Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 You are right that a lot of charities have questionable infrastructures and most of the experiences I have had with charities are poor. There can be a lot of internal issues as there are with a lot of them but I don't know Kibble's set up. If any internal stuff can be kept within Kibble and has no impact on our day to day then great but would like to see us proceed with caution for 5 years or so to make sure it is the positives that are brought to the table and without any potential negatives. They should have an opinion and vote on matters but if it is detrimental to the club then we should be able to review. A cost analysis as well as projected income from this type of venture along with possible pro's and con's should be established. LPM is right to point out some of our failings with regards to community trust although I have no idea of the figures involved. Does what Kibble get outweigh what we expect to get or vice versa?There has not been one Tangible benefit for smfc or smisa put forward in the proposal.But you can feel the glee in Kibble's statements... they think they've found a feckin goldmine.FYI.... thus is how it should be done.. In The Community, By the Community, for The Community.Shouldn't Smisa and the club be building this?https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/about-us/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 That's not how the burden of proof works. The one making the claim (you, in this case) has the burden of proof. It is not for others to disprove your unsupported allegations, it is for you to prove them - otherwise they can be dismissed out of hand without any consideration. So, go on then.Ok I can prove by your worthless posts you add Zero to this debate.You offer no opinions at all on the proposal, all you do is carp on about others opinions.You deliver Zero on target! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: There has not been one Tangible benefit for smfc or smisa put forward in the proposal. But you can feel the glee in Kibble's statements... they think they've found a feckin goldmine. FYI.... thus is how it should be done.. In The Community, By the Community, for The Community. Shouldn't Smisa and the club be building this? https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/about-us/ Now you care about the St Mirren benefits in BTB? A complete 180 from only caring about community benefits previously. You have completely changed your view in light of an arrangement that will benefit the Local community (and wider) hypocrite level off the charts. almost like you don’t care about what view you have, as long as it’s opposite GLS. Oh to hate such a successful contributor to our football club 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truesaint Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: There has not been one Tangible benefit for smfc or smisa put forward in the proposal. But you can feel the glee in Kibble's statements... they think they've found a feckin goldmine. FYI.... thus is how it should be done.. In The Community, By the Community, for The Community. Shouldn't Smisa and the club be building this? https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/about-us/ 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 [emoji38]lol[emoji38] Did I say that I knew? Really, did I? Why would Kibble be managing Goody and his staff in the first place? What I strongly suspect is that you, in spite of all your paranoid ramblings and fear-mongering, don't have a clue about much, if any, of it.You do get the responsibilities of board members, dont you? Mibbaes not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK 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. Just for clarification Div... Are you aware of ANYTHING that can be passed by vote with 71% but not with 51%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/st-mirren-chairman-gordon-scott-21392008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 I will try and help the hard of thinking to understand what the detriment to the club and community trust will be if Kibble were allowed in.Contracts like Street Stuff with the council are worth over £200k.As well as providing the funds to run the activities, that contract means the club/trust can employ a number of people who dont just work on street stuff.The club/trust then service a number of other contracts like FFIT etc, offer training development and job opportunities to people then receive additional funding for delivering those benefits.The whole hospitality/catering/ sports science opportunities for funding, training and jobs is very significant.Ralston is an untapped mine. But all this will be run by Kibble if they get in.It wont be routed through and trust.Does anyone think Kibble are going to fork out for 27.5% of the club and not be Kibble..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Ah, right, so the SMFC board, not Kibble, would be managing Goody and his staff. Thanks for pointing out your mistake. Your funny.. not.The smfc board with the Kibble members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Just for clarification Div... Are you aware of ANYTHING that can be passed by vote with 71% but not with 51%?The issue is the third party getting over 25%. They are then in a strong position to further their aims especially since they have been invited in to takeover areas of the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/st-mirren-chairman-gordon-scott-21392008Are there you have the two faced arrogance of a man who never wanted the fans near it just their money.He never said any of that during BtB... remember all the "och am just a wee joiner" crap he came out with.That piece there will put the last nail in the