ford prefect Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 The funniest comment of the night was the guy who asked his question, then made the observation that as someone who joined smisa way back at the start, it made him really proud that unlike fans of a club along the road, we didn't let our club die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 So selling 27.5% of the club to an outside body is not as we were all warned against and persuaded to BtB... is apparently NOT selling the club off to an outside body.Glad that's been cleared up for us fans who, we were told are the best people to secure the club's future... only to be told, we are in fact the Worse people to be let near the club.Apparently the only people who are capable of running the club are Scott, and a UK charity.Now that's been cleared up, can us, not to be trusted people, all have our money back please?If you never needed us in the first place, presumably you never needed our cash either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said: 10 hours ago, bazil85 said: You are though Nope Back to your old tactics... are you needing the last word? Happy to give it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 24 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: So selling 27.5% of the club to an outside body is not as we were all warned against and persuaded to BtB... is apparently NOT selling the club off to an outside body. Glad that's been cleared up for us fans who, we were told are the best people to secure the club's future... only to be told, we are in fact the Worse people to be let near the club. Apparently the only people who are capable of running the club are Scott, and a UK charity. Now that's been cleared up, can us, not to be trusted people, all have our money back please? If you never needed us in the first place, presumably you never needed our cash either? did you attend the meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 did you attend the meeting?Not a smisa member bud.Although it's more than concerning that a vote by potentially as few as 700 people will decide if over a quarter of the club is sold off to an outside body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Not a smisa member bud. Although it's more than concerning that a vote by potentially as few as 700 people will decide if over a quarter of the club is sold off to an outside body. thats business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munoz Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Not a smisa member bud. Although it's more than concerning that a vote by potentially as few as 700 people will decide if over a quarter of the club is sold off to an outside body. Surely that's democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 thats businessI guess?Potentially less than a tenth of the home support could sell the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 I’m hoping that we will get in the region of 1000 voters in this election. It would be great if everyone that has a vote uses it one way of the other but that is unlikely.Agree, 351 votes could see the club sold before the fans ever got there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: I guess? Potentially less than a tenth of the home support could sell the club? big, big benefit in this deal is 51% fan shareholding in the club, a local charity partner in place to help grow the business and help provide long term sustainability of St Mirren FC. It's a good deal, it's a better one than just having smisa running the club and it's one that should be welcomed, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 big, big benefit in this deal is 51% fan shareholding in the club, a local charity partner in place to help grow the business and help provide long term sustainability of St Mirren FC. It's a good deal, it's a better one than just having smisa running the club and it's one that should be welcomed,Then why the hell did Smisa, Scott etc insist that the only way to secure the club's future was to back their deal to take on 71% of the club?I dont know if they've considered, or even care of the inevitable consequence, should this sham be voted through of the majority of those voting against, then deciding to end their membership of Smisa as its changed materially from the fan ownership they were sold?Mind you they are probably quite sanguine about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: I guess? Potentially less than a tenth of the home support could sell the club? For all that I accept your point each and every one of the home support (and beyond) could have joined SMiSA and backed BtB which would have given them voting rights in this vote. I also understand that many possibly couldn't afford to join SMiSA but should the majority of the members vote in one direction the motion will be carried, it was ever thus. I'm still uncomfortable that it is a straight 50/50 vote of those participating and not at least 50/50 majority of the whole membership but decisions regarding the club were always going to be taken by less than a tenth of the home support using your calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford prefect Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 If you're not a member you wouldn't be getting any money back would you? So not really your concern? But carry on the trolling. It's a good laugh while I'm having my morning coffeeSo selling 27.5% of the club to an outside body is not as we were all warned against and persuaded to BtB... is apparently NOT selling the club off to an outside body.Glad that's been cleared up for us fans who, we were told are the best people to secure the club's future... only to be told, we are in fact the Worse people to be let near the club.Apparently the only people who are capable of running the club are Scott, and a UK charity.Now that's been cleared up, can us, not to be trusted people, all have our money back please?If you never needed us in the first place, presumably you never needed our cash either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: I guess? Potentially less than a tenth of the home support could sell the club? 7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Then why the hell did Smisa, Scott etc insist that the only way to secure the club's future was to back their deal to take on 71% of the club? I dont know if they've considered, or even care of the inevitable consequence, should this sham be voted through of the majority of those voting against, then deciding to end their membership of Smisa as its changed materially from the fan ownership they were sold? Mind you they are probably quite sanguine about that. That's in the past, it can still happen like that if the new offer a is not accepted. However, a new, better, more exciting deal is on the table. It's on the table for a significant portion of our clubs support to vote to accept or deny, I'll be voting to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 thats business Surely that's democracy? In some ways it's both however it's a strange model of both where a minority of members can change the proposal and allow shares to be sold that they don't actually own yet.Looking forward to the video of the meeting however from comments made it doesn't look like the proposal will be fleshed out enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 For all that I accept your point each and every one of the home support (and beyond) could have joined SMiSA and backed BtB which would have given them voting rights in this vote. I also understand that many possibly couldn't afford to join SMiSA but should the majority of the members vote in one direction the motion will be carried, it was ever thus. I'm still uncomfortable that it is a straight 50/50 vote of those participating and not at least 50/50 majority of the whole membership but decisions regarding the club were always going to be taken by less than a tenth of the home support using your calculations.Aye, but... decisions thus far decided over by such a poor representation have included " Hand dryers, Matchballs etc" and once when the vote included a community option, our chairman (Mr Community) flipped his feckin biscuit.Dear me Kombibuddie for his sins was told he needed 75% of members to approve an option on the quarterly £2 vote.Regardless of how anyone votes, the outcome, or opinions held surely most can see this is a loaded vote?And unfortunately those who vote against, if they lose out will likely end their participation in smisa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldo_j Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 37 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: I guess? Potentially less than a tenth of the home support could sell the club? Better than the zero input we would have had when the Argentinians were sniffing about.