smcc Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, alanb said: I did but the more pointers the better Sorry, but it obvious that some of the posters either can't read or are unable to understand what they are reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanb Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 minute ago, smcc said: Sorry, but it obvious that some of the posters either can't read or are unable to understand what they are reading. Some may also read between the lines too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, smcc said: Sorry, but it obvious that some of the posters either can't read or are unable to understand what they are reading. Or they simply ignore the facts and make things up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK 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. Div...Looking further down the line... Let me put a hypothetical situation to you.Kibble, owning 27% of the shares, decide for whatever reason to sell them.SMISA will have NO way of influencing who those shares are sold to.Lets say, for example, they are purchased by a modern day Reg Brearly.He then offers silly money to all other shareholders who find his offer too good to be true and take up his offer.We are then in a situation where the club is "fan owned" with SMISA having 51% of the shares...but the unscrupulous asset stripper now owns 49% of the shares and has his own representatives on a very split board of directors.Far fetched? Maybe.At one point, so was Third Lanark going out of business. So was Rangers going into liquidation!Point is... Under the new proposal, what is to stop it being a possibility to ensure the LONG TERM security of our club... The whole reason I bought into BtB.Under the plan we all signed up to... The plan we were told was the best option... The plan that didn't doubt the ability of SMISA to see it through to completion and for the betterment of our club...Under that plan, with SMISA having over 70% of the shares, the scenario illustrated is impossible!Our safety is in our own hands... Exactly what we signed up to ensure.Sure... 51% is technically "fan ownership", but with the potential to be a very divided and possibly destruction mix on the board that we cannot control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Further extract from the terms of the proposed deal:- - if SMISA or Kibble wish to sell any or all their shares in SMFC, the other will have first refusal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 29 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: SMISA will have NO way of influencing who those shares are sold to. Lets say, for example, they are purchased by a modern day Reg Brearly. He then offers silly money to all other shareholders who find his offer too good to be true and take up his offer. Then they would be no better than the Kibble. Should there have been or should be a clause where SMiSA get first option on addition available shares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: 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 Every football club in Germany operates on a 51% fan ownership model. Good enough for Bayern Munich, but not for St.Mirren eh! 1 hour ago, Kombibuddie said: 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? In the transition period SMiSA will have two board members. Once it has 51% ownership it will be free to appoint the majority of board members. It hardly matters in terms of number of bodies though. SMiSA has two just now and yet Gordon Scott, on his own, has enough shares to do whatever he likes. 1 hour 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. SMiSA will have the majority of the board seats once they have 51% but it hardly matters. See above post. With 51% SMiSA will have control over the club. LPM doesn't seem to be able to grasp this very simple concept, but hopefully most sensible posters understand that 51% is a controlling interest, and is more than Gordon Scott owns right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 SMiSA will have the majority of the board seats once they have 51% but it hardly matters. See above post. With 51% SMiSA will have control over the club. LPM doesn't seem to be able to grasp this very simple concept, but hopefully most sensible posters understand that 51% is a controlling interest, and is more than Gordon Scott owns right now.I grasp quite easily a third party is being invited in to take over more than a quarter of our club, despite the smisa membership being told the only way to avoid such a scenario was to buy over 70% of the club.I know why you and your pals at the club dont want to highlight that. Simply the fans have been lied to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Under the original scheme ,which the BTB was sold on,Smisa would have over 80%of shares ,which it has been pointed out ,they did not need, as 51% would enough . But the additional shares could have then been sold to give Smisa a reserve pot to invest in the club as and when required ,ie a financial cushion. This could now be lost, and should we run into trouble we might ,with only the 51% have to sell shares to keep the club afloat , and there goes our majority shareholding. I believe the partnership with Kibble could be fruitful but why buy shares?We have a successful partnership with UWS but no share dealings. Only sell 15/20% ?? Open for discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Further extract from the terms of the proposed deal:- - if SMISA or Kibble wish to sell any or all their shares in SMFC, the other will have first refusal Thanks for that.Concern answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Under the original scheme ,which the BTB was sold on,Smisa would have over 80%of shares ,which it has been pointed out ,they did not need, as 51% would enough . But the additional shares could have then been sold to give Smisa a reserve pot to invest in the club as and when required ,ie a financial cushion. This could now be lost, and should we run into trouble we might ,with only the 51% have to sell shares to keep the club afloat , and there goes our majority shareholding. I believe the partnership with Kibble could be fruitful but why buy shares?We have a successful partnership with UWS but no share dealings. Only sell 15/20% ?? Open for discussion Our big mistake was who we bought the club with. We could, and should have bought directly from the selling consortium.They were not completely convinced the deal done was going to be the best for the club.They've been proven right as the club is being sold within three years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Under the original scheme ,which the BTB was sold on,Smisa would have over 80%of shares ,which it has been pointed out ,they did not need, as 51% would enough . But the additional shares could have then been sold to give Smisa a reserve pot to invest in the club as and when required ,ie a financial cushion. This could now be lost, and should we run into trouble we might ,with only the 51% have to sell shares to keep the club afloat , and there goes our majority shareholding. I believe the partnership with Kibble could be fruitful but why buy shares?We have a successful partnership with UWS but no share dealings. Only sell 15/20% ?? Open for discussion Fair comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Thanks for that.Concern answered. Really..?Because under the existing deal Smisa were supposed to have first refusal on Scott's shares, and look at where that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 I read the whole Thread. Wish I hadn't. Make no odds to me what happens in the future The Game is fecked and beyond repair. FECKEM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 25 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Thanks for that. Concern answered. Ha ,that was the same agreement with GS ,not worth the paper it's written on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, cockles1987 said: 32 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: Under the original scheme ,which the BTB was sold on,Smisa would have over 80%of shares ,which it has been pointed out ,they did not need, as 51% would enough . But the additional shares could have then been sold to give Smisa a reserve pot to invest in the club as and when required ,ie a financial cushion. This could now be lost, and should we run into trouble we might ,with only the 51% have to sell shares to keep the club afloat , and there goes our majority shareholding. I believe the partnership with Kibble could be fruitful but why buy shares?We have a successful partnership with UWS but no share dealings. Only sell 15/20% ?? Open for discussion You sure about the 80% figure, highest I can recollect is 71% Smisa already had shares before the agreement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Really..?Because under the existing deal Smisa were supposed to have first refusal on Scott's shares, and look at where that is. Technically, SMISA still has first refusal.Obviously a lot of "negotiation" has taken place to basically present a proposal for ratification rather than discussion, and that "democratic" process will hand over the right to a large chunk of those shares.Looks like a done deal to me!Technically though... we still have first refusal.The Record reports today that members are voting on it next week.At the meeting?Online?By proxy?Any idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truesaint Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 28 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: Under the original scheme ,which the BTB was sold on,Smisa would have over 80%of shares ,which it has been pointed out ,they did not need, as 51% would enough . But the additional shares could have then been sold to give Smisa a reserve pot to invest in the club as and when required ,ie a financial cushion. This could now be lost, and should we run into trouble we might ,with only the 51% have to sell shares to keep the club afloat , and there goes our majority shareholding. I believe the partnership with Kibble could be fruitful but why buy shares?We have a successful partnership with UWS but no share dealings. Only sell 15/20% ?? Open for discussion Completely agree with that and thought that an 80/20 with Kibble would be not only a more attractive proposition for fans and you are also on the money with regards to the financial element it brings to the club. Once we hit the numbers Smisa were advising that members fee could drop from £12-£5.If members are happy paying the £12 then keep it going and negotiate with Kibble on the arrangement. If they are keen to be involved for the right reasons then wouldn't have thought this would be an issue. If they are looking for grants etc and this is to their financial benefit and takes money away from the club/community trust then would have to question the proposal. It is like going for indepence without the financial implications to the club and current revenue streams and a full cost analysis with pros and cons should be established so a more informed decision could be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddymarvellous Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Trying to sort out in my mind... Pros Can get control by Dec 2021 - Kibble will provide support services ( Need clarification) Would be able potentially to reduce SMISA subscriptions early Cons Already projected to be able to buy by 2023 (Kombi’s point) so why not wait another 2 years and buy outright We (SMISA and other supporter shareholders) would no longer be sole owners of StMirren Proposal may piss off enough members that Dec 2021 target is not met Would lose option to sell spare shares later (Waldorf’s point) Questions Why is SMISA paying all legal fees to achieve this ? What happens to current Income from Kibble as a customer ? What are specific benefits to Kibble ? What does ‘Kibble will ....invest in new facilities’ mean and who would own these. I.e. is this new money coming from Kibble ? If present income is maintained what is revised date for original purchase plan ? (estimated 2023 - see above) For me it comes down to : Do we want jam now (2021) from the pros above or Do we wait another two years and buy outright ....and I cannae make my mind up.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truesaint Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 Another point for consideration. Without the above financial security in the shares, what happens when more and more people start using IPTV and sky/bt subscriptions drop and deals for the SPL rights start dropping or in the unlikely event that Celtic and Rangers get invited to join the Premiership or English leagues and tv rights halve almost immediately. The £50k-100k pot smisa are advising that gives financial security doesn't really cover it. After reviewing the past 2 years accounts I am also not overly impressed by the financial management of the club at present. We need to ensure that we don't have our backs against the wall if shit happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 hour ago, pod said: Then they would be no better than the Kibble. Should there have been or should be a clause where SMiSA get first option on addition available shares. Further extract from the terms of the proposed deal:- - if SMISA or Kibble wish to sell any or all their shares in SMFC, the other will have first refusal (Posted 2 hours ago0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 7 minutes ago, truesaint said: Another point for consideration. Without the above financial security in the shares, what happens when more and more people start using IPTV and sky/bt subscriptions drop and deals for the SPL rights start dropping or in the unlikely event that Celtic and Rangers get invited to join the Premiership or English leagues and tv rights halve almost immediately. The £50k-100k pot smisa are advising that gives financial security doesn't really cover it. After reviewing the past 2 years accounts I am also not overly impressed by the financial management of the club at present. We need to ensure that we don't have our backs against the wall if shit happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said: They've been proven right as the club is being sold within three years! The club isn't being sold though is it? I think everyone, except you it seems, at least understands that very basic point. The proposal is that 27% of Gordon's shares are sold Kibble. SMiSA currently have a legal agreement to buy those shares. SMiSA members are being asked to vote on whether they want that sale to proceed. SMiSA will continue on their path towards fan ownership, at the end of 2021, when they will own the majority shareholding of 51% This is really pretty simple to understand. Try and think hard before you post and see if you can come up with a better lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truesaint Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, faraway saint said: An expected and appropriate response from 🐟. An emoji with his eyes closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 5 minutes ago, truesaint said: An expected and appropriate response from 🐟. An emoji with his eyes closed. If you wish me to expand, I will..............................your post was a load of twaddle. I hope this is enough, you're not worth any more of my time. 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.