Jump to content

windae cleaner

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Hambud said:

Eh? Are SMISA not the fans?

Smisa hold a batch of shares but I am sure a lot of individual fans would like to be shareholders in their own right and  be able to vote at the AGM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....and now I have a nice long flight to read 21 pages.....

 

......wonder how much i will recognise....

 

I admit I have had a bit of a chuckle at this...

Edited by rea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....and now I have a nice long flight to read 21 pages.....
 
......wonder how much i will recognise....
 
I admit I have had a bit of a chuckle at this...
And rightly so. You earned it.

Would love your thoughts on the Kibble proposal.

If not on the forum then by pm.

Happy flight!

May your nuts be salty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....and now I have a nice long flight to read 21 pages.....
 
......wonder how much i will recognise....
 
I admit I have had a bit of a chuckle at this...
I'm a smisa member and trying to decide what would be best to vote for and although there are a lot of conspiracy theory elements to LPM's postings he does raise some valid points, it seems to me that we haven't heard much from you of late and with the above post I don't think you've helped much. Don't get me wrong you are entirely at liberty to post or not as you see fit as is anyone else, just why this and why now? Confused of Stanley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a smisa member and trying to decide what would be best to vote for and although there are a lot of conspiracy theory elements to LPM's postings he does raise some valid points, it seems to me that we haven't heard much from you of late and with the above post I don't think you've helped much. Don't get me wrong you are entirely at liberty to post or not as you see fit as is anyone else, just why this and why now? Confused of Stanley
You don't think he has earned the right to gloat or snigger up his sleeve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cockles1987 said:
12 hours ago, waldorf34 said:
After paying off the old board directors last summer Smisa own 29%GS owns 50.2%,so total 79.2%
By GS selling 27.5% Smisa get 22.8%  adding that to the 29% gives them 51.8%

Forgot about the GLS 8%

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
I already asked.
Nobody knows!
It stinks.
Something is rotton in the state of Denmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q and A

What 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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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......

Share this post


Link to post
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...