Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

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

Kibble are a charity, they don’t benefit financially.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


It was purely something I hope anyone thinking of doing similar considers. We are all St Mirren fans at the end of the day so I don’t see why that isn’t a fair point. You can call it emotional blackmail but it’s simply emotion, that’s what we all have for this team… We’ll I’d hope anyway.
I don’t suggest there could be, I was making a point based on your comment. I personally don’t think that will happen (in great numbers anyway) for a few reasons but one of the main ones is, St Mirren fans don’t need me to tell them it isn’t a good thing to financially hamper the club because you don’t agree with a new BTB direction.
Although talking about “emotional blackmail” discussing action members could take if the vote doesn’t go their way? It’s basically saying “if you all vote this through, I and others will ask for £440/£1,012 back from our contributions. Pot, kettle, black for sure.
I agreed with you that they would very likely have a winnable case, if they were to say perform direct debit indemnities on this. My point is peoples rights is one thing, acting on them in a way that would knowingly hurt the team they support is another.
Bazil,
It's to do with what folk bought into not about how a vote goes.
It's really that simple.

If it was about vote results, i'd have packed it in a long time ago.
Not like you to add a wee bit of spin. [emoji16]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

Think you forget that there will be % 72.5 of shares still owned by St mirren fans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

I guess?
Potentially less than a tenth of the home support could sell the club?

Everyone had the option to sign up. That only 1300 or so chose to do so or continue to do so is just the way it is.  It's pretty much how FPTP is reflected at elections. If you feel so strongly then why not join to register your vote. A bit like those who don't vote in a GE then moan about the outcome you don't really have a leg to stand on. Those that choose to pay will get to make the decision and that is 100% the way it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Even by your standards Baz the bit in bold is just Batshit Crazy, I ponied my contribution upfront and don't want any of it back but that's my choice irrespective of how the vote goes.

However, you are suggesting that people who have entered into a business transaction where against their wishes the conditions have changed and they now believe the conditions to be flawed should just keep on paying anyway in case it damages a purchase they no longer believe in, that's bonkers.

I still think that there are benefits to the new proposition and once better informed will make my decision but I will wholly respect anyone who chooses to vote against it and who decide to stop paying in if they no longer believe in SMiSA's aims......that truly is democracy!! 

Not what I am saying at all, people can make their own choice I'm not here to make it for them. Just hoping it's a consideration on their mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dickson said:

Its not crap. I thought I'd given examples but if they want to run a training course in hospitality they'll do it for free. If they want to entertain some donors on a matchday they'll now be able to take them into the directors box for free. Tickets for home matches - free. Use of Ralston - free. Want to show off to stakeholders - free. Use of the car park - free. Hell they could even use the 1877 club as a staff canteen for free. Theres loads more. Its clearly why they are doing this. 

And all because they paid Gordon Scott for some worthless shares. 

Im not trolling at all. I'm simply highlighting what has been given away. Did anyone ask for assurances that only a St Mirren supporting board member would attend and vote at SPFL and SFA meetings? 

Going by that reasoning every SMISA member would get all those perks too . Utter nonsense why would those services be free to one share holder and not others especially when SMISA members will hold the majority share holding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone had the option to sign up. That only 1300 or so chose to do so or continue to do so is just the way it is.  It's pretty much how FPTP is reflected at elections. If you feel so strongly then why not join to register your vote. A bit like those who don't vote in a GE then moan about the outcome you don't really have a leg to stand on. Those that choose to pay will get to make the decision and that is 100% the way it should be.
You may need to read up on govt majorities.
Not that I wish to, but you cant join to vote on this.
And the 100% line is a doozie...
Other than that, top post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
It was purely something I hope anyone thinking of doing similar considers. We are all St Mirren fans at the end of the day so I don’t see why that isn’t a fair point. You can call it emotional blackmail but it’s simply emotion, that’s what we all have for this team… We’ll I’d hope anyway.
I don’t suggest there could be, I was making a point based on your comment. I personally don’t think that will happen (in great numbers anyway) for a few reasons but one of the main ones is, St Mirren fans don’t need me to tell them it isn’t a good thing to financially hamper the club because you don’t agree with a new BTB direction.
Although talking about “emotional blackmail” discussing action members could take if the vote doesn’t go their way? It’s basically saying “if you all vote this through, I and others will ask for £440/£1,012 back from our contributions. Pot, kettle, black for sure.
I agreed with you that they would very likely have a winnable case, if they were to say perform direct debit indemnities on this. My point is peoples rights is one thing, acting on them in a way that would knowingly hurt the team they support is another.

