Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts


1 hour 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. 

 

Someone else who thinks Kibble are an Employment Agency or an Catering business. All directors of every football club will be able to invite guests on match day. What difference does that make to directors currently inviting guests. It will just be different guests !!!

If these are all that people can come up with as negatives then there seems little to worry about.

What assets do you see Kibble stripping ???

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:
3 hours 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?

The shares Kibble are buying belong to Gordon Scott. In what way is that a "budgeted asset" 😂

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

So saints fans paying into the club for decades should in your opinion, have no say who owns the club?
Hmmm

That's kind of the way it works, yeah. Same as you don't get any say on who owns ASDA just because you do your shopping there every week 😂

 

Fuck me, some of this stuff is absolutely hilarious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

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.  

I think playing back over his multiple previous profiles we can see where his issue really is. Also is "profiting" the right word? If I give you a tenner and say give me it back in a month but you give me it back in a fortnight, have I profited? I personally think it's a tiny bit shameful some of the comments on here that have a pop at GLS after what he's done for the club. Don't see anyone else willing to stump up such large sums of money with no financial return. 

50 minutes ago, Dickson said:

That's your opinion. 

My opinion is that he has sold off St Mirren assets for £300k - all of which will go to his own personal bank account. You think it's the least he deserves so you are clearly happy with the asset stripping of your club. I'm not so comfortable with it. 

I certainly see benefits that Kibble will bring to the table. I've always argued for community partners to be involved in the club and it's great to see you now arguing that this benefits the club rather than taking from the club as was always your argument before. I just think that once again the wool has been pulled over a lot of eyes - and once again the SMISA membership seem to be being played like gullible fools. 

 

Your deterioration into the ridiculous continues. The deal is now asset stripping is it? So you've went from not being overlay sure about the deal although the charitable asset appealed to you and your only concern was the lack of trust from your (wrong) miss-selling claims, to GLS profiting through asset stripping our football club. As usual complete nonsense. 

It's clear you don't give a toss about community in this deal Stuart, you as usual only care about taking the most negative possible stance in any given situation regarding the team you "support" 

I have seen very few people that think the wool has been pulled over their eyes at any point during BTB. You are of course one of them. If you think you've been a gullible fool, you won't get any argument from me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Anyone concerned if the proposal is voted through then by agreement Kibble get first dibs on Smisa's shares?

"Get first Dibs" - as in the members would need to vote to sell them to Kibble?

Yeah, a massive concern.

A concern right up there with a big meteor hitting St.Mirren Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Good point made by East Lothian Saint...
"If the deal passes, not to stop Kibble orientated people becoming the majority in smisa membership, and just taking over the club"
Bet that's not in the video!

Yeah and there's also the worry that the people at the Kibble are actually crab people, then you know we could end up with crab people running the club. We must consider all these totally plausible scenarios. :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
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? 

 

 

I spoke to an old friend who works for them earlier today.

The quote back was "I wouldn't let kibble run a bath"

 

It's only one person though and sometimes employees aren't the best judge of any organisation whether good views or bad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dickson said:

You are struggling to follow this aren't you? 

I haven't said Kibble would be stripping any assets. I am saying that Gordon Scott is doing the asset stripping by selling off access to facilities and services at St Mirren FC Ltd to Kibble in return for them purchasing his "practically worthless" shares for £300k. Kibble's Trustees are legally bound to ensure that the money they spend furthers the aims of their charity. They aren't buying into St Mirren FC Ltd because they are benevolent. They are doing it because they see a return on the money they are paying out. I suspect this is in terms of facilities and in terms of potential service contracts but it could be far more than that. One thing for sure though is that whatever it is it will be worth more than £300k to Kibble. 

I absolutely appreciate why a partnership with could be appealing. It's exactly the sort of community partnership I have been arguing for, and been ridiculed for, since the 10000Hours proposal was first mooted. I just wouldn't have done it in this way. But SMISA members should be voting with their eyes open. To go from being completely fan owned and fan run, to having a boardroom that is potentially 40% non St Mirren is a big turnaround for many on here, especially when that 40% are the ones most likely to have the time and the ability to attend important SFA and SPFL meetings. 

Yet you still somehow manage to make it a negative and use expressions like "asset stripping" It's almost like you have a personal vendetta against SMISA and GLS. To the extent that even a deal that is "exactly" what you are looking for comes up, you will still talk down about it. 

Exactly the sort of community partnership but not the way you would do it... What "exactly" do you mean by that? Is this again you taking issue with GLS getting his own money back at not a penny profit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the deal goes through the director/s appointed by Kibble will represent Kibble first and foremost.  It is not unimaginable to foresee divisions taking place on that basis.  Given the finite resources of SMFC, what 'excess capacity' will Kibble utilise or, where or what facilities will be shared or changed which could lead to a sacrifice of the present set-up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of questions being asked. If folk are so concerned about the Club's future why did they not join SMiSA and ask questions last night instead of asking on here where contributers are not in a position to answer?

This thread is a waste of time looking for answers. Last night was the opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Someone else who thinks Kibble are an Employment Agency or an Catering business. All directors of every football club will be able to invite guests on match day. What difference does that make to directors currently inviting guests. It will just be different guests !!!

If these are all that people can come up with as negatives then there seems little to worry about.

What assets do you see Kibble stripping ???

 

They don't need to be either an employment agency or catering business. It's a stated intention that kibble will take over the catering at the training complex in Ralston. This will save smfc paying an outside company to provide the service. It'll be staff by their employees and youths that they are training.

What's to stop them also doing hospitality and pie stalls?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I spoke to an old friend who works for them earlier today.
The quote back was "I wouldn't let kibble run a bath"

It's only one person though and sometimes emoyee aren't the best judge of any organisation whether good views or bad.

One of the reasons I asked the organisation that is in this area, who run a similar establishment, are the same, incompetent managers who have no real skills and they appoint similar incompetent people throughout the organisation.

My daughter worked in the one here and despite loving the challenges left after being let down umpteen times by management.

MY experience with "charitable" organisations has been that they are overwhelmingly badly managed.

On outrageous salaries and flounce about playing at the job.

I'm not convinced they, the Kibble, will bring much of note to the party, time will tell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickson said:

2090622305_Annotation2020-02-07153032.png.4f98d81bfc71ddf6053ee7f2d93bf6cb.png

It has been reported by people who went to the meeting that Kibble will gain the use of facilities at the stadium from the deal. Selling off facilities that the club used to be able to charge for so that the Chairman can get £300k paid to himself is indeed asset stripping. He's sold something that doesn't belong to him for personal gain. The fact that Kibble even went so far as to say they may even gift the shares to SMISA in the future proves that it's not the shares Kibble values! 

You and others have your opinions of me. I'm not going to change that no matter what happens. I know that from what has been reported I am right though. If SMISA members are happy to vote this through then fair enough. At least I've made sure a few aren't doing it blindly. 

 

You have said this is "exactly" the kind of deal you would be after yet you are still using a term like asset stripping which is absolutely not what is happening. You surely understand the negative connotations that go along with such an expression as well?

Your bitterness has went nowhere over the years Stuart and it seems like you'll yet again just have to accept that you have no control over this situation and your continued negative rants will have no real impact on the direction BTB is going in. Oh to be so miserable about a team you "support". I personally take great comfort in the progress we've