Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

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 

It is his individual view, as in a view he holds discounting all others, his comments completely ignore the rights of others to have an opinion. I'm not saying he is the only one that holds that view. Your response just looks like word spin to me. 

The deal hasn't been renegotiated, a proposal has been put forward. The deal is exactly as it was last week, it will only change on a positive members vote. This is where you are wrong, we are in the stage of conversing,  there is nothing in any constitution that means they have to tell us information before it is all known. What exactly do you expect?

Update Day one - we have had an email from Kibble

Update Day five - We've set up a meeting

Update Day 10 - we have had another email from Kibble. 

It is pointless , what does that add? What more would that tell us? This ask only panders to the impatience of people. They have told us when the option has been widely documented and are now allowing us a significant length of time to consider, discuss and ultimately converse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

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

A charitable organisation that fundamentally looks to support young people and benefit the community holding a significant holding in SMFC. Do you genuinely not see the irony regarding the community benefit view you've been banging on about for almost four years? 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

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?

Had enough you are in the midst of some sort of very public breakdown which I want no more to do with. On to ignore you go !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

WTF ! Kibble are not an employment agency.  At most they would be looking at giving young folk work experience / live skills working alongside the experts in whatever field they choose.

As for your last sentence GTF with that sort of stuff more at home on Follow Follow or the likes.

Follow-Follow has problems with a presbyterian outlook?

 

I beg to differ.

 

Anyhoo, Kibble have already said that they want to use our catering, hospitality and other businesses as opportunities for training their kids.  Nothing wrong in that, except they could well displace current employees in order to do so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sonny said:

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?

a veto is a great form of control-you can basically rebuff every suggestion or initiative if it clashes with your own plans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

Follow-Follow has problems with a presbyterian outlook?

 

I beg to differ.

 

Anyhoo, Kibble have already said that they want to use our catering, hospitality and other businesses as opportunities for training their kids.  Nothing wrong in that, except they could well displace current employees in order to do so

They won't ! They will place their youngsters to work with our experienced staff.  Do you think Cala homes joiners and brickies were "displaced" by Kibble staff in their tie up with them ???

For the umpteenth time KIbble are not an employment agency. They don't have the staff to provide the life skills and experience these young people need hence the use other companies to provide those services IE SMFC in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

a veto is a great form of control-you can basically rebuff every suggestion or initiative if it clashes with your own plans

This concern rests on the Kibbles values and plans not being aligned with SMFC, doesn't seem very likely from all I've read. Strong SMFC is beneficial to Kibble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

They won't ! They will place their youngsters to work with our experienced staff.  Do you think Cala homes joiners and brickies were "displaced" by Kibble staff in their tie up with them ???

For the umpteenth time KIbble are not an employment agency. They don't have the staff to provide the life skills and experience these young people need hence the use other companies to provide those services IE SMFC in this case.

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow-Follow has problems with a presbyterian outlook?
 
I beg to differ.
 
Anyhoo, Kibble have already said that they want to use our catering, hospitality and other businesses as opportunities for training their kids.  Nothing wrong in that, except they could well displace current employees in order to do so
I highly doubt the Kibble would come in and start replacing experienced staff members with kids.

They are giving these kids apprenticeships within the club in areas such as catering, hospitality, maintenance etc. That would ultimately mean these kids would work with and learn off the current staff members.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NB18 said:

I highly doubt the Kibble would come in and start replacing experienced staff members with kids.

They are giving these kids apprenticeships within the club in areas such as catering, hospitality, maintenance etc. That would ultimately mean these kids would work with and learn off the current staff members.


 

Hope so otherwise it could be burnt shit pie, a pint with a large head, leaking taps and blocked urinals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

a veto is a great form of control-you can basically rebuff every suggestion or initiative if it clashes with your own plans

What do you think is the Kibble's ulterior motive that they are lying to the St Mirren Board and fans about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

The issue is the power a major shareholding of over 25% gives to Kibble!

They will be able to influence how the club is run, that's a matter of fact.

Can anyone point me to Smisa saying "Third Party Ownership" is a good thing in the BtB campaign?

No... you won't find it, in fact you will find the exact opposite as the reason most signed up to BtB was because it secured the overwhelming ownership of all shares with St Mirren fans.

Now Smisa are saying "yeah we changed our minds, fan ownership isnt our priority anymore"

 

Who the f**k asked Smisa to go find a Third Party Owner... was it the people who own Smisa the members..?

 

You said SMiSA currently has no power, yet they own over 25%.

Apparently Kibble, with the same shareholding, are going to run riot and have the club on it's knees!

Which is it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, div said:

You said SMiSA currently has no power, yet they own over 25%.

Apparently Kibble, with the same shareholding, are going to run riot and have the club on it's knees!

Which is it?

 

It's entirely consistent with LPMs argument over the last few years that the part-time representatives of SMISA do not have the time to properly scrutinise the BoD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said SMiSA currently has no power, yet they own over 25%.
Apparently Kibble, with the same shareholding, are going to run riot and have the club on it's knees!
Which is it?
 
The difference is Smisa dont use it, their in Scott's back pocket as evidenced by this absolute betrayal of what 1300 signed up to.
Name one club board decision smisa have consulted their members on?
Contrast that with Kibble's robust declaration of intent. They will run rings round the smisa rep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

They won't ! They will place their youngsters to work with our experienced staff.  Do you think Cala homes joiners and brickies were "displaced" by Kibble staff in their tie up with them ???

For the umpteenth time KIbble are not an employment agency. They don't have the staff to provide the life skills and experience these young people need hence the use other companies to provide those services IE SMFC in this case.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...