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 The fans want to run the club. If they can't get this right, they would never have got it right. My biggest concern was would we be able to have the financial punch to carry it out. Where was the business acumen coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 The funniest, but most sinister element in a this is the PR job that suggests Kibble (who are spending £300k on virtually worthless shares in a football club) are only doing this for the community!Surely sinking £300k into a few community enterprises would be more appropriate if you aren't seeking to benefit financially? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 The fans want to run the club. If they can't get this right, they would never have got it right. My biggest concern was would we be able to have the financial punch to carry it out. Where was the business acumen coming from. Smisa & Scott were clear we had what it takes, and were, I quote "the only show in town"...That was until got the chance to flog £300k worth of shares and still be chairman of course. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Aye, but... decisions thus far decided over by such a poor representation have included " Hand dryers, Matchballs etc" and once when the vote included a community option, our chairman (Mr Community) flipped his feckin biscuit. Dear me Kombibuddie for his sins was told he needed 75% of members to approve an option on the quarterly £2 vote. Regardless of how anyone votes, the outcome, or opinions held surely most can see this is a loaded vote? And unfortunately those who vote against, if they lose out will likely end their participation in smisa. I agree with your points above but it was how the whole thing was set up and you were one of the vocal drivers at it's inception. I have always had constitutional concerns with regards to SMiSA but accept that most of the members are really only in it as they see their contributions as a benefit to the club hence the small voting numbers each quarter etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 I see it as a win-win deal where both parties get benefits. We are not selling off St Mirren assets (office space or facilities) but working together to maximise and improve their use. The benefit to SMFC is the extra revenue will be made available for the manager to strengthen the team, for Kibble the get the benefit of having access to employment opportunities for their young people thus giving them wider exposure to real working environments. By financial investment they are demonstrating that they are committed to making the partnership work, in return have minority voice on the board. This is all explained in the video which I’m sure will answer all the questions people have. You are correct in that “expertise and talent” that the likes of Kibble can provide are and will be required when full fan ownership is reached particularly to take us to the next level. This has always been a slight concern to me about fan ownership; once complete did the fans have the correct people with the right skills, experience and time to take the club forward? Who would I like to see provide that? A sugar daddy businessman who would want profit share/payback on any investment? A foreign partner with no particular local attachment to Paisley or St Mirren? Or a long standing, local charity with commercial know how (turnover £32M), large resources in terms of staff and facilities, with a sound ethical and moral values. If you were to hand pick a partner then you couldn’t to my mind chose a more appropriate one.I attended last night and was 80% decided that the deal was right for the club. I now am totally convinced that it is and will vote that it is accepted. I cannot think of any downside only positives and hope that most people will see the same. Congratulations must go to all those involved at SMISA for the effort to date and to the board for the obvious work done to bring a well thought through proposal to the table.I might be misinterpreting this but it seems you are happy to change the original model because kibble will bring expertise in running the club that the fans can't?I know this is part of their selling point but to me it's not a positive. Are we really saying, let's give kibble this large chunk of shares and pass over the day to day running of the company (not playing side) as its a lot of hard work and the fans consortium won't be any good at either doing it or finding an individual who can?Im still intrigued as to how all of this expertise kibble will be supplying SMFC will be financed as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said: I might be misinterpreting this but it seems you are happy to change the original model because kibble will bring expertise in running the club that the fans can't? I know this is part of their selling point but to me it's not a positive. Are we really saying, let's give kibble this large chunk of shares and pass over the day to day running of the company (not playing side) as its a lot of hard work and the fans consortium won't be any good at either doing it or finding an individual who can? Im still intrigued as to how all of this expertise kibble will be supplying SMFC will be financed as well. Kibble services will be free to the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: The funniest, but most sinister element in a this is the PR job that suggests Kibble (who are spending £300k on virtually worthless shares in a football club) are only doing this for the community! Surely sinking £300k into a few community enterprises would be more appropriate if you aren't seeking to benefit financially? Lol it expands their brand - they're not hiding that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted February 7, 2020 Report Share Posted February 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: I might be misinterpreting this but it seems you are happy to change the original model because kibble will bring expertise in running the club that the fans can't? I know this is part of their selling point but to me it's not a positive. Are we really saying, let's give kibble this large chunk of shares and pass over the day to day running of the company (not playing side) as its a lot of hard work and the fans consortium won't be any good at either doing it or finding an individual who can? Im still intrigued as to how all of this expertise kibble will be supplying SMFC will be financed as well. to be fair - does this deal not answer all of your concerns? are smisa not bringing this deal to the table, to bring on board the necessary expertise that you mention? it's actually a masterstroke by the fans group! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts