Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 As I said yesterday, I am not sure what you're getting at, I have taken a couple of stabs at it but if I'm still not understanding what you mean, I would have to ask you to clarify or reach out to someone involved at SMISA/ Kibble. OK, I'll take a third attempt at it.Kibble will have 27% share in SMFC however it's been mentioned, by them, that this shareholding allows them to work on partnership with SMFC.I was asking if this was a partnership of equals? If so, how is that possible when one partner owns 27% of the other and has 2/5ths of the board members of the other partner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, melmac said: I don't really have an issue with Kibble, no doubt they will be a well run organisation - if they were a schiester organisation, I suspect they would not have the trustees that they have. This is about smisa / scott thinking they can do what they want whilst they have 1200 members gullibly paying money for one thing and in reality, they are getting something entirely different. This is something that should be going to an egm with the required amount of punters being required to vote for it - not an open ended online vote. If members don't speak up, then they deserve everything that is coming to them. By the way, how much legal fee's you reckon this will cost members - if approved by the members? My guess, £5k as a starting point. I can only speak for myself but I believe strongly in fan ownership, which is why I backed 10000Hours first, and then BTB. This proposal delivers fan ownership. SMiSA are literally asking their members if they want to proceed. If the members say no then it won’t proceed. That is exactly how it is supposed to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 They obviously do have interest in professional football or this wouldn't be an issue. What do the fans know about running a professional football club? More to the point, what do you know about it?Maybe SMFC should employ folk who have knowledge, skills and experience in running a football club instead?Not sure how sticking two guys from a charity onto the board of the club and giving them equal voting rights with the fans reps (despite having half the shareholding) helps SMFC in running a professional football club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: Maybe SMFC should employ folk who have knowledge, skills and experience in running a football club instead? Not sure how sticking two guys from a charity onto the board of the club and giving them equal voting rights with the fans reps (despite having half the shareholding) helps SMFC in running a professional football club? Typical Charity and Trading arm set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 I would question whether we have the experience and knowledge as to how to do so more effectively but the answer is yes we should be. If an organisation in partnership is better placed to do some or all of this then it is worth looking into. In theory a partnership could fast forward a lot this stuff. We are slow at moving a lot of things forward but again have no idea of costs, current internal structure in this area, who is involved in the community trust and what should be done to improve it. Maybe you can shed some light and thoughts?For me there is no issue with the principle of working in partnership, I'm just needing someone to explain why we need to make them the 2nd biggest shareholder and give them enhanced voting rights to do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Huge PR push in newspapers and social mediaAnd yet, according to some all smisa are doing is putting the proposal to its membership to vote on [emoji6] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 And the FANS are buying a CONTROLLING 51%. Of course Kibble want input. For 25% I am sure you would want input too. Unfortunately you would have no control. And if they have a lot to offer why would we want them out anyway?The information available so far states kibble will have 2 board members same as SMISA. If kibble have no control, neither do SMISA [emoji6] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 13 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: OK, I'll take a third attempt at it. Kibble will have 27% share in SMFC however it's been mentioned, by them, that this shareholding allows them to work on partnership with SMFC. I was asking if this was a partnership of equals? If so, how is that possible when one partner owns 27% of the other and has 2/5ths of the board members of the other partner? I feel I have answered this, I’ll try rephrase. partnerships don’t need to be equals regarding share holding. You can be partners and own different percentages of a company. However My view is, it’s a partnership in the less literal company sense of the word, they’ll be entering a partnership regarding the ownership of SMFC with the fans group. But the actual model ownership of SMFC remains a Private Limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 How much of cala homes does Kibble own? Kibble runs community initiatives that generate funds that they use to further their other activities. T And thee is absolutely nothing that would ever have stopped Kibble placing their trainees in any part of the club, or at UWOS catering department, or any other entity at or connected to the club other than they have to compete with others-so why buy your way in if it is not to maximise your leverage. This is an important point raised by BOK, myself and others.You don't need to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds buying a 27% stake to work in partnership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 What do you think is the Kibble's ulterior motive that they are lying to the St Mirren Board and fans about?I don't think they are lying, they just haven't explained it fully in a concise and transparent way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Like who? Random dudes from SMiSA? I expect the Kibble guys will be there to give input on areas that they do know about.Like a chief executive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: This is an important point raised by BOK, myself and others. You don't need to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds buying a 27% stake to work in partnership. It also doesn't need to go as a given that the benefit they see in buying 27% of the club won't be mutually beneficial to the club . In fact this is exactly what the people involved in the deal are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 I feel I have answered this, I’ll try rephrase. partnerships don’t need to be equals regarding share holding. You can be partners and own different percentages of a company. However My view is, it’s a partnership in the less literal company sense of the word, they’ll be entering a partnership regarding the ownership of SMFC with the fans group. But the actual model ownership of SMFC remains a Private Limited. Nope, you still haven't answered it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 It also doesn't need to go as a given that the benefit they see in buying 27% of the club won't be mutually beneficial to the club . In fact this is exactly what the people involved in the deal are