Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Yflab said:

At the BTB proposal meetings GLS said that he would consult the support on the family stand being allocated to the Arse Cheeks moving forward. That never happened.

He won’t even let the fans vote for what strips the team wear as stated at the AGM. Come on surely to engage the support who buy the strips it would be easy to put it out to the membership.


The only say the fans have had so far is where the £2 spend goes or the ring fenced money. What percentage of that has gone to the club versus community initiatives?

That’s what I’m talking about. He shouldn’t have made those comments but I’m not going to hold it against him forever more like some. 

strips seems a less emotive point than the bigot arrangement. It’s nothing I overlay care about, imagine there will be some that do and some that don’t but I doubt it’s anyone’s red line. 


Club benefits have won every single vote they’ve been featured in. That’s what a majority of voting members have always wanted and as such that’s what’s happened. There is a democratic reason for these options to continue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


42 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Nope I disagree, but I’m not in the habit of holding a scenario against someone nine years later as I have said. It’s like when people hold the herald interview about the bigots against him.
Oh to have a completely clear of mistakes past eh? 

Nope, I disagree. It’s completely relevant.

Unlike your reply, which is mostly irrelevant! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dickson said:
2 hours ago, jaybee said:

OK, I can see why so many people are ranting and raving: however, how sure are you of the legally binding agreement? because if that is ironclad then the choice of whether Kibble comes in or not would appear to be down to SMISA.  

I do wonder exactly WHY Kibble want to buy shares without it giving them any measure of control.........seems odd, unless of course (as someone said) it prevents the 75% required to validate major changes of policy, although I can;'t for the life of me see where the benefit to them is.

The thing the winds me up is the level of abuse GS gets (in general) but specifically re the SMISA deal, I have never met the man; but given he stepped in when others didn't, to me it gives him a certain amount of latitude simply for that reason alone, and I think he is doing what he thinks is best for the club (which at this moment is still HIS club.

From the SMISA website

1730421631_Annotation2020-02-03142320.thumb.png.8674ed8110df65dbd0dcc67bce5fb13f.png

Jaybee, I think you need to look a bit beyond being grateful to various rich individuals who have stepped up at times to get control of the club - and start looking to what is in the clubs best interests. I wish everyone would.

I don't know Gordon Scott and what I'm posting isn't personal. I'm just deeply suspicious as to why the trustees of Kibble would be handing over - if LPM is correct - £300,000 of charity funds to buy shares in a football club. Shares that are never likely to increase in value, and never likely to pay a dividend. If it's to get use of facilities - then I'm sure they could be rented out without the need for the large outlay. So my suspicion is that they have been sold, or granted access to something that would directly impact on the potential revenues the club could make, and it all seems to be being done so Gordon Scott can get his cash a bit quicker - whilst remaining Chairman. 

It may be perfectly innocuous and there may be a great reason why Kibble Trustees and the SMISA Committee believe it to be a good deal - but, as someone who resigned my membership because SMISA weren't willing to stick to their initial pledge to benefit local community groups - I'd love for someone to get some clarity on what is in it for Kibble at the meeting on Thursday. 

Valid concerns indeed, and I do admit to being someone who will always get shafted once................because I tend to assume most people tell the truth as they see it. I just saw the question/answer session on Buddy vision, quite clearly not many people there ......sounded like just the press, however GS clearly stated that the ultimate decision as to whether Kibble-gate happens is down to the SMISA vote, I would have thought that seems a reasonable proposal. BUT I have no doubt there will be people who question the validity of said vote.................no doubt.

I think we will have to accept separate viewpoints on the whys and wherefores of Kibble-gate, I can't see him being stuck for a measly 300k as a rational for this, I think he thinks it's to the clubs benefit, HOQWEVER I do wonder (as you do) why they feel the need to spend money to get soemthing that is already been offered, so you may be right and I am suckered yet again...........story of my life. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Gordon Scott has agreed to a 10 year deal to move SMFC to fan ownership, using his own cash without a penny personal profit. Lost interest/ investment capability alone, he'll be taking a bigger financial hit than any other single person on the deal. If this arrangement passes and BTB completes in five years instead of 10, his lost interest will be lessened but that fact will remain the same. 