coffin of this clusterf**k proposal on it's own! Scott's words:"The worry with fan ownership is always that you get people running the club who don’t know what they’re doing, they don’t have the knowledge. There’s no point in throwing away the knowledge we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Are there you have the two faced arrogance of a man who never wanted the fans near it just their money. He never said any of that during BtB... remember all the "och am just a wee joiner" crap he came out with. That piece there will put the last nail in the coffin of this clusterf**k proposal on it's own! Scott's words: "The worry with fan ownership is always that you get people running the club who don’t know what they’re doing, they don’t have the knowledge. There’s no point in throwing away the knowledge we have. The hatred and desperation to discredit GLS continues (failing). This has already been addressed in the context of how the BOD will be made up. LPM meltdown at having no power or influence to stop our great club progressing under someone he doesn’t like. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said: Really..? You want an organisation with no Interest in professional football to run smfc. Curious... Perhaps this deal needs a catch title like.... "STBO" Selling The Buds Out (before they even got started) Maybe you do not realise that we are more than just a football club. We are a community club. Kibble want to be involved and expand the community part and not be involved in the football part - that comes from Kibble and St Mirren. Do you really think Kibble want to take over the football side of the business and if so for what reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 36 minutes ago, pod said: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/st-mirren-chairman-gordon-scott-21392008 Huge PR push in newspapers and social media Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portmahomack saint Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: SMISA have presented the option to the fans after discussions with the Kibble. This is where you completely don’t understand the nature of SMISA, BTB or democracy in general (shown countless times with other matters on this subject). The only ethical thing SMISA can do here is let the paying members decide. If Kibble came with this proposal and someone immediately said no without consulting the paying members it would not be fit, proper, ethical or democratic. Maybe read this out loud a few times & see if it sinks in that your individual view isn’t all that matters. And that's where your wrong it's not his individual view, No matter how good or bad this arrangement is, Could you tell me what's in SMISA'S constitution that allows them to SECRETLY renegotiate the deal we signed up too in 2016 without first conversing with the members, This leaves a bad taste in my mouth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamhammer Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 25 minutes ago, Sonny said: Maybe you do not realise that we are more than just a football club. We are a community club. Kibble want to be involved and expand the community part and not be involved in the football part - that comes from Kibble and St Mirren. Do you really think Kibble want to take over the football side of the business and if so for what reason? If they are taking over the HR and marketing then they will be involved in the football side won't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 And that's where your wrong it's not his individual view, No matter how good or bad this arrangement is, Could you tell me what's in SMISA'S constitution that allows them to SECRETLY renegotiate the deal we signed up too in 2016 without first conversing with the members, This leaves a bad taste in my mouth Exactly!Smisa is run by Scott, no ifs, no buts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 If they are taking over the HR and marketing then they will be involved in the football side won't they? How do people not get being on the board equates to running the club?Looks like we still have a few admiring the Emporers New Clothes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, Iamhammer said: If they are taking over the HR and marketing then they will be involved in the football side won't they? Marketing is not related to the football side and they are not 'taking over' HR but offering expertise. Do you think Kibble want to start player recruitment? Or is it more likely they can deal with all the non football related personnel that we now employ and future staff as the community side expands? Kibble have made it clear they are a charity wanting to help youth and not wanting to get involved in running the football side of the business. Why do fans think Kibble and St Mirren are lying to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) Giza signing... That'll do! Edited January 30, 2020 by Bud the Baker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Marketing is not related to the football side and they are not 'taking over' HR but offering expertise. Do you think Kibble want to start player recruitment? Or is it more likely they can deal with all the non football related personnel that we now employ and future staff as the community side expands? Kibble have made it clear they are a charity wanting to help youth and not wanting to get involved in running the football side of the business. Why do fans think Kibble and St Mirren are lying to them?They are BUYING over 25% on the club to take these things over, not to sit and hold hands... why on earth would they pay to just have cost chats.Wake up... once there in, you will not get them out.They will OWN over a quarter of the club. Can you just see the next Smisa proposal saying "51% fan ownership is so last year, why don't we sell another 23.5% more to Kibble!"