pod Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Fify Must have missed him. Edited January 31, 2020 by pod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portmahomack saint Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 6 minutes ago, pod said: He'll keep banging on until someone agrees with him. I know quite a few they just don't post their views on here, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said: I know quite a few they just don't post their views on here, So why don't they back him up. Strength in numbers. If only to agree with him. Edited January 31, 2020 by pod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portmahomack saint Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, pod said: So why don't they back him back him up. Strength in numbers. Am pretty sure they will, you'll just have trust me on that, they don't post on here as I said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 6 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: That is breathtakingly missing the BIG about turn in the club being owned by fans. Over a quarter of the club is being flogged to a group who freely admit they want to make money out of the club. Why the f**k have Smusa members being paying for years to enable this group to waltz in and run the club? There might be a fair few challenging the legality of how thus was sold to them, and are they entitled to have their subscription returned. Again who asked Smisa to enable a quarter of the club to be sold? Kibble are a charity, a not-for profit organisation. Yes, they need money to exist, but they are not a commercial organisation. To suggest they are going to bleed St.Mirren dry is breathtaking levels of stupidity. You continually saying that Kibble are going to be running the club doesn't make it remotely true. SMiSA will be the majority shareholder. SMiSA will have control of the club. SMiSA haven't enabled a quarter of the club to be sold. SMiSA are asking their members to consider a proposal to allow Gordon Scott to sell 27% of his shares to Kibble rather than to SMiSA, WHO DO NOT NEED THOSE SHARES. Why you feel the need to twist every single thing into such a negative story is absolutely beyond me. Try reasoned constructive debate and maybe people might listen to you. Your opinion, whether it's valid or not, just gets lost in the sea of complete negativity that you provide to this forum. EVERYTHING is shite according to you. And I mean EVERYTHING. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Abiff Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 49 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: There's certainly potential for conflict if interest in having directors who are employees of kibble. Not suggesting anything illegal, simply that their employers aims may be different from that of smfc with regards to any issue. I'm sure the answer will be something around working in partnership encouraging kibble and SMFC to move in same direction. What a ludicrous post As far as Kibble will be concerned, the aim of SMFC should be whatever Kibble want it to be! Doh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 18 minutes ago, pod said: So why don't they back him up. Strength in numbers. If only to agree with him. Mainly due to the stick they get from the usual suspects whenever a head is pushed above a parapet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: Mainly due to the stick they get from the usual suspects whenever a head is pushed above a parapet One should never bury their head in the sand comes to mind. Edited January 31, 2020 by pod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Kibble are a charity, a not-for profit organisation. Yes, they need money to exist, but they are not a commercial organisation. To suggest they are going to bleed St.Mirren dry is breathtaking levels of stupidity. You continually saying that Kibble are going to be running the club doesn't make it remotely true. SMiSA will be the majority shareholder. SMiSA will have control of the club. SMiSA haven't enabled a quarter of the club to be sold. SMiSA are asking their members to consider a proposal to allow Gordon Scott to sell 27% of his shares to Kibble rather than to SMiSA, WHO DO NOT NEED THOSE SHARES. Why you feel the need to twist every single thing into such a negative story is absolutely beyond me. Try reasoned constructive debate and maybe people might listen to you. Your opinion, whether it's valid or not, just gets lost in the sea of complete negativity that you provide to this forum. EVERYTHING is shite according to you. And I mean EVERYTHING.My that's a lot of made up nonsense, even for you.The fact is Kibble are buying into the club to gain access to the facilities to enable them to further their business aims.They are in it for Kibble, not for saints fans.The whole reason for BtB was to ensure No One! Yes no one could simply buy into the club and exploit it for their own ends.Now the very people who asked you to trust them that fans buying the club was the absolute best way to go now want to Sell It!It is a complete about turn to what people were asked to buy into. And it will be kicked into touch as the trust has finally been lost.Jeez these shysters think they can pull any kind of stunt they like, and that the masses will just accept it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, Lord Pityme said: My that's a lot of made up nonsense, even for you. The fact is Kibble are buying into the club to gain access to the facilities to enable them to further their business aims. They are in it for Kibble, not for saints fans. The whole reason for BtB was to ensure No One! Yes no one could simply buy into the club and exploit it for their own ends. Now the very people who asked you to trust them that fans buying the club was the absolute best way to go now want to Sell It! It is a complete about turn to what people were asked to buy into. And it will be kicked into touch as the trust has finally been lost. Jeez these shysters think they can pull any kind of stunt they like, and that the masses will just accept it. The majority shareholding, 51%, of the football club will be owned by SMiSA. You might not like that bit, but it's important. It's called fan ownership. SMiSA are proposing to save their members £300K, bring fan ownership in 5 years earlier than planned and the club gets to benefit from an organisation with over 500 employees, a turnover of £30m p/a and the infrastructure that goes with running an operation of that size. To completely ignore those positive points, just to suit your own pathetic agenda against Gordon and SMiSA does your argument no favours at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 The majority shareholding, 51%, of the football club will be owned by SMiSA. You might not like that bit, but it's important. It's called fan ownership. SMiSA are proposing to save their members £300K, bring fan ownership in 5 years earlier than planned and the club gets to benefit from an organisation with over 500 employees, a turnover of £30m p/a and the infrastructure that goes with running an operation of that size. To completely ignore those positive points, just to suit your own pathetic agenda against Gordon and SMiSA does your argument no favours at all. They are selling more than a quarter of the club to someone else when they promised that would never happen under BtB.They have lied so many times now they probably believe it themselves.Again did smisa members ask their committee to find a way to offload more than a quarter of the club?Who said Smisa need to facilitate selling the club to Kibble? Now it seems the way to Fan Ownership is to let a much bigger organisation, with more clout, and a completely seperate agenda, goals and aim. Take a major shareholding in the club?Funny how theres no other fan owned club selling to other businesses to achieve fan ownership. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Who wants to support Kibble FC..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 . SMiSA will have control of the club.Previously, you said SMISA will have 2 representatives on the board under this new proposal.How will SMISA have control of the club if they do not have a representative majority on the Club Board.What am I missing here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Previously, you said SMISA will have 2 representatives on the board under this new proposal.How will SMISA have control of the club if they do not have a representative majority on the Club Board.What am I missing here?No idea why you got that info, but the fact is the club will be controlled by the board, and we know from Kibble's statement they intend to drive their agenda through, which cant possibly be the same agenda saints fans who bought into BtB share.It's a recipe for disaster! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 51% Majority Shareholding gets 2 representatives on the Club Board.27% Minority shareholding gets 2 representatives on the Club board.I see that as an issueI've not bought into BTB for SMISA not to be running the show and they will not be running the show with only 2 representatives on the BOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 51% Majority Shareholding gets 2 representatives on the Club Board. 27% Minority shareholding gets 2 representatives on the Club board. I see that as an issue I've not bought into BTB for SMISA not to be running the show and they will not be running the show with only 2 representatives on the BOD.On top of that if current board members remain you have a chairman and three others who dont represent Smisa.How the f**k is being outnumbered 6-2 but owning 51% in any way Fan Ownership... it's a scam, and they hope apathy will let it go through on the nod!No way! Edit: it's actually possible it could be worse! What makes you think a Smisa board member will vote as the membership want?The decision taken by the board to kick families out of their seats to accommodate sectarianism/bigotry/racism etc was never even canvassed amongst smisa members, even though the chairman promised it would be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 hour ago, beyond our ken said: Mainly due to the stick they get from the usual suspects whenever a head is pushed above a parapet There's an element of truth in this but even you can't deny the relentless negative posts, some getting absolutely laughable, that LPM posts can see his point, and he does have a point sometimes, lost in a deluge of negativity, verging on a vendetta? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 There's an element of truth in this but even you can't deny the relentless negative posts, some getting absolutely laughable, that LPM posts can see his point, and he does have a point sometimes, lost in a deluge of negativity, verging on a vendetta? Or... passionately believing some things are bad for the club?If everyone stays schtoom, this lot get away with whatever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Or... passionately believing some things are bad for the club? If everyone stays schtoom, this lot get away with whatever they want. Some things....................almost everything TBH. You have to be blind to fail to see that you come across as some bitter individual with a grudge? Like Bazil, only at the opposite end of the scale. I happen to think you do have some decent points but, as I said, they get lost in the sea of one way negativity. Anyhow, I'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 23 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said: 51% Majority Shareholding gets 2 representatives on the Club Board. 27% Minority shareholding gets 2 representatives on the Club board. I see that as an issue I've not bought into BTB for SMISA not to be running the show and they will not be running the show with only 2 representatives on the BOD. They should also insist on Smisa providing the chairman ,as his vote will be final in a tied vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: On top of that if current board members remain you have a chairman and three others who dont represent Smisa. How the f**k is being outnumbered 6-2 but owning 51% in any way Fan Ownership... it's a scam, and they hope apathy will let it go through on the nod! No way! Edit: it's actually possible it could be worse! What makes you think a Smisa board member will vote as the membership want? The decision taken by the board to kick families out of their seats to accommodate sectarianism/bigotry/racism etc was never even canvassed amongst smisa members, even though the chairman promised it would be! Majority fan-owned phase Once SMISA owns the majority stake in SMFC, the following will apply: - The matters defined above as requiring mutual shareholder approval will continue to do so (applying to SMISA and Kibble only); - The SMFC board will be responsible for the operation of the club. Football decisions will be made by the club’s football department; - SMISA will be able to appoint the majority of the SMFC board. Appointments will be made on the basis of the skills and expertise required by the club. New appointments will be selected by the SMISA committee after an interview process and put to the members for approval; Edited January 31, 2020 by smcc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 They should also insist on Smisa providing the chairman ,as his vote will be final in a tied voteThat should be a given & possible the reason GLS is a SMISA member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanb Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said: 51% Majority Shareholding gets 2 representatives on the Club Board. 27% Minority shareholding gets 2 representatives on the Club board. I see that as an issue I've not bought into BTB for SMISA not to be running the show and they will not be running the show with only 2 representatives on the BOD. https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-faq See 2.4 and 2.6 regarding potential board Your 2 reps each is for any interim period only, while SMISA still only have around 30% shareholding. Seems current board are all SMISA members ATM including GLS Edited January 31, 2020 by alanb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, alanb said: https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-faq See 2.4 and 2.6 regarding potential board Your 2 reps each is for any interim period only, while SMISA still only have around 30% shareholding. See my previous post! 😊 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanb Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, smcc said: See my previous post! 😊 I did but the more pointers the better and as I posted similar link previously yesterday with the caveat, that it is open to trust or distrust in proposal Edited January 31, 2020 by alanb 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.