Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts


14 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.

 

I doubt that GLS will sell enough of his shares to give SMISA 51%  ownership while he still has skin in the game.  When he is out he is out completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Dickson said:

I thought that might have been the case. Quite an expensive way to go about it though, especially since REA suggested that every shareholder would have to be afforded the same privilege 

Of course, every application would be treated on it's own merits.  For example SMISA using the stadium for an open day or treating members, etc to hospitality or director's lounges.

Considering the only other party who would be likely to request such access would be SMISA who, of course, would be hamstrung by Kibble's veto, how many people would you envisage making a credible, justified and competent request to use the facilities for community benefit?  My guess is less than one.

 

It's the conditional rights that go along with the shareholding that Kibble are after.

 

You make a very good point (in bold), though.  If Kibble executives are using their funds to get access to the club's facilities then their plans would have to be BIG in order to get it past their governance structure.  My fear is that we would be a community support entity first and a football club a distant second

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cockles1987 said:
3 hours 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?

It would help if you explained the actual circumstances rather than the innuendos.

I would say that the scenario depicted in his post speaks for itself

 

Unless you are trying to trick someone into libelling another party by naming names-wouldn't be like you, would it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

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

fair dues. It just wasn't clear that what you claim you were claiming was actually being claimed. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some posters need to take a step back and consider their posts on this thread.  it seems more important to some to attack LPM, or to try and trip him up, than it is to critically analyse the Kibble bid and comment on the merits of it.

 

LPM may talk in terms of opinion and be driven by passion for the club, but he is still taking the time to critically question the merits and virtues of the bid.  Maybe, if we did more of that and less of having a go at someone purely on the basis of personality, we could cut through the spin and vagueness that marks this bid out as, at least, highly questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

I would say that the scenario depicted in his post speaks for itself

 

Unless you are trying to trick someone into libelling another party by naming names-wouldn't be like you, would it?

It would only be libelous (defamation in Scotland) if it's not true ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good news in all this is Smisa's constitution prohibits the smisa board from passing any proposal that directly benefits a member let alone trying to involve the WHOLE feckin membership in a humongous clusterf**k!
This whole sorry saga should never been entertained by the smisa board.
Despite what they may like it to stand for Smisa is not an acronym for..
Setting up
Members
In
Scott 's
Armageddon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

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.

It's not incorrect is it? Because that isn't what I said.

The vote was proposing a change to SOCIETY RULES where they could not put a £2 option up without allowing a carry and save the money until the end option for every single remaining quarterly vote. The constitution says that would need 75% at no point did I say the £2 is in the constitution nor does it have to be. Unbelievable spin from you.

They welcomed options for quarterly spends, not a requirement for it to need to be present on all future votes, it was a rules change so constitutionally it needed that level of support. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not incorrect is it? Because that isn't what I said.
The vote was proposing a change to SOCIETY RULES where they could not put a £2 option up without allowing a carry and save the money until the end option for every single remaining quarterly vote. The constitution says that would need 75% at no point did I say the £2 is in the constitution nor does it have to be. Unbelievable spin from you.
They welcomed options for quarterly spends, not a requirement for it to need to be present on all future votes, it was a rules change so constitutionally it needed that level of support. 
 
Wrong again, it's not a rule change, merely an option each quarter.
By your rationale EVERY option put forward for the £2 pot is a rule change, as it previously wasnt something smisa members took a decision on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

The good news in all this is Smisa's constitution prohibits the smisa board from passing any proposal that directly benefits a member let alone trying to involve the WHOLE feckin membership in a humongous clusterf**k!
This whole sorry saga should never been entertained by the smisa board.
Despite what they may like it to stand for Smisa is not an acronym for..
Setting up
Members
In
Scott 's
Armageddon

Oh how you need that to be true eh? Desperate for Armageddon under the chairman. 

In reality you have panned everything GLS related for years and the only tangible, measurable outcome is consistent growth on and off the pitch since his chairmanship started. Ouch 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Pityme said:

Wrong again, it's not a rule change, merely an option each quarter.
By your rationale EVERY option put forward for the £2 pot is a rule change, as it previously wasnt something smisa members took a decision on.

