Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

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.

No I really am not! Are you genuinely not getting this? Let me make it abundantly clear to you. If people fundamentally disagree and think it is right to try and get back all of their money, go for it. If people disagree, don’t want all their money back but don’t want to continue, cancel your direct debit. My ONLY point on this is I hope they consider the potential harm it could do to their football club if mass numbers ask for refunds on already paid monies comes in. Again I don’t think it would happen but it could end up a cut your nose off to spite your face if SMFC end up in an even worse situation than the one people don’t agree with. You saying emotions shouldn’t come into it, completely correct… However they are in it from the very nature of a fans love for his football club. That won’t change.

I can see the arguments for different voting structures but for me a majority is fine. A majority carries who runs our country and memberships to different unions. It’s good enough for a fan buyout proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Are you stupid? Serious question! 

The fact that Kibble do good work is a given. They are a charity too, that's great. They are local, fantastic. However if you seriously think they are gifting money, services and expertise to a company for free then you truly are more than a bit silly. 

Kibble don't make a profit, but they do charge for the work they do. They charge companies like St Mirren for services that they provide. The money they get from those activities is then reinvested into the charity work that they do. In voting this through you are voting to give away a part of the St Mirren Ltd business in return for Gordon Scott getting £300k. You are voting in favour of a deal that strips out control of some of the clubs assets that can be rented out to raise revenue within the business, and you are doing so to facilitate the personal profit of Gordon Scott. 

Now you and the rest of the SMISA members might well be happy with that. But please be fully aware of what you are agreeing to, and stop making these silly ill informed posts. 

And there it is! The mask has slipped. Mr Dickson ladies and gents, only concern being a vendetta against GLS.... He's not alone. 

What personal profit is GLS making exactly? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Stegman said:


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.png

It certainly bothers me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Nonsense. Look Bazil I keep saying it - check back if you've struggled to read it - Kibble aren't the bad guys and I fully accept what they bring to the table. I'm hardly being negative. All I am doing is highlighting what is being given away in return. Kibble view St Mirren FC Ltd as a business, and they will use the clubs facilities and charge the club for services provided as they would any other business. That is how their business model works. They provide services to businesses, and the money the charge for it goes into their charity to pay for the services they provide. 

Where I take issue in all of this is where people - like you - are waving through this deal without realising first what it is. Gordon Scott is selling off St Mirren FC Ltd assets for £300k cash, which he deposits in his own bank account. .He was due to get his money back anyway, but now he's raiding St Mirren assets to get his money early. You say no-one can grudge him this? Well I would dispute that. 

As I have said your mask has slipped and your reason for returning is to continue a so far failed vendetta against GLS. You can tell it sticks in your throat with comments like “Gordon Scott is selling off St Mirren FC Ltd assets for £300k cash, which he deposits in his own bank account” it’s a completely negative and spun way to look at the deal. Everything else is just bluster and that is evident by the fact you can list the likely benefits to our club. The deal on paper looks a good one for both parties, that’s in itself good business. GLS getting his money back is irrelevant in the matter, after what he did for the club, it’s the least he deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No I really am not! Are you genuinely not getting this? Let me make it abundantly clear to you. If people fundamentally disagree and think it is right to try and get back all of their money, go for it. If people disagree, don’t want all their money back but don’t want to continue, cancel your direct debit. My ONLY point on this is I hope they consider the potential harm it could do to their football club if mass numbers ask for refunds on already paid monies comes in. Again I don’t think it would happen but it could end up a cut your nose off to spite your face if SMFC end up in an even worse situation than the one people don’t agree with. You saying emotions shouldn’t come into it, completely correct… However they are in it from the very nature of a fans love for his football club. That won’t change.

I can see the arguments for different voting structures but for me a majority is fine. A majority carries who runs our country and memberships to different unions. It’s good enough for a fan buyout proposal.

What they contributed to and what they are getting, to some, are completely at odds and they believe the potential of this decision is potentially causing harm to THEIR football club and they are perfectly within their rights to do what they want (on that you now seem to agree). To ask them to consider "emotionally" not to harm THEIR club by asking for refunds when THEIR funds are, in their eyes, being used to harm THEIR club is baffling. Business decisions and emotional decisions are rarely happy bedfellows and should never be confused.

Edited by WeeBud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
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. 
 
The catering at training complex at least isnt a great example as according to the info coming out, SMFC will make savings by having kibble provide this service.
No idea of what this currently costs per year though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

What they contributed to and what they are getting, to some, are completely at odds and they believe the potential of this decision is potentially causing harm to THEIR football club and they are perfectly within their rights to do what they want (on that you now seem to agree). To ask them to consider "emotionally" not to harm THEIR club by asking for refunds when THEIR funds are, in their eyes, are being used to harm THEIR club is baffling. Business decisions and emotional decisions are rarely happy bedfellows and should never be confused.

Look, I feel I have made my view very clear. If you're still not getting that it is ONLY a point I hope they consider, fine. I am making no comment on what their outcome of that consideration will be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

And there it is! The mask has slipped. Mr Dickson ladies and gents, only concern being a vendetta against GLS.... He's not alone. 

What personal profit is GLS making exactly? 

Bazil, I think you are the one who has is personalising this debate.  Dickson has raised valid points which are still awaiting answers to and if these answers demonstrate to me the benefit to SMFC  of a Kibble connection then I would argue for it.  

GLS will profit by getting his money earlier so he can either re-invest it or, earn interest on it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, East Lothian Saint said:

 

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.

 

How will it function if the supporters don't  turning up.  

Edited by pod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a few times we can utilise the Kibbles "expertise" in certain areas.

That's a massive assumption.

They may have these departments but what evidence do we have they are any good at it?

Does anybody know anybody who has had direct involvement or worked for them? 

 

 

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, East Lothian Saint said:

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 members 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.

Mafia style...:death

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.
I wasn't at the meeting. But.....PANIC!!! We're DOOMED
Honestly that's knicker wetting in the extreme. I have respect for someone who was there or who waits watches the video, then says. No I don't like it because.... But the level of knicker wetting, probably brought on by the usual trolls, is ridiculous. Some people need to just log off and have a wee lie down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
14 minutes ago, pod said:
How will it function without the supporters turning up.  

There have/are in varying opinions been some right pieces of work running the club, and the fans still turned up.

Are you talking past and/or present.  Anyway, new scenario or possible conspiracy .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People took on SMISA memberships in good faith 

but in the age of sloganising the message of “fan ownership good” has covered a multitude of sins

 

I don’t recall a period in my 61 years where the club was run by anyone except fans

some were good at it and some less so

 

now, for the first time that I can recall. Non fans will have huge influence over the direction we take

to be honest, I’ve been underwhelmed by smisa so maybe this is just a different shade of shite 

 

time will tell

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

I've read a few times we can utilise the Kibbles "expertise" in certain areas.

That's a massive assumption.

They may have these departments but what evidence do we have they are any good at it?

Does anybody know anybody who has had direct involvement or worked for them? 

 

 

Asked this a while back, what 'expertise' are we actually getting from Kibble ?

And do we need it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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