Jump to content

bazil85

SMISA/ Kibble proposed BTB changes

Recommended Posts


18 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

This is what Smisa and the club should be building not giving it away...
https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/about-us/

Absolutely agree. But the Foundation of Light also uses partners like Springboard to deliver what they do. Springboard offer work education courses. I don't know enough about Kibble to know what they do but from the brief statement it sounds similar. Springboard don't hold a large share holding in Sunderland though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely agree. But the Foundation of Light also uses partners like Springboard to deliver what they do. Springboard offer work education courses. I don't know enough about Kibble to know what they do but from the brief statement it sounds similar. Springboard don't hold a large share holding in Sunderland though. 
They have hired springboard to deliver some/part programmes simply because of the demand. So the funding still goes to the foundation, then they simply hire in extra hands if required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely agree. But the Foundation of Light also uses partners like Springboard to deliver what they do. Springboard offer work education courses. I don't know enough about Kibble to know what they do but from the brief statement it sounds similar. Springboard don't hold a large share holding in Sunderland though. 



Welcome back Stu

This thread though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
1 hour ago, Dickson said:
Absolutely agree. But the Foundation of Light also uses partners like Springboard to deliver what they do. Springboard offer work education courses. I don't know enough about Kibble to know what they do but from the brief statement it sounds similar. Springboard don't hold a large share holding in Sunderland though. 

They have hired springboard to deliver some/part programmes simply because of the demand. So the funding still goes to the foundation, then they simply hire in extra hands if required.

I'll need to take your word on that cause I don't know but I'm not sure what difference it makes. So long as the local community benefit then I don't see an issue. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked at the proposal, checked Kibble as a charity and happy to vote in favour. As previously mentioned we still own the majority of shares.
In the unlikely event Kibble, after a 160 years, go to the wall we could buy their stake !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looked at the proposal, checked Kibble as a charity and happy to vote in favour. As previously mentioned we still own the majority of shares.
In the unlikely event Kibble, after a 160 years, go to the wall we could buy their stake !
Reducing the overall SMISA share % will be the start of the erosion of fan ownership.

When finances are challenged, SMISA would not have the shares to sell if finances were needed by The Club.

Sell some of that 51% to raise much needed funds and SMISA (the fans) are no longer majority shareholders.

Seems unlikely and a wee bit far fetched.
So did Rangers going bust but it happened.

Do we really want to compromise our fam ownership model & potentially jeopardise the safeguarding of the club.

No thanks for me.

The Fans were the ones lorded for this, we undoubtedly have the talent within the support to make this a success without a 3rd major shareholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TOWIE said:

Looked at the proposal, checked Kibble as a charity and happy to vote in favour. As previously mentioned we still own the majority of shares.
In the unlikely event Kibble, after a 160 years, go to the wall we could buy their stake !

I think you miss the point here - I think Kibble are a great charity and there is no danger of them “going to the wall”

As far as I’m concerned it’s not about Kibble it’s about sticking to the original plan that I signed up for and the great success so far which will result in the supporters owning the club two or three years earlier than the limit of 2016.

This proposal involves a third party which is not necessary as we can still have a great relationship with the charity as a supporter owned club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, linwood buddie said:

Tide has turned a wee bit from when first announced, not as many agreeing and a few more in the undecided camp, whoever set this up will need to be quite persuasive on Thursday to convince the members.

We've seen this before on BAWA where you get what turns out to be the vocal minority regarding BTB voting. I genuinely don't mind either way this vote goes but no one should be surprised if it turns out this population against the vote doesn't stand for the majority. A few giving their input won't have a vote as they aren't members as well. 

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...