BuddieinEK Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Always thought GLS was not selling his 8% and SMISA only ever referred to having a potential 71%. Of course as we can see, things can change.Cost of fuel and the mpg of that fuel guzzler is a cu*t! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Off The Ball congratulating us on a done deal and talking us up on helping underprivileged kids!Seriously?Quelle surprise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddymarvellous Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) Just listening to Off the Ball - they’re reporting Kibble proposal as a done deal - the power of PR? Beat me to it EK Edited February 1, 2020 by Buddymarvellous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Just listening to Off the Ball - they’re reporting Kibble proposal as a done deal - the power of PR? Beat me to it EKExactly.How can any vote be impartial when the "done deal" is so publicly discussed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 10 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Off The Ball congratulating us on a done deal and talking us up on helping underprivileged kids! Seriously? Quelle surprise! Wonder where they got that idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanleySaint Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 You don't think he has earned the right to gloat or snigger up his sleeve?I have absolutely no idea what he's earned but we're on the verge of our own mini brexit here with the nature of the statements from both 'sides' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Exactly.How can any vote be impartial when the "done deal" is so publicly discussed?It stinks and it stinks to high heaven at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford prefect Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Can only agree. It's setting us up to be the baddies if we block it. I just want to hear what the plans are before I decide. Is that asking too much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Can only agree. It's setting us up to be the baddies if we block it. I just want to hear what the plans are before I decide. Is that asking too much?The Club can still collaborate with Kibble with great effect without having Kibble being a shareowner.Everyone's a winner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 How is this fundamental change to be voted on? a)simple majority of members at meeting b)majority of members ,ie by 650 to get agreed c) quorum of at least one quarter ,ie 300 and 75%agreeing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 How is this fundamental change to be voted on? a)simple majority of members at meeting b)majority of members ,ie by 650 to get agreed c) quorum of at least one quarter ,ie 300 and 75%agreeingI already asked.Nobody knows!It stinks. Something is rotton in the state of Denmark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanb Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: I already asked. Nobody knows! It stinks. Something is rotton in the state of Denmark. I too have just asked SMISA via the FAQ email link on their webpage. Eagerly await the reply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Q and AWhat happens if the members vote no?If the plans fail to attract the support of the majority of members, we would continue with the status quo. Gordon would remain majority owner until such time as SMISA could buy him out under the current arrangements (which would need to happen by 2026). Kibble would not seek to become part-owners of St Mirren, meaning the support they are offering would be lost. We could still deliver fan ownership – but without the commercial expertise Kibble can bring, SMFC would not have the same scope to grow as a business.Follow up Q from me.Maybe chief spokesman for the campaign will answer.WHY?Why would the support Kibble are offering be lost without a shareholding?Why can a trading partnership not be agreed?Div? Anyone?Yes... I know this can be asked next week... But the case for can be discussed this week... So in the interests of fairness, DISCUSS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Read it all again.NOTHING in the statement from the Kibble states why the proposed agreement requires a shareholding! Nothing.NOTHING from SMISA says why the proposed deal requires a shareholding. Nothing.Beautifully orated to appeal to modern societies way of scanning blurb!Will sail through as a result.I just wish they would be upfront!The original BtB campaign was based on a lie, was it?We don't have the skills to run a football club? Why did we sell that dream then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 ! The original BtB campaign was based on a lie, was it? We don't have the skills to run a football club? Why did we sell that dream then? BinEK, Looks like LPM has hacked your account.[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 BinEK, Looks like LPM has hacked your account.[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] I'm trying to stay open and neutral ahead of the meeting Kombi... But I detest manipulation and this totally stinks of a done deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doakes Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 LPM is consistent on this issue, out of pure curiosity - I searched the keyword "Kibble" on posts for the last few years and found these Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 LPM is consistent on this issue, out of pure curiosity - I searched the keyword "Kibble" on posts for the last few years and found these [/url] Links to discussions about Dr Who and Tampa Bay Rowdies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 6 hours ago, Dickson said: Kibble, as a charity, have a legal obligation to publish their investment policy (if they have one) in their Trustees Annual Report. The last annual report published by them was for 2017-18. This is what their CEO said about their investment strategy Charities are allowed to invest in companies. Usually it is done for financial profit. However in some cases it's about furthering their aims and achieving a financial return. I reckon that since St Mirren have never paid a dividend, and shares are unlikely to be sold on again at a profit, that this must be about free use of facilities. That is going to impact on St Mirren's potential revenue streams and it seems to be being done so Gordon Scott can get his investment back quicker, whilst continuing to be club Chairman. I'd rather see a situation where the shares were held by the fans, and where Kibble could continue to rent out whatever facilities they require without having to purchase a shareholding. The money that comes in from the rental for facilities should be kept out of the playing squad, and should instead be re-invested in expanding the facilities at the club which would allow Kibble to help grow the club without the big initial financial outlay whilst St Mirren would benefit from an expanding list of facilities that could be used by the club when not being rented out. I will try and put some more detailed thoughts together should anyone be interested, but please note that "normal rules" would mean that a shareholder e.g Kibble cannot be offered preferential treatment e.g discounts, from a company they own shares in without imprinting what is called "the rights of the minority" basically the rest of the shareholders. Now as in all matters it is more complicated that just the few sentences above, but I personally did spend a lot of time making sure that during 10000hours days the governance structure made sure this was not an issue....For example any preference was available to one member was available to all and no external party other than the CIC and Fans owned shares, e.g none of the Corporate members owned shares (or indeed needed to own shares) as a result of membership. I also did present to the full board and trustees/advisors of Kibble about 30 people iirc, and took extensive questions, would be interesting to know the process of engagement this time...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Exactly.How can any vote be impartial when the "done deal" is so publicly discussed?Welcome to conditioning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 My word. A thread to make a person with the most empty of lives feel absolutely magnificent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 My word. A thread to make a person with the most empty of lives feel absolutely magnificent.It's ok.We don't grudge you the attention. [emoji12] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 6 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: It's ok. We don't grudge you the attention. Exhibit number one m'lud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 Did you really think he'd gone away?Ffs c'mon buds...this your club, not feckin theirs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 2, 2020 Report Share Posted February 2, 2020 Kibble, as a charity, have a legal obligation to publish their investment policy (if they have one) in their Trustees Annual Report. The last annual report published by them was for 2017-18. This is what their CEO said about their investment strategy It is our intention to maintain our programme of investment to ensure that our integrated service provision continues to be underpinned by a robust infrastructure and support services. Charities are allowed to invest in companies. Usually it is done for financial profit. However in some cases it's about furthering their aims and achieving a financial return. I reckon that since St Mirren have never paid a dividend, and shares are unlikely to be sold on again at a profit, that this must be about free use of facilities. That is going to impact on St Mirren's potential revenue streams and it seems to be being done so Gordon Scott can get his investment back quicker, whilst continuing to be club Chairman. I'd rather see a situation where the shares were held by the fans, and where Kibble could continue to rent out whatever facilities they require without having to purchase a shareholding. The money that comes in from the rental for facilities should be kept out of the playing squad, and should instead be re-invested in expanding the facilities at the club which would allow Kibble to help grow the club without the big initial financial outlay whilst St Mirren would benefit from an expanding list of facilities that could be used by the club when not being rented out. I don't doubt the kibble investment is to allow them access to our facilities.This in itself shouldn't automatically be a bad thing.They and smisa /smfc need to give more detail regarding this. 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.