Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 I wonder why the Glynhill is being used rather than the clubs hospitality suite.Kibble have booked it lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 I’m not a member of SMISA ,i have been a season ticket holder for years and can only see this as a very good opportunity for the club and would be voting yes if I was a member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Yflab said: I wonder why the Glynhill is being used rather than the clubs hospitality suite. This would be a good opportunity to make some good income from the bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whydowebother 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 Our 3 votes - will be NO Original plan please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme 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 Spot on!Isnt it Interesting the club dont want to flag up that all the good work Kibble propose to do when they're in control, is all the work thr St mirren Community Trust was supposed to deliver!All the work in the community by the community, for the community is being effectively sold off to the highest bidder Kibble.Many, many football clubs fo all this through their community trust or foundation.All the government, third sector Grant's, expertise, and recognition go to the club, not another organisation!Why arent the community trust all over this? Why has a deal been cooked up with a third party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Yflab said: The first round should have been on GLS who is getting all his money back. The ones that turn up could all order doubles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 A. "Buy the buds and the fans will own over 70 % of the club""Oops hang on a minute, Scott wants his wedge back sooner"B. "Buy the Buds and we'll sell 27.5 % of the club to a third party"What would you have signed up to in 2016.. option A or B..?The feckin cheek of these shysters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woiiftm Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 So until end 2021, when quicker option goes through, if they wanted, Mr Scott and Kibble could outvote SMISA on anything they wanted to instigate ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 So until end 2021, when quicker option goes through, if they wanted, Mr Scott and Kibble could outvote SMISA on anything they wanted to instigate ?That's the thing they dont want you to talk about!These shysters claimed it would be fan ownership ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portmahomack saint Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 45 minutes ago, linwood buddie said: I’m not a member of SMISA ,i have been a season ticket holder for years and can only see this as a very good opportunity for the club and would be voting yes if I was a member. Can you tell why it's a good idea for the Kibble organisation with 27% shareholding to have a veto on any major decisions in a fan owned club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Can you tell why it's a good idea for the Kibble organisation with 27% shareholding to have a veto on any major decisions in a fan owned club Exactly, people need to get past the "Vote Leave" style hype, focus and ask real questions.This makes a mockery of a the promises made during Buy The Buds...Ffs smisa want to sell out to the first outfit that turns up!What happened to fans being guardians of the club! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 20 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said: Can you tell why it's a good idea for the Kibble organisation with 27% shareholding to have a veto on any major decisions in a fan owned club How do you know they are going use a veto , has someone said they will? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 How do you know they are going use a veto , has someone said they will?Has someone said they wont?It's an option to block what the fans decide, and that simply is not Fan Ownership in anyone's book@ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said: Has someone said they wont? It's an option to block what the fans decide, and that simply is not Fan Ownership in anyone's book@ Don’t know ,that’s what I was asking portmahomack, maybe better asking him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 16 minutes ago, linwood buddie said: Don’t know ,that’s what I was asking portmahomack, maybe better asking him. With over 75% between smisa and existing fans who own shares nobody but fans can make full decisions and have them passed, 27.5% of shares owned by others means they can block decisions from being passed. Kibble could replace all existing staff with their own supervisors and trainees and effectively decide how much we pay for maintenance of everything from picking up litter to building new facilities. Complete fan ownership as promised would never be achieved if this is voted through, GLS always had the ability to sell a percentage of his shares and has obviously decided he will do. As someone has already said - fan ownership my arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, buddiecat said: With over 75% between smisa and existing fans who own shares nobody but fans can make full decisions and have them passed, 27.5% of shares owned by others means they can block decisions from being passed. Kibble could replace all existing staff with their own supervisors and trainees and effectively decide how much we pay for maintenance of everything from picking up litter to building new facilities. Complete fan ownership as promised would never be achieved if this is voted through, GLS always had the ability to sell a percentage of his shares and has obviously decided he will do. As someone has already said - fan ownership my arse. I’m not even a member bud so I have no say anyway , I personally think it is a good deal , others don’t and then there will be the undecided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 With 2 or more directors on the board representing Kibble and them being employees of that business, we would effectively have paid board members whose only jobs for us are to sit on the board, something I thought would not have happened under the proposed takeover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastlandssaint Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 https://www.kibble.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 As is their usual method of operation, the SMiSA board have informed members of proposals at the very last minute allowed which gives members as little time as possible to mull over the proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portmahomack saint Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 3 hours ago, linwood buddie said: How do you know they are going use a veto , has someone said they will? Contrary to a well held belief Turkeys don't actually vote for Christmas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portmahomack saint Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 47 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: How are they going to do that? Being able to block something is not the same as being able to push your own ideas/agenda through. If SMiSA already have about 30% then they could block anything that they feel is detrimental to the club. You'll be claiming next that Kibble will ban custard creams and bent bananas from the stadium. Buy The Buds was about putting control of our club into the hands of the fans, not about blocking any plans a third party might have, You seem to have conveniently forgot that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ged62 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 If it’s good for the community, good for kids & their future plus helps promote the club in any way, why not !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truesaint Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Taking the proposal at face value I see it as a positive. I would welcome potential improvement to the current infrastructure and guidance/assistance in certain areas which we are currently pretty shit at. I understand fan concern but doubt that that Kibble as a charity will be looking to ruffle feathers. To make this easier and more comfortable for some fans then why not include an option to buy Kibbles shares if things (unexpectedly) don't pan out. They can have a 5 year trial period so no different to what we have with GS and if it becomes unviable and detrimental to the club then so be it If it we purchase their shares. If things are going well then let's keep it going and Smisa have additional funds in the pot which would give the club better financial stability. Could even include a review to purchase Kibble shares every 5 years for example but would imagine this wouldn't be required. If Kibble are in it for the right reasons, which I am pretty sure they are then I can't see why they would object to the above. Could be a win/win rather than draw/lost/lost/draw/lost/win/lost again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 The original and current BTB deal would have seen SMiSA eventually own 71% of the shares. A majority shareholding. The proposed new deal will see SMiSA owning 51% of the shares. A majority shareholding. 51% fan ownership is the model that the whole of German football is based on. Owning 71% or 51% makes little difference. SMiSA will have control over the football club. In the same way that Gordon currently has control. The major decisions that are listed as all parties having to agree on are all the sort of things that you’d absolutely expect all SMiSA members to be consulted on such as changing the name of the club, putting in AstroTurf, issuing new shares and taking out massive loans. Bringing fan ownership in 5 years early isn’t really the big selling point here IMO. Fan ownership will happen with or without Kibble and I don’t personally think it will actually take as long as 5 more years anyway. The crux of this IMO is for the members to decide whether Kibble bring something worthwhile to the party or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 My question about Kibble would be what about existing spend they make with the club. I believe they spend quite a lot hiring and using the facilities at the stadium at the moment. It would be good to put a figure on that level of revenue and then to understand how or if that would be affected if they were part owners. 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.