Is there a single other person in the world that would commit to that kind of money and time to fund a fan buyout for St Mirren and not take a penny personal gain? Given the time the club was up for sale for, I'd say not. 

Hi Baz 

The part I need clarified on Thursday is that it is not ‘completes in 5 years instead of 10’

We are estimated to complete in 2023 because of our high membership. This point was always avoided in the PR stuff and I’m sorry to see you’re re-inforcing this line.

The real decision we have to make is do we get the correct answers on Thursday to persuade us to accept 51% now or wait two years and own 71% - with the balance of shares owned by other supporters including Gordon’s 8% 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Buddymarvellous said:

Hi Baz 

The part I need clarified on Thursday is that it is not ‘completes in 5 years instead of 10’

We are estimated to complete in 2023 because of our high membership. This point was always avoided in the PR stuff and I’m sorry to see you’re re-inforcing this line.

The real decision we have to make is do we get the correct answers on Thursday to persuade us to accept 51% now or wait two years and own 71% - with the balance of shares owned by other supporters including Gordon’s 8% 

Cool man, I think that’s a very good point. Any thoughts on how you’d like it worded? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Cool man, I think that’s a very good point. Any thoughts on how you’d like it worded? 

Well I would hope that SMISA treasurer would have the best idea of when this would be - but would you not agree that we are on target to complete way head of the 10 year schedule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Well I would hope that SMISA treasurer would have the best idea of when this would be - but would you not agree that we are on target to complete way head of the 10 year schedule
Was that time frame extended due to some of the extra spends that smisa voted through?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Buddymarvellous said:

Well I would hope that SMISA treasurer would have the best idea of when this would be - but would you not agree that we are on target to complete way head of the 10 year schedule

100% we’re miles ahead of schedule from what I can tell. I think the comment on 10 years was only meaning the original deal timescale, not where we are on targets currently. Hopefully get it clarified 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I wasn’t nt aware of any extra spends ??
There's been a few voted through including funding the replacing of the pitch at training complex.
Can't recall if all was through 3 monthly spend?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bazil85 said:

100% we’re miles ahead of schedule from what I can tell. I think the comment on 10 years was only meaning the original deal timescale, not where we are on targets currently. Hopefully get it clarified 

Cheers Baz - I think this is probably one of the most important questions for Thursday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

There's been a few voted through including funding the replacing of the pitch at training complex.
Can't recall if all was through 3 monthly spend?

Yeah but that was all £2 pot money - the BtB money is the £10 and £25 subscription income with the pot reserved for good causes - and if the members voted for the new pitch then that was deemed a good cause

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaybee said:

Valid concerns indeed, and I do admit to being someone who will always get shafted once................because I tend to assume most people tell the truth as they see it. I just saw the question/answer session on Buddy vision, quite clearly not many people there ......sounded like just the press, however GS clearly stated that the ultimate decision as to whether Kibble-gate happens is down to the SMISA vote, I would have thought that seems a reasonable proposal. BUT I have no doubt there will be people who question the validity of said vote.................no doubt.

I think we will have to accept separate viewpoints on the whys and wherefores of Kibble-gate, I can't see him being stuck for a measly 300k as a rational for this, I think he thinks it's to the clubs benefit, HOQWEVER I do wonder (as you do) why they feel the need to spend money to get soemthing that is already been offered, so you may be right and I am suckered yet again...........story of my life. 😎

Kibble Gate love it  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 

Not sure why it's trying to re post my quote from earlier. 

