardless of GLS having a veto, he won't likely use it. Him having a veto is not only acceptable, it would be down right ridiculous if he didn't ,given how much financial exposure he currently has to get the deal through.  A genuine St Mirren hero, selflessly and without profit , moving us to fan ownership deserves safeguards.  My opinion anyway. 

Whether he has a veto or not, should he ever invoke it, would he not then be going against the choice of SMISA ? , who are the only ones at the moment who can discharge him of his financial exposure .

A educated choice made after careful consideration by the members of SMISA of all the  candidates.

Because at the end of the day, he is eventually going to pass the reins over to the fans and either watch his club crash and burn or flourish under fan ownership.

Best for those inclined to step up for election to gain experience along side him and the other board members than be deemed unsuitable OR just let him "veto" away indefinitely and stay in the front seat of the rollercoaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, alanb said:

Whether he has a veto or not, should he ever invoke it, would he not then be going against the choice of SMISA ? , who are the only ones at the moment who can discharge him of his financial exposure .

A educated choice made after careful consideration by the members of SMISA of all the  candidates.

Because at the end of the day, he is eventually going to pass the reins over to the fans and either watch his club crash and burn or flourish under fan ownership.

Best for those inclined to step up for election to gain experience along side him and the other board members than be deemed unsuitable OR just let him "veto" away indefinitely and stay in the front seat of the rollercoaster.

I really think it's a moot point. Talking about GLS Veto is like talking about the queens right to claim any property in the UK as her own. It ain't ever going to happen. LPM often gets bogged down with silly wee irrelevant points, it's his thing. 

The queen is obviously a tongue in cheek example but if you stumped up a six figure sum at your own personal expense after selling off a bunch of your own property, would you not want certain safe guards attached to your money? I would be genuinely surprised at anyone not thinking he had that right. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I really think it's a moot point. Talking about GLS Veto is like talking about the queens right to claim any property in the UK as her own. It ain't ever going to happen. LPM often gets bogged down with silly wee irrelevant points, it's his thing. 

The queen is obviously a tongue in cheek example but if you stumped up a six figure sum at your own personal expense after selling off a bunch of your own property, would you not want certain safe guards attached to your money? I would be genuinely surprised at anyone not thinking he had that right. 

 

His safeguard is trusting SMISA to elect a suitably able board member. If he does not trust SMISA and their choice then he may well need to review his future business choices.

SMISA is his only option to get his money back or maybe he would be happy to remain indefinitely as Chairman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, alanb said:

His safeguard is trusting SMISA to elect a suitably able board member. If he does not trust SMISA and their choice then he may well need to review his future business choices.

SMISA is his only option to get his money back or maybe he would be happy to remain indefinitely as Chairman.

Like I say, it won't happen. It's a complete non-issue,. Whoever gets voted will be on the board. When the deal was signed off and the veto was put in, it was a safeguard nothing more. 

I feel you might be focusing on a very small detail here tbh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Like I say, it won't happen. It's a complete non-issue,. Whoever gets voted will be on the board. When the deal was signed off and the veto was put in, it was a safeguard nothing more. 

I feel you might be focusing on a very small detail here tbh. 

The small detail is SMISA being able and allowed to prove it has the talented individuals able to stand and be accepted both short and long term by the club and its fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, alanb said:

The small detail is SMISA being able and allowed to prove it has the talented individuals able to stand and be accepted both short and long term by the club and its fans.

Which they are, they're entitled to do it and that's exactly what is going to happen. 

When the deal was put in place a contract was drawn up. Like  any other contract, terms and conditions exist to cover a wide range of possibilities. GLS reserving the right to veto a BOD member for a club that he owns is one of those terms.

I don't see why it's a bad thing, realistically it won't be exercised however if the deal had soured, I can see why he'd want to retain that right and don't see why anyone would want to chastised him for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I really think it's a moot point. Talking about GLS Veto is like talking about the queens right to claim any property in the UK as her own. It ain't ever going to happen. LPM often gets bogged down with silly wee irrelevant points, it's his thing. 

The queen is obviously a tongue in cheek example but if you stumped up a six figure sum at your own personal expense after selling off a bunch of your own property, would you not want certain safe guards attached to your money? I would be genuinely surprised at anyone not thinking he had that right. 

 

What if SMISA voted LPM, would he veto that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

What if SMISA voted LPM, would he veto that? 

God I'd hope so haha! 

That would be a perfect example where I would fully support a Veto. If a majority number of SMISA members had clearly had some sort of mental breakdown during the voting process. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alanb said:

Whether he has a veto or not, should he ever invoke it, would he not then be going against the choice of SMISA ? , who are the only ones at the moment who can discharge him of his financial exposure .

A educated choice made after careful consideration by the members of SMISA of all the  candidates.

Because at the end of the day, he is eventually going to pass the reins over to the fans and either watch his club crash and burn or flourish under fan ownership.

Best for those inclined to step up for election to gain experience along side him and the other board members than be deemed unsuitable OR just let him "veto" away indefinitely and stay in the front seat of the rollercoaster.

It is written into his agreement with Smisa. I suppose if the members wanted to they could challenge it as a shareholder with over 25%.it would be messy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alanb said:

His safeguard is trusting SMISA to elect a suitably able board member. If he does not trust SMISA and their choice then he may well need to review his future business choices.

SMISA is his only option to get his money back or maybe he would be happy to remain indefinitely as Chairman.

Smisa isnt his only option!

if they cant fulfill their obligations when they come due he can sell to whoever he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...