Sonny Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 23 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: I'm not distrusting the deal or them really. I'm still trying to work out why a charity wants to spend a six figure sum to get a 27% share in a football club which even though its a private company isn't likely to return much of a profit, if any. I'm also not sure what this will allow them to do on partnership with us that they couldn't currently do? For the Kibble I would assume it is a relatively small amount to set up another Social Enterprise. I am sure their current Social Enterprises in Kibbleworks (Car mechanics, construction, gardening) and The Experience ( electric go-karting arena, laser tag, soft play, licensed café, and meetings and events space) would have cost at least the same amount to set up. St Mirren offer hospitality, catering, fitness, maintenance, marketing, and green-keeping opportunities for young people. Kibble would have many avenues for young people within the one source - St Mirren. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshire Saints Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Unless those with concerns are SMISA members, what they think is going to be irrelevant. If like LPM you have a concern surely the obvious direction isn't bitching on here but joining SMISA thus gaining a vote to influence the outcome. You can post thousands of times on this thread but it won't alter a thing. Only SMISA members will decide so you either sign up, cast your vote or keep spouting pointless vacuous hot air that will influence nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 For the Kibble I would assume it is a relatively small amount to set up another Social Enterprise. I am sure their current Social Enterprises in Kibbleworks (Car mechanics, construction, gardening) and The Experience ( electric go-karting arena, laser tag, soft play, licensed café, and meetings and events space) would have cost at least the same amount to set up. St Mirren offer hospitality, catering, fitness, maintenance, marketing, and green-keeping opportunities for young people. Kibble would have many avenues for young people within the one source - St Mirren.Yes, however couldn't they work with smfc to get their clients access and experience in most of this without spending the money to purchase the shares?I accept that we currently income generate from other companies for catering and hospitality so they probably can't access this.Are they viewing the purchase price as buying them access to these areas and others where smfc currently generate income? Genuine question, not suggesting impropriety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshire Saints Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 If it puts more / faster staff into the 1877 they have my vote ! Will the kibble be intending to eventually replace the local workforce who work in the hospitality, catering, stewarding etc, on match days who I am guessing do it to fund their studies or even help pay their rent, with kids from the Kibble, Would this make up part of their traineeship program of employment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said: Unless those with concerns are SMISA members, what they think is going to be irrelevant. If like LPM you have a concern surely the obvious direction isn't bitching on here but joining SMISA thus gaining a vote to influence the outcome. You can post thousands of times on this thread but it won't alter a thing. Only SMISA members will decide so you either sign up, cast your vote or keep spouting pointless vacuous hot air that will influence nothing. Membership is suspended just now until after the vote. Will re-open afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 32 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: I think you've gone off on a bit of a tangent here. This what I'm asking, along with is the partnership between the two 50/50? From what I can tell the benefit for them will be the benefit in the young people they look after. Football programs, work initiatives & future joint ventures through sport. Got to remember their whole aim is to support young people. There’s lots around sport that can help with that. Don’t imagine they’ll be in it for the financial gain more than the stakeholder gain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanb Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 40 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: What's to stop GS not selling Smisa the remainder of his shares if the original agreement is now null and void? Where is it stated the original agreement is null and void ? , may have missed that bit. This is just a proposal at the moment with a discussion planned and then a vote. Subject to that vote, the status quo remains, current plan remains in place and fan ownership in 2026 or new deal is reached 2021. Add to that that there are not many interested in purchasing SMFC shares around when you need them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamhammer Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 14 minutes ago, Sonny said: For the Kibble I would assume it is a relatively small amount to set up another Social Enterprise. I am sure their current Social Enterprises in Kibbleworks (Car mechanics, construction, gardening) and The Experience ( electric go-karting arena, laser tag, soft play, licensed café, and meetings and events space) would have cost at least the same amount to set up. St Mirren offer hospitality, catering, fitness, maintenance, marketing, and green-keeping opportunities for young people. Kibble would have many avenues for young people within the one source - St Mirren. May have cost about the same, but don’t they own those businesses? Why pay so much for a smallish percentage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 6 hours ago, div said: For an opening post this is quite an incredible mis-reporting of what is being proposed by the way. Gordon isn't going anywhere. Kibble aren't taking over. Kibble are merely buying shares from Gordon that SMiSA don't need to complete fan ownership of the club. That brings fan ownership into reality 5 years earlier than planned and brings us the expertise of a 160 year old Charity who have a turnover 10 times that of St.Mirren. Company Law people, 75% needed to do what you want. Simple majority doesn't cut it and this was not what was advertised at outset - control. Kibble go tits up, as businesses often do, and RBS be chapping the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portmahomack saint Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said: If it puts more / faster staff into the 1877 they have my vote ! They won't be getting mine if it means some local kid can lose their job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Where is it stated the original agreement is null and void ? , may have missed that bit. This is just a proposal at the moment with a discussion planned and then a vote. Subject to that vote, the status quo remains, current plan remains in place and fan ownership in 2026 or new deal is reached 2021. Add to that that there are not many interested in purchasing SMFC shares around when you need them.If it is just a proposal, why did we get a hurried email ahead of public announcements in the media?Surely these discussions should be in-house at least until after the SMISA meeting with members?A wee "no comment" to the press wouldn't have gone amiss! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 From what I can tell the benefit for them will be the benefit in the young people they look after. Football programs, work initiatives & future joint ventures through sport. Got to remember their whole aim is to support young people. There’s lots around sport that can help with that. Don’t imagine they’ll be in it for the financial gain more than the stakeholder gain Are you intentionally misreading this on a repeated basis?Apologies for being short, but I'm getting a bit exasperated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: Yes, however couldn't they work with smfc to get their clients access and experience in most of this without spending the money to purchase the shares? I accept that we currently income generate from other companies for catering and hospitality so they probably can't access this. Are they viewing the purchase price as buying them access to these areas and others where smfc currently generate income? Genuine question, not suggesting impropriety. I would think by investing they could prepare a proper structure and model for work experience and training instead at being at the whim of the Club. I would also think that Kibble could expand and develop possibilities that St Mirren are not really interested in. Personally I think there is a great need within the Club to expand marketing and generate further income. I think Kibble probably have better resources for this than we currently have. And by expanding what the Club can potentially offer helps generate more opportunities for youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 49 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said: Will the kibble be intending to eventually replace the local workforce who work in the hospitality, catering, stewarding etc, on match days who I am guessing do it to fund their studies or even help pay their rent, with kids from the Kibble, Would this make up part of their traineeship program of employment I would not think that at all. I would think they intend to expand opportunities rather than replace. For years fans have complained about the lack of potential investment and marketing. For example more use of the stadium facilities on a day-to-day basis instead of once every 2 weeks. The Fakes generate far more income from their hospitality than we do by offering facilities to a wider target audience. That would involve a lot more jobs/training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 I would think by investing they could prepare a proper structure and model for work experience and training instead at being at the whim of the Club. I would also think that Kibble could expand and develop possibilities that St Mirren are not really interested in. Personally I think there is a great need within the Club to expand marketing and generate further income. I think Kibble probably have better resources for this than we currently have. And by expanding what the Club can potentially offer helps generate more opportunities for youth.I don't think they need to invest to prepare a proper structure for work experience and training as they should have procedures in place within their organisation. If they think by investing they will be able to change our approach then they need to be upfront and tell smfc what that will cost as well as any gains. Costs include how it might affect current income streams at smfc and gains include non financial benefits like helping youth. There's definitely a need to expand the marketing and income generation however not seeing how their 2 board appointees will do this without financial investment from smfc.Again this might benefit in medium or long term however it needs to explained in an open and transparent way to allow members see what they are being asked to vote for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanb Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: If it is just a proposal, why did we get a hurried email ahead of public announcements in the media? Surely these discussions should be in-house at least until after the SMISA meeting with members? A wee "no comment" to the press wouldn't have gone amiss! May well have been leaked anyway and led to more suspicion I don't know how long this has been discussed at by the parties involved, but would it still be considered "hurried" whenever sent out. Kibble, SMISA and GLS clearly feel now is the time to go public so lets discuss further with the members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Unless those with concerns are SMISA members, what they think is going to be irrelevant. If like LPM you have a concern surely the obvious direction isn't bitching on here but joining SMISA thus gaining a vote to influence the outcome. You can post thousands of times on this thread but it won't alter a thing. Only SMISA members will decide so you either sign up, cast your vote or keep spouting pointless vacuous hot air that will influence nothing. Ah do us irrelevant ones might as well go off and follow Brahead clan or the rugby each Saturday?Maybe you've got a point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 If it is just a proposal, why did we get a hurried email ahead of public announcements in the media?Surely these discussions should be in-house at least until after the SMISA meeting with members?A wee "no comment" to the press wouldn't have gone amiss! Funny that....No smisa members have yet questioned exactly why, and what mandate did the smisa committee think they had to go off and strike proposed deals with the club and an outside organisation before the deal members signed up to was even delivered?Anyone still think smisa are independent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 20 minutes ago, alanb said: Where is it stated the original agreement is null and void ? , may have missed that bit. This is just a proposal at the moment with a discussion planned and then a vote. Subject to that vote, the status quo remains, current plan remains in place and fan ownership in 2026 or new deal is reached 2021. Add to that that there are not many interested in purchasing SMFC shares around when you need them. Its null and void when Smisa allows GS to sell half of his shares to the Kibble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Why do kibble get same number of board members as smisa with only half the shares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Looks like a done deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanb Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Funny that.... No smisa members have yet questioned exactly why, and what mandate did the smisa committee think they had to go off and strike proposed deals with the club and an outside organisation before the deal members signed up to was even delivered? Anyone still think smisa are independent? Hopefully your questions are asked and answered at the GLYNHILL next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 I wonder why the Glynhill is being used rather than the clubs hospitality suite.Potentially 1200 or so could turn up? I know that's extremely unlikely to happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanb Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Yflab said: I wonder why the Glynhill is being used rather than the clubs hospitality suite. Neutral venue 😉 or potential attendance numbers though previous numbers why not the 1877 club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woiiftm Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 No, just no. Why a sudden rush to do this ? Stick to original plan, over 70% SMISA and over 20% individual ownership. No need for 3rd party who would undoubtedly bring their own agenda for their own benefit. All shareholders thoughts and agendas' should only concern and be of benefit to St Mirren and St Mirren alone. Letting in a 3rd party because Scott can get paid off early and we get to say Club is fan owned quicker, is flawed reasoning If goes through, Scott should immediately be replaced as Chairman by Board member of SMISA, there being no further need for him. Again.....No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.