... 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, Lord Pityme said: Not millions in a year, but one contract is worth over £200k alone, add to that all the other available funding that Kibble want to access thru smfc, that our community trust is set up to do and in a couple of years it will total over a million. There initial stake to buy 27.5% will see them rske all that in for years and years instead of the club. Are you suggesting that is not the case? The Kibble CEO is quite open and upfront about what they want! You can bury your head in the sand and let them go ahead. Once they're on, the funding is theirs. That is exactly the aim they have stated. Go on prove it wrong! SHow us the millions in grants and then we can prove it right or wrong (but we all know your making this up so won't) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: They are BUYING over 25% on the club to take these things over, not to sit and hold hands... why on earth would they pay to just have cost chats. Wake up... once there in, you will not get them out. They will OWN over a quarter of the club. Can you just see the next Smisa proposal saying "51% fan ownership is so last year, why don't we sell another 23.5% more to Kibble!"... 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 SHow us the millions in grants and then we can prove it right or wrong (but we all know your making this up so won't)The club community trust probably brings in £300k a year as is. And they haven't even touched hospitality, catering, sports science, training, placement or events opportunities yet.I have decades of past and current expertise in developing people, and direct access to one of the biggest UK wide apprenticeship schemes.Believe or dont believe me. Just ask yourself are Kibble buying over a Quarter of the club for fun?They see it as a low cost, low risk, high return investment.Who the f**k buys football clubs these days not looking to turn a buck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme 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?Wrong... an active 25% + shareholder has a great degree of power.An analysis of your shareholding in a private limited company is not as simple as percentage held equals proportion of power. There are key thresholds which must be borne in mind when gauging how much power a shareholder really wields in a company.75%: a powerful percentage to hold, whether this be you or you combined with like-minded shareholders. With this shareholding, you can pass special resolutions, necessary to approve a proposal to, for example: amend the articles of association, change the company’s name, wind the company up, authorise the company to issue new shares without having to offer them to existing shareholders first (pre-emption rights), and allow the company to buy back its own shares out of capital.Over 50%: With a majority holding, you can pass ordinary resolutions, required to approve proposals including: appointing or removing directors, allowing the company to buy back its own shares (other than out of capital, where a special resolution is required), authorising the directors to allot shares (unless there is only one class of share, in which case the resolution will not be needed), and approving loans to or substantial property transactions with directors.Over 25%: As expected, a majority shareholding puts the holder in strong position. Do not underestimate however the strength of holding over one quarter of the share capital. With this you can block special resolutions (which require approval of the holders of 75% or more of the share capital).The 75% shareholding and the majority shareholding are the famous thresholds in company law, and not without reason. Once a shareholder’s percentage is below the quarter mark, his or her power diminishes significantly. The law provides for certain protections for minority shareholders, and there are important sub-25% thresholds to note as well.15%: entitles you to apply to the court to object to the variation of a company’s shares’ class rights (where there is more than one class of share) even if the variation has been approved by a special resolution of that class.10%: allows you to demand that a vote at a general meeting be held on a poll basis (one share equals one vote), rather than a show of hands (where one shareholder gets one vote). A shareholding of over 10% also affords you some protection in the event that an offer has been made to buy the company. The purchaser’s position is much stronger as against the minority shareholder if they can acquire 90% or more of the shares. Subject to any other relevant agreements and minority member remedies, the minority shareholder may have no choice but to sell as well.5%: allows you to requisition a general meeting of the company.As always, governance of a particular company does not end with the legislation. Articles of association and shareholders’ agreements will make specific provisions for shareholder rights. For example, holders of a particular class of share may want the right to appoint their own director to the board; and companies may wish to lower the threshold at which minority shareholders must sell their shares to a purchaser acquiring the other shares in the company (so-called ‘drag-along’ rights; along with their equivalent where minority shareholders will want to have their shares bought by a purchaser – ‘tag-along’ rights). Alongside any contractual provisions or provisions in the constitution of the company, shareholders should be aware of their statutory rights and note that it is not all or nothing when it comes to voting on their company’s affairs 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.