saying. Yes but there hasn't been a proper explanation of these benefits. It's all soundbites and areas of business mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Tying up with Kibble is in itself a great idea,as they have partnerships with many large companies ,but in none of these cases have they a)bought shares or b) wanted seats on the board. Why would a charity buy shares, (using money donated to the charity to carry out good works ) ,from an individual ,when they could have just donated the money into the club to further their interests. GS is the only one who benefits financially Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Sonny said: What do you think is the Kibble's ulterior motive that they are lying to the St Mirren Board and fans about? whoever said they are lying? Not me Do i think they have been crystal clear in their plans and objectives, no way. They have led with a very vague statement that allows them a lot of latitude, it leaves their options wide open and their commitments to St Mirren rather unclear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Why have the Smisa committee abandoned what they were tasked by the membership to do?What member resolution tasked them with selling the club before BtB was even achieved?When this clusterf**k proposal is crushed, that Smisa committee needs to be voted out!Who they f**k are they representing? It sure aint the people who are Financing BtB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 19 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: Nope, you still haven't answered it. Well put your question to SMISA, if that doesn't answer it, you'll have to be much clearer though. You asked if it was a partnership of equals and I explained the current ownership model and a breakdown of the percentages. You're clearly asking something that isn't in your wording. 18 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: 20 minutes ago, bazil85 said: It also doesn't need to go as a given that the benefit they see in buying 27% of the club won't be mutually beneficial to the club . In fact this is exactly what the people involved in the deal are saying. Yes but there hasn't been a proper explanation of these benefits. It's all soundbites and areas of business mentioned. This is why we are in a consoltation period, people are free to clarify either at the Q&A or to email questions. Like any similar announcement, there is a requirement for the summary to be appropriate high level detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said: No, it doesn't, so I'm not in denial of anything. It has the potential to do so if the other party/parties agree to the compromise, if they don't then either stalemate or a different compromise. SMiSA apparently has about 30% just now so they must be vetoing stuff left, right and centre to get get everything they want, eh? some examples, please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Just now, Lord Pityme said: Why have the Smisa committee abandoned what they were tasked by the membership to do? They haven't, they're putting a vote to members on changes, this is a democratic process. If it's a no, your "abandon" comment will look silly (like most of your content historically) What member resolution tasked them with selling the club before BtB was even achieved? The consultation and members vote does not fail to comply with any relevant regulations. This is an irrelevant ask, back to the weak “there should have been a vote to decide if there’s a vote” argument used for the £50k proposal, utter nonsense. When this clusterf**k proposal is crushed, that Smisa committee needs to be voted out! What a ridiculous point. If a SMISA committee was in place that rejected this proposal without engaging democratically the paying members, they would be the ones that hadn’t acted ethically and there would be a case for them getting voted out. Who they f**k are they representing? It sure aint the people who are Financing BtB. Except it is, they’re literally letting the people paying there money decide what to do. The breakdown continues with yet more complete unfounded, ignorant, ignoring the elephant in the room nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshire Saints Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Iamhammer said: How many of these companies do they own over 25% off? Has the funding changed in that they no longer obtain payment for the kids finding employment and again for the same kid if they remain in employment, at 3, 6 then 12 months? They are not an employment agency - there mission is not to find kids jobs !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 The breakdown continues with yet more complete unfounded, ignorant, ignoring the elephant in the room nonsense.Says the guy talking in the mirror.I hope you'll accept the democratic decision when the better considered smisa members kick this disaster into touch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Again ... SMiSA aren't selling anything, GLS is (or, more accurately, may be).Smisa have a legally binding agreement with Scott. They have to agree this sale. It's in a written document. End of.The shame that smisa has become... selling the club! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 You cannot setup, advertise and run any sort of service without having the resources to execute those services. Kibble's services would collapse if St Mirren said in a month or two naw, we have changed our mind. And Kibble want to extend and expand on the limited opportunities that we currently have on offer. St Mirren do not have the resources or interest to do so as their aim is primarily football and not community involvement. St Mirren have very limited marketing in place and seem reluctant to expand on that. Likewise revenue streams (using the stadium for hospitality far more, a memorial garden, a cafe etc). Kibble reckon they can expand on those services. But to do so they would need to be a partner and not at the whim of the Club. For me Kibble see and are willing to undertake an expansion that the Football Club do not have the resources nor interest in. For that they would want a say. As would I if I was in their position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshire Saints Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 18 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: Tying up with Kibble is in itself a great idea,as they have partnerships with many large companies ,but in none of these cases have they a)bought shares or b) wanted seats on the board. Why would a charity buy shares, (using money donated to the charity to carry out good works ) ,from an individual ,when they could have just donated the money into the club to further their interests. GS is the only one who benefits financially This is the most pertinent point raised and is the one needing answered next week - why the need to buy in to do what they want to do. 37 minutes ago, bazil85 said: It also doesn't need to go as a given that the benefit they see in buying 27% of the club won't be mutually beneficial to the club . In fact this is exactly what the people involved in the deal are saying. It is a question that needs answered next week though. It's a very valid point. 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.