div Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: 22 minutes ago, div said: Can you point out the bit where it says Kibble will be running the club please? Much obliged, I must have missed it! Kibble will get two places on the club board, starting in the interim phase and continuing thereafter. Under the terms of the legal agreement if the board was to expand in future the number of directors would reflect the percentage shareholdings – so Kibble will always have at least a quarter of the board and SMISA at least half. Kibble are making a substantial investment in St Mirren – both financially and in terms of staff time – so their board reps will oversee how that is managed. We see this as a positive – Kibble are a massive Scotland-wide organisation for whom good governance is crucial. They can bring substantial skills, experience and contacts to St Mirren’s boardroom. Whoever Kibble choose to fill those places would have to be mutually agreed with SMISA. So, erm, it doesn't say they will be running the club then? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 42 minutes ago, div said: . Two years ago they spent £3m setting up a Go-Kart track in Hillington. Couldn't they have set one up in our carpark cheaper. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 So, erm, it doesn't say they will be running the club then?Smisa members own 30% at present and are consulted on nothing except rifling their funds... sometimes...Again it's in the proposal Kibble will say how things are, Scott will approve it, as will the Smisa poodles.Its them putting it forward. Its all gone a bit "10000 Atkinson" again...The myriad of start, stop, dropped, rehashed pie in the sky pish that almost obliterated the [email protected] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Couldn't they have set one up in our carpark cheaper. Careful what you wish for. Lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 So, 1) SMiSA have to agree to Kibble's two board members. 2) SMiSA will always have a larger board representation then Kibble. 3) SMiSA will always have a larger shareholding than Kibble. 4) Kibble will provide contacts 5) Kibble will provide skills and experience. 6) Kibble's board members will oversee their financial and staff investment. How does this equate to a takeover by Kibble?How naive are you?Do you actually think shareholders run companies?I bet the banks would love you as a shareholder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said: Smisa members own 30% at present and are consulted on nothing except rifling their funds... sometimes... Again it's in the proposal Kibble will say how things are, Scott will approve it, as will the Smisa poodles. Its them putting it forward. Its all gone a bit "10000 Atkinson" again... The myriad of start, stop, dropped, rehashed pie in the sky pish that almost obliterated the [email protected] So what you are saying is that it's your opinion that a 27% shareholder, with a quarter of the seats on the board, will be running the club as opposed to the shareholder with 51% and three quarters of the seats on the board. It's important to differentiate your own opinion from facts that are written down on the website. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 39 minutes ago, div said: To put the Kibble investment into context, at around £300K...... Two years ago they spent £3m setting up a Go-Kart track in Hillington. I can see Kibble flattening the Stadium and building a huge Indoor Skatepark in its place for the youth of Renfrewshire. My daughter and her pals would be ecstatic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 So, 1) SMiSA have to agree to Kibble's two board members. 2) SMiSA will always have a larger board representation then Kibble. 3) SMiSA will always have a larger shareholding than Kibble. 4) Kibble will provide contacts 5) Kibble will provide skills and experience. 6) Kibble's board members will oversee their financial and staff investment. How does this equate to a takeover by Kibble?You see... that's a lot of "Kibble Will" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 20 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: There are a number of very good reasons why football authorities eventually clamped down on Third party ownership of players. The conflicting interests of those parties meant that the interests of the player were sidelined. Why on earth would you vote for "Third Party Ownership" of St Mirren..? The interests of the fans will ge sidelined! The members of SMiSA will get to appoint 75% of the directors who sit on the board once the takeover is complete. "Sidelined" indeed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 So what you are saying is that it's your opinion that a 27% shareholder, with a quarter of the seats on the board, will be running the club as opposed to the shareholder with 51% and three quarters of the seats on the board. It's important to differentiate your own opinion from facts that are written down on the website. Yes... that's what happens on most company boards.The operators on the board effectively run it the share holder reps in the main go along with that as they know less, have less time and no real knowledge of how the day today operation is running, until, usually it's too late to change its course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 The members of SMiSA will get to appoint 75% of the directors who sit on the board once the takeover is complete. "Sidelined" indeed.Err no.. the Smisa board members, and Scott plus his picks will rubber stamp whoever Kibble put up.Why are you totally misrepresenting what's in the proposal and Q&A?If this vote is passed, Kibble will be running the show on a day by day basis.What smisa board members will be in their every day? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 It's almost *almost* as if LPM is trying to make this a 'look at me' exercise. Well I never! Mind when the usual conspiracy theorists suggested sinister goings on with SkyView sponsorship as they are known asset strippers? Still waiting on that happening. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said: Yes... that's what happens on most company boards. The operators on the board effectively run it the share holder reps in the main go along with that as they know less, have less time and no real knowledge of how the day today operation is running, until, usually it's too late to change its course. In my lifetime I have served on four company boards and without exception not a single one of them has been run like that...….poor LPM, the BtB poster boy who is now behaving like the spurned lover!! I'm not sure it's a perfect model, if one even exists, but there is plenty merit in the proposal. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 End of the day it's good to have constructive debate on this as it's a big deal. My question I guess would be what is the difference between SMiSA owning 71% as opposed to 51%? Apart from having two Kibble directors on the board, what is the actual material difference to what BTB promised? I'm open to be persuaded either way but it's difficult for me to see a downside in this as it stands right now? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Where did I say that shareholders run companies? The point of the shareholding is that no other party can sell the club to some Craig Whyte like character. Maybe you should learn to read before trying to pick holes.It will already have been sold if this disastrous vote goes through. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 It's almost *almost* as if LPM is trying to make this a 'look at me' exercise. Well I never! Mind when the usual conspiracy theorists suggested sinister goings on with SkyView sponsorship as they are known asset strippers? Still waiting on that happening.What a stunning contribution to the debate.If you've got no clue just say so, or better still... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 In my lifetime I have served on four company boards and without exception not a single one of them has been run like that...….poor LPM, the BtB poster boy who is now behaving like the spurned lover!! I'm not sure it's a perfect model, if one even exists, but there is plenty merit in the proposal. So leaving aside your childish insults...Did the shareholders really RUN the companies?Or was that the operators/executive? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: What a stunning contribution to the debate. If you've got no clue just say so, or better still... Oh dear. I'll take the route I'm on and laugh at you, rather go down the route of your ill-informed and factually incorrect ramblings, thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 A silly question but I'd appreciate a sensible answer from someone I don't have on ignore (so that wipes out about half the posters on this thread).If Kibble's involvement leads to increased use of facilities, as is mentioned in the documents, are they entitled to a percentage of the increased income or does it all go to the club? Basically, is their involvement purely to get experience etc for their staff or will they be benefitting financially as well? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Oh dear. I'll take the route I'm on and laugh at you, rather go down the route of your ill-informed and factually incorrect ramblings, thanks. Still nothing to add to the debate then. Well done you! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, div said: End of the day it's good to have constructive debate on this as it's a big deal. My question I guess would be what is the difference between SMiSA owning 71% as opposed to 51%? Apart from having two Kibble directors on the board, what is the actual material difference to what BTB promised? I'm open to be persuaded either way but it's difficult for me to see a downside in this as it stands right now? It's just a case of us getting to the end game 5 years earlier than originally planned. Edited January 29, 2020 by Bud the Baker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: So leaving aside your childish insults... Did the shareholders really RUN the companies? Or was that the operators/executive? Irony off the scale there but hey-ho!! It was, and should be, the directors of the company that really RUN (make the decisions and strategies for) the company....who is suggesting anything different here?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Why is GS continuing as chairman? Surely that's up to Smisa? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 A silly question but I'd appreciate a sensible answer from someone I don't have on ignore (so that wipes out about half the posters on this thread).If Kibble's involvement leads to increased use of facilities, as is mentioned in the documents, are they entitled to a percentage of the increased income or does it all go to the club? Basically, is their involvement purely to get experience etc for their staff or will they be benefitting financially as well? It states in the proposal that they will manage/control their investment. By definition Investments are made for returns. Nothing wrong in that, but there again they are under no obligation to share or handover their returns.This has come about because our current board were too lazy and lacking the skills or expertise to create One... just One additional income stream for the club...Not its proposed a third party gets to Run those new income streams. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, waldorf34 said: Why is GS continuing as chairman? Surely that's up to Smisa? I think that's a valid question although I have no particular objection to GLS continuing in his role. 2 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.