You are wrong, I've pointed out that you are wrong and this is just scrambling in your corner. You're again clearly rattled that something is happening with SMISA/ GLS that you have no control over.

The members resolution would require SMISA to always have an option on the quarterly spend. If passed they would not be able to remove it because it would breach the RULES. That wasn't a RULE in place so it would be a change. The wrongness continues, allowing members to propose options for quarterly spending isn't a rule change... Unlike rules binding an option to always be standing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pod said:

Supporter joined up in this believe they would eventually take ownership of the club without 3rd party intervention.  Isn't there a breach of contract, if one exists.  Not that I know anything about legal matters.

Nope, the vote would void any breach as it's a democratic placed vote to change the agreement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supporter joined up in this believe they would eventually take ownership of the club without 3rd party intervention.  Isn't there a breach of contract, if one exists.  Not that I know anything about legal matters.

Morally yes, we were sold by the chairman and smisa that this was the way to go, and signed an agreement to that effect.

Now they say "ach lets flog over a quarter of the CLUB to a.n. other"

The chairman and smisa could come up with a new agreement as they have.

However smisa cant use its offices to profits its members!

 

Back to your original point!

There are many examples in company/cooperative law where shareholders have successfully reclaimed their subscription/investment when the original agreement materially changed to their detriment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

I think some posters need to take a step back and consider their posts on this thread.  it seems more important to some to attack LPM, or to try and trip him up, than it is to critically analyse the Kibble bid and comment on the merits of it.

 

LPM may talk in terms of opinion and be driven by passion for the club, but he is still taking the time to critically question the merits and virtues of the bid.  Maybe, if we did more of that and less of having a go at someone purely on the basis of personality, we could cut through the spin and vagueness that marks this bid out as, at least, highly questionable.

Lol I think we all know that isn't what drives LPM on the subject of BTB. He's done a complete 180 on community benefit since this announcement... I wonder why. :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bazil85 said:

Lol I think we all know that isn't what drives LPM on the subject of BTB. He's done a complete 180 on community benefit since this announcement... I wonder why. :whistle

In fairness to the guy as much as he bangs on, I don't think he has. He has argued that smisa/smfc should be doing it since the start. Another company coming in and doing it is not the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under this agreement would Kibble have to pay for access to facilities like the Academy, hospitality suite?
Nope, they would be joint owners of the club and be entitled to do exactly what the board do, as they would be on the board.
Add to that if they take over the running of the academy and hospitality as they say is their aim... they could charge the club for using it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, slapsalmon said:

In fairness to the guy as much as he bangs on, I don't think he has. He has argued that smisa/smfc should be doing it since the start. Another company coming in and doing it is not the same thing. 

The context of the announcement is irrelevant, that isn't what he has issue with IMO. 

SMISA could announce that GLS is giving every St Mirren fan a grand, completing the deal next week and investing £10 million in the club. He'd still find something to talk down negatively about because it involves the chairman.

On the BTB subject he is only fuelled by a dislike of Gordon Scott. It is clear, observable and consistent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Nope, they would be joint owners of the club and be entitled to do exactly what the board do, as they would be on the board.
Add to that if they take over the running of the academy and hospitality as they say is their aim... they could charge the club for using it!

Go down well with the Ralston residence if the kibble kids run riot at the academy base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bazil85 said:

The context of the announcement is irrelevant, that isn't what he has issue with IMO. 

SMISA could announce that GLS is giving every St Mirren fan a grand, completing the deal next week and investing £10 million in the club. He'd still find something to talk down negatively about because it involves the chairman.

On the BTB subject he is only fuelled by a dislike of Gordon Scott. It is clear, observable and consistent. 

That's not a response to what I said? 

If 5he context is irrelevant why comment on his reaction to the context of the announcement. As I said he bangs on about a lot of shite a lot of the time, but he doesn't appear to have have a turn around on community benefit. The issue I'm commenting on is his issue with who provides it. Which IMO he's been consistent on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go down well with the Ralston residence if the kibble kids run riot at the academy base. 

Aye they are still not happy about a few sweary footballers on their manor.   can see the local residents committee kicking off when they realise they are going to have a whole host of Kibble 'clients' in da hood!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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