Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 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??Several people suggest that smisa members will be running it. Even though as 30 % shareholders they haven't as yet been consulted on one issue... despite promises to the contrary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Just now, Lord Pityme said: 3 minutes ago, WeeBud said: 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?? Several people suggest that smisa members will be running it. Even though as 30 % shareholders they haven't as yet been consulted on one issue... despite promises to the contrary. The directors representing SMISA on the Board of St Mirren will be SMISA members I'm sure so what is your point?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 This "idea" of course breaks the legal agreement between Smisa and GS ie he can only sell his shares to Smisa. As I have said before Smisa can increase fan ownership by selling thete existing shares to fans and adding that to the monies saved to date and by next year should be in a position to buy him out. No need for a third party 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 This "idea" of course breaks the legal agreement between Smisa and GS ie he can only sell his shares to Smisa. As I have said before Smisa can increase fan ownership by selling thete existing shares to fans and adding that to the monies saved to date and by next year should be in a position to buy him out. No need for a third partyExactly...This Kibble/10000 hours debacle has never really gone away.Interesting to read in the proposal/q&a that Kibble intend to change aspects of how they operate... could that be a change in/from charitable status? 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 directors representing SMISA on the Board of St Mirren will be SMISA members I'm sure so what is your point??Eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 22 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: Why is GS continuing as chairman? Surely that's up to Smisa? 20 minutes ago, WeeBud said: I think that's a valid question although I have no particular objection to GLS continuing in his role. My understanding of it is he's continuing until end of 2021 when his investment is paid back to him in full (at no personal gain remember). That's the same as the original agreement, the only different factor is the Kibble paying him back a chunk immediately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Looking at the media ,this looks like a done deal. I take it then that the chairman and directors of Smisa have voted in favour of this merger have taken legal advice that they can break the legal agreement with GS and will now put it to the members and hope to obtain a majority of the members accepting this ,again it should be the majority of the 12.00 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 22 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: This "idea" of course breaks the legal agreement between Smisa and GS ie he can only sell his shares to Smisa. As I have said before Smisa can increase fan ownership by selling thete existing shares to fans and adding that to the monies saved to date and by next year should be in a position to buy him out. No need for a third party That's why the members are being asked to approve it I guess? If the SMiSA members don't want it to happen, then it won't. They are the folks who have put up a 10 year commitment to pay for the majority shareholding of the club so that seems fair enough to me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Buy the Buds they said...You're subscriptions will be ringfenced they said..The fans will own the club they said...We'll consult before kicking fans out of seats they said...They never said they intended to sell their stake all along... 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, waldorf34 said: Looking at the media ,this looks like a done deal. I take it then that the chairman and directors of Smisa have voted in favour of this merger have taken legal advice that they can break the legal agreement with GS and will now put it to the members and hope to obtain a majority of the members accepting this ,again it should be the majority of the 12.00 It's not a merger. SMiSA will own 51% of the shareholding of the football club if this goes through. That is the same level of shareholding that every club in Germany operates on. SMiSA will appoint 75% of the directors of the football club board. Kibble will have 25%. The SMISA members are being asked to approve the proposal. If they don't, it doesn't happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 That's why the members are being asked to approve it I guess? If the SMiSA members don't want it to happen, then it won't. They are the folks who have put up a 10 year commitment to pay for the majority shareholding of the club so that seems fair enough to me.I know one family who sunk a small fortune into what was promised....Perhaps they and others have legal recourse to have that money paid back, as what was sold then, certainly isnt what is being proposed now!Maybe a "Real Buy The Buds" campaign could be launched if those subscriptions are refunded. 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: Buy the Buds they said... You're subscriptions will be ringfenced they said.. The fans will own the club they said... We'll consult before kicking fans out of seats they said... They never said they intended to sell their stake all along... The St.Mirren Independent Supporters Association will own the majority of the shareholding under this proposal. In short, the fans will own the club. Subscriptions have been ring fenced which is why we are able to commit to finishing the deal by the end of 2021 having already paid up £300K. The extra money loaned for the Astro park was approved by members, and is close to being repaid through the £2 sacrifice that members again approved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Just now, Lord Pityme said: I know one family who sunk a small fortune into what was promised.... Perhaps they and others have legal recourse to have that money paid back, as what was sold then, certainly isnt what is being proposed now! Maybe a "Real Buy The Buds" campaign could be launched if those subscriptions are refunded. Everyone is free to terminate their membership at any time as far as I am aware? I'd be very hopeful that the reverse is true. More St.Mirren supporters should be looking to join the trust now that they know fan ownership is now just 2 years away rather than 7. Assuming SMiSA membership drops from £12 a month to say £5 a month (just an example) from the end of 2021 instead of 2026 all those SMiSA members will save themselves £420. They will be furious! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portmahomack saint Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: Aye... tell me if you are a smisa member exactly what input have you had as a 30 % shareholder in decisions the club have made? You think Kibble will be without an undue influence if they get their hands on a third of your club? It's looking to me having read the proposal the 51% fan ownership means dip shit if mutual agreement is needed with the Kibble board members, The Kibble would have a veto on any major decisions.. doesn't sound like the fan ownership we were promised 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 53 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: 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. It’s been shown where you are wrong on this dozens of times. 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, portmahomack saint said: It's looking to me having read the proposal the 51% fan ownership means dip shit if mutual agreement is needed with the Kibble board members, The Kibble would have a veto on any major decisions.. doesn't sound like the fan ownership we were promised I haven't read that bit. Kibble have a veto on any major decisions? Where did you read that mate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 25 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: Looking at the media ,this looks like a done deal. I take it then that the chairman and directors of Smisa have voted in favour of this merger have taken legal advice that they can break the legal agreement with GS and will now put it to the members and hope to obtain a majority of the members accepting this ,again it should be the majority of the 12.00 Read the proposal again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portmahomack saint Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, div said: I haven't read that bit. Kibble have a veto on any major decisions? Where did you read that mate? 2.1 how the club will be run 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 24 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Buy the Buds they said... we are You're subscriptions will be ringfenced they said.. we democratically voted to change this for a small fraction of money The fans will own the club they said... we will We'll consult before kicking fans out of seats they said... years later and still can’t let this go. They never said they intended to sell their stake all along... prove it? He’s also not selling it for a penny profit from what I can see anywhere in the arrangement What a meltdown 😂 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 looking to me having read the proposal the 51% fan ownership means dip shit if mutual agreement is needed with the Kibble board members, The Kibble would have a veto on any major decisions.. doesn't sound like the fan ownership we were promised Exactly!Have smisa ever asked you what you want putting to the board, never mind telling you what they do?Kibble will rule the roost, as they will be investing in things that they want a return on. It ain't rocket science. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 #10000hours2021 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Exactly! Have smisa ever asked you what you want putting to the board, never mind telling you what they do? Kibble will rule the roost, as they will be investing in things that they want a return on. It ain't rocket science. It still astounds me this man has no shame in such ridiculous comments after time & time again being proven wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said: 2.1 how the club will be run It says there that any "major decisions" can only happen if all three parties agreed. Those "major decisions" are defined in section 2.9 though; Quote The agreement also lists all the matters which must be referred to the major shareholders (ie SMISA, Kibble and Gordon until 2021, and SMISA and Kibble after that) for their mutual agreement. That means SMISA will continue to have a safeguard over a number of important issues, including: - appointments or removals of a director of the club as well as matters of symbolic importance such as the sale of the stadium, changes to the club’s name, colours, or badge, changing the playing surface from grass to astroturf, and the appointment of major sponsors; - any major borrowings, major contracts outwith the normal course of business, and approval of the club’s business plan; - any major structural changes to St Mirren as a company, such as any reorganisation of its share capital, or changes to the club’s articles of association. But you are right, that does need clarified because with the best will in the world partners will never all agree on all things at all times. As the majority shareholder I'd expect SMiSA to be the only one with the full power of veto. One to ask at the meeting I think! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 And where does the Kibble get the funds to buy shares in a football club? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 But you are right, that does need clarified because with the best will in the world partners will never all agree on all things at all times. As the majority shareholder I'd expect SMiSA to be the only one with the full power of veto. One to ask at the meeting I think!The first problem with that quote is the completely contradictory proposal insisting only Kibble board members will have sway on how, what and where the returns go regarding any investment they make.It is a recipe for disaster, cooked up by people who either have no idea or care how it actually pans outThird party ownership is a clusterf**k 0 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.