So selling £300,000 of budgeted assets is fine and won't harm the team... but someone asking for a refund of a few hundred will?

Nice bit of spin yet again. 

1. The question is around what we get for selling those shares. The areas of mutual benefit and growth

2. Only if it was in significant numbers which I have already said I don't think will happen. My point on this is only that I hope it's a consideration for anyone thinking of doing this. They're well within their right to request the money back but that isn't my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
21 minutes ago, Stegman said:

Kibble are a charity, they don’t benefit financially.

A charity that get paid for what they do. How else would they exist, and gave £300k to chuck at a football club?

You clearly are at it no one is that thick that they don't realise how charities work. Of course they get paid for the services they provide, that money is then fully reinvested as you well know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Doubt it.  They've joined an organisation where they know that they will probably not agree with everything that is voted on.

Having said that, i don't know how the original agreement was worded.  Did it say 71%, a controlling interest, or something else?

I don’t know either, just my opinion that there’s a decent chance of that being upheld. I can’t think of a like for like example to compare against. Again though I hope there's consideration about the potential impact from any member considering it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Bazil,
It's to do with what folk bought into not about how a vote goes.
It's really that simple.

If it was about vote results, i'd have packed it in a long time ago.
Not like you to add a wee bit of spin. emoji16.png
 

Yes I know, for the third time I understand and think you'd likely have a case. 

Yet again, I am talking about the emotional side of things regarding the impact it could have on SMFC if this was done in mass. As I have said as well, I highly doubt it would be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

You may need to read up on govt majorities.
Not that I wish to, but you cant join to vote on this.
And the 100% line is a doozie...
Other than that, top post.

Enlighten me on FPTP and majorities. Tell me if I am wrong but if there are 1300 members and 300 decide to vote and of that 300 only 151 vote in favour then that will win the day no ?

Fair enough membership is closed forgot that but you have had years to join (or not resign as I think the case was) so as I said you don't have a pot to piss in when it comes to your view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dickson said:

That's nonsense. 

Kibble aren't becoming SMISA members. They are going to be shareholders. What REA said about the rights of the minority shareholder would only apply to other shareholders - not to SMISA members. 

Plenty SMISA members will be shareholders - I don't get your point.  There must be hundreds of "minority" shareholders out there (god even Shull boasts about his often enough) that won't get the perks you are suggesting. Are you saying a level of shareholding has been established that will get you these freebies ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enlighten me on FPTP and majorities. Tell me if I am wrong but if there are 1300 members and 300 decide to vote and of that 300 only 151 vote in favour then that will win the day no ?
Fair enough membership is closed forgot that but you have had years to join (or not resign as I think the case was) so as I said you don't have a pot to piss in when it comes to your view. 
So saints fans paying into the club for decades should in your opinion, have no say who owns the club?
Hmmm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Oh dear! 

I suggest you do a bit of light reading. Look for something along the lines of "Legal Responsibilities of a Charity's Trustees." 

Everything penny the sanction being spent has to further the aims of their charity. They legally aren't allowed to give away £300k worth of charitable donations to a property developer in an Aston Martin for some worthless beans. 

Law Stud lolololol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Yes I know, for the third time I understand and think you'd likely have a case. 

Yet again, I am talking about the emotional side of things regarding the impact it could have on SMFC if this was done in mass. As I have said as well, I highly doubt it would be. 

And there it is again Baz despite your protestations!!……..you are suggesting that despite fundamentally disagreeing with what some people consider a flawed business decision they should continue to financially support the business decision from an emotional standpoint in-case it damages the business that made the decision. SMiSA as an organisation along with St Mirren have made a proposal to change the business strategy and initial agreement, if it is voted through then they have to deal with any ramifications and fall-out, emotional pull shouldn't come into it.

This again is why I don't think it should just be about a 50/50 majority of voters as opposed to members and that is coming from someone who will potentially vote for the new proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, garzo said:

taking your analogy...

You've ordered a new car - , you've paid a deposit up front, about £20, It'll cost you £71 eventually, but you are aware you don't get delivery of it yet for at least another 6 years sir? and you are aware there are a few aspects of the car we're still trying to work out how to operate, like the brakes and headlights, steering wheel seems ok though. It'll be alright though when we deliver it to you - we're sure of that, of that you can be guaranteed 🙂

A while later...

Sir, you know that car you've ordered, not due for another few years - we know you really like it. Well there's an opportunity for us to deliver it to you sooner. We've found a solution for the brakes and headlights and actually the steering is much better than before and you'll not believe this - it will cost you a lot less, only £51, Sir.

How does that sound?

 

Honk Honk.. ing  :whistle

Edited by pod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear! 
I suggest you do a bit of light reading. Look for something along the lines of "Legal Responsibilities of a Charity's Trustees." 
Everything penny the sanction being spent has to further the aims of their charity. They legally aren't allowed to give away £300k worth of charitable donations to a property developer in an Aston Martin for some worthless beans. 

They don’t “benefit financially” in terms of making a profit, all money made is reinvested back into the charity. Of course you knew that and would have been more clued up if you had bothered turning up last night to the present......oh you’re not in SMISA well in that case your opinion doesn’t bother me. Bye [emoji112]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dickson said:

OK. Think about it logically. Does every shareholder of St Mirren FC get free access to the Directors Lounge and the Directors box on match days? They don't do they? You need to be a club director to have that privilege. Kibble will have two club directors, able to bring as many guests as there are spaces available. Won't they? 

The proposal also says that Kibble will be able to veto any other service provider coming into the business. So, for example, when the catering contracts are up for renewal and SMISA are looking to get a bit of cash in by flogging the franchise, they can't unless Kibble approve - and if Kibble have got their eye on that part of the business how do you think those discussions are likely to go? 

I look forward to seeing the video - perhaps everything I've raised will be answered in it. If it isn't, then I'd suggest that SMISA members could be voting for a pup on the basis of having far too little information. I certainly find it deeply concerning that the future of the club rests in the hands of some football fans who can't spot someone stripping the club of assets right in front of their eyes. 

 

I'm genuinely interested in what you mean here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Haud on Bazil. Neither St Mirren nor SMISA are selling those shares. It's Gordon Scott who is doing the selling. What he is getting from the sale is obvious. It's £300k.

The important question is what has Gordon Scott given Kibble in return? 

Well that appears to have been answered. It's facilities, services and business opportunities all of which were owned and controlled by St Mirren FC Ltd, which will no longer be in the future. 

Everyone knows that Stuart it isn’t what I’m saying, it doesn’t mean there aren’t mutual benefits to this deal. Up front financial gain is not the only thing to be made in such deals. GLS getting his money back is something none of us can grudge (IMO), the nature of him doing what he did with no financial gain on his investment is very commendable.

You seem to be completely missing a point that there being benefit for the Kibble isn’t a bad thing and it doesn’t mean that will stop growth of SMFC, that would be very poor long-term business from a company after buying a significant shareholding. Does anyone ever enter a business agreement without some form of benefit? The point of focus should be on, is their benefit worth the mutual benefit to SMFC or is it a hindrance? For me it doesn’t seem at all like the latter.

Are you saying all facilities and business opportunities of SMFC will now be fully owned and controlled by the Kibble? I must have missed that was it from last night?

I think the nature of your return to this website is a continuation of needing everything to be viewed in the negative. Same as LPM, your goalposts have shifted from the supposed community benefit concerns we seen in the early days of BTB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dickson and LPM actually raise a few concerns that worry me.

I haven't seen the video and I wasn't at the meeting but in everything I have read I don't see any safeguards being offered for St Mirren Values only what this gives to Kibble.

Make no bones about it Kibble will gain a big say in how the club is run. As a minority share holder they will have a big 50% veto should they chose to use it.

If Kibble are entering this with the right intentions i,e support St Mirren, then that shouldn't be an issue.

If their intention is to USE St Mirren we could be in Deep Do. Do.

Simple things like the St Mirren Colours are up for grabs here. Never mind control of the board.

Its a bit far fetched but what if kibble affiliated people took out 1301 SMISA memberships and controlled SMISA votes. They could just take the club off us.

I don't know if this is a good or a bad deal but lets not rush into it without getting appropriate answers and safeguards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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