 

A question I'd like to know. If voted through do kibble intend to match any investments made by SMISA Pro rata or will the only investor providing external finance be SMISA. (in the form of the quarterly spend, or loans like for the new astro) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Gordon Scott has agreed to a 10 year deal to move SMFC to fan ownership,

according to the SMISA website,

Quote

We also have a legal option giving us the exclusive right to buy Gordon's shares within the next ten years and allow the fans to become majority owners of the club - keeping St Mirren in the hands of the community forever

legal option within 10 years to buy Gordon' shares. There is no requirement for the term to go to 10 years.

SMISA has the money to buy the 27.1% now. Perhaps someone could submit a counter proposal at the meeting on Thursday.

GLS sells the shares to SMISA now and SMISA continues with BTB and in 2023, when the rest of the funds are in place, SMISA completes the purchase of the rest of GLS's shares.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how people pass you info they feel is a bit too hot for them to handle at times like these.
On a completely unrelated note (wink, wink)...
How might you solve a problem like this?
Your company owns a facility that they lease from the local authority, a business nearby really wants to utilise that facility for it's own ends, but you are not allowed to make financial gain from said facility under the terms of your lease with the local authority.
Now if that business buys say... oh dunno 27.5% of your company then you and they can get round the issue with the local authority
What would you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

according to the SMISA website,

legal option within 10 years to buy Gordon' shares. There is no requirement for the term to go to 10 years.

SMISA has the money to buy the 27.1% now. Perhaps someone could submit a counter proposal at the meeting on Thursday.

GLS sells the shares to SMISA now and SMISA continues with BTB and in 2023, when the rest of the funds are in place, SMISA completes the purchase of the rest of GLS's shares.

 

Never said there was, I said he'd committed to 10 years. 

Very short timescale to come up with a counter proposal that's 1. Better 2. will change the views of SMISA/ GLS who clearly favour this deal. Especially given the number of years the club was for sale for before. Also let's not forget this still has to be voted on. In effect the counter proposal could be the status quo. All in all, not realistic. 

I don't think there's evidence GLS concern is getting his cashback now on the deal. Certainly haven't seen any. By all accounts it looks more likely this is considered a better deal by those involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Funny how people pass you info they feel is a bit too hot for them to handle at times like these.
On a completely unrelated note (wink, wink)...
How might you solve a problem like this?
Your company owns a facility that they lease from the local authority, a business nearby really wants to utilise that facility for it's own ends, but you are not allowed to make financial gain from said facility under the terms of your lease with the local authority.
Now if that business buys say... oh dunno 27.5% of your company then you and they can get round the issue with the local authority
What would you do?

Would that arrangement help people more in the local community and wider young people that could really use a helping hand in life? 

Seems like you're completely ignoring one of your supposed wants from BTB in your concern for this deal... Strange that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said there was, I said he'd committed to 10 years. 
Very short timescale to come up with a counter proposal that's 1. Better 2. will change the views of SMISA/ GLS who clearly favour this deal. Especially given the number of years the club was for sale for before. Also let's not forget this still has to be voted on. In effect the counter proposal could be the status quo. All in all, not realistic. 
I don't think there's evidence GLS concern is getting his cashback now on the deal. Certainly haven't seen any. By all accounts it looks more likely this is considered a better deal by those involved. 
You said he'd "agreed"to a 10 year deal.

That implies a whole 10 years. I have just merely pointed out, that "agreed" is not a definite 10 yearsand also pointed out, the agreement clearly states "within 10 years"

Alan Quinn showed me figures, SMISA' financial projections. SMISA will have the finances to buy GLS out in 2023.

In their attempts to dissuade me from submitting my proposal, Alan Quinn & Colin Orr also said SMISA didn't need to complete the purchase in 2023 but continue collecting monthly subs from the members to enable finances to grow.

Less than 12 months since the SMISA AGM & some work has been put into this proposal for Kibble to purchase 27% of the shares and goes against their counter arguments last year.

2 proposals in 1 year.

The 1st needed 2/3rds of the vote
The 2nd apparently only needs a majority of the votes.

It stinks to high heaven.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said he'd "agreed"to a 10 year deal.

That implies a whole 10 years. I have just merely pointed out, that "agreed" is not a definite 10 yearsand also pointed out, the agreement clearly states "within 10 years"

Alan Quinn showed me figures, SMISA' financial projections. SMISA will have the finances to buy GLS out in 2023.

In their attempts to dissuade me from submitting my proposal, Alan Quinn & Colin Orr also said SMISA didn't need to complete the purchase in 2023 but continue collecting monthly subs from the members to enable finances to grow.

Less than 12 months since the SMISA AGM & some work has been put into this proposal for Kibble to purchase 27% of the shares and goes against their counter arguments last year.

2 proposals in 1 year.

The 1st needed 2/3rds of the vote
The 2nd apparently only needs a majority of the votes.

It stinks to high heaven.
It certainly does stink, and they have breached the constitution by agreeing and facilitating a member to profit in selling £300k shareholding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kombibuddie said:

You said he'd "agreed"to a 10 year deal.

That implies a whole 10 years. I have just merely pointed out, that "agreed" is not a definite 10 yearsand also pointed out, the agreement clearly states "within 10 years"

Alan Quinn showed me figures, SMISA' financial projections. SMISA will have the finances to buy GLS out in 2023.

In their attempts to dissuade me from submitting my proposal, Alan Quinn & Colin Orr also said SMISA didn't need to complete the purchase in 2023 but continue collecting monthly subs from the members to enable finances to grow.

Less than 12 months since the SMISA AGM & some work has been put into this proposal for Kibble to purchase 27% of the shares and goes against their counter arguments last year.

2 proposals in 1 year.

The 1st needed 2/3rds of the vote
The 2nd apparently only needs a majority of the votes.

It stinks to high heaven.

Yep, you pointed out it's not a defined 10 years but I am pointing out that's not what I am claiming. 

He has agreed to be here for 10 years and we could hold him to that if required. SMISA have the right to buy before then but under the terms GLS can't walk away with his money before 10 years without approval. If we wanted we could keep him to his agreement to stay a full decade. If I agree to work until 5 tonight but I'm told I can leave at 3, that doesn't change what I agreed to. 

Again I'm not denying we'll have finances earlier, what we decide to do if the money is there, I don't know but I imagine it very likely would be. 

Your proposal was to amend the societies rules where every £2 vote would have to have a set option, that would have to be written into the society rules. They followed the constitutions wording on what was required for it. As I already said I would have supported a majority vote however I would have concerns about it sneaking in through the backdoor given how little interest there was in your proposal. 

This vote does not make either of the conditions for a 75% vote, it's all in black and white. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, you pointed out it's not a defined 10 years but I am pointing out that's not what I am claiming. 
He has agreed to be here for 10 years and we could hold him to that if required. SMISA have the right to buy before then but under the terms GLS can't walk away with his money before 10 years without approval. If we wanted we could keep him to his agreement to stay a full decade. If I agree to work until 5 tonight but I'm told I can leave at 3, that doesn't change what I agreed to. 
Again I'm not denying we'll have finances earlier, what we decide to do if the money is there, I don't know but I imagine it very likely would be. 
Your proposal was to amend the societies rules where every £2 vote would have to have a set option, that would have to be written into the society rules. They followed the constitutions wording on what was required for it. As I already said I would have supported a majority vote however I would have concerns about it sneaking in through the backdoor given how little interest there was in your proposal. 
This vote does not make either of the conditions for a 75% vote, it's all in black and white. 
 
Completely incorrect!
There is no mention whatsoever of the £2 pot on the smisa constitution. So it did not require a 2 thirds majority. In fact it only needed to be included in the actual £2 quarterly vote as an option! The society welcomes members ideas for options on the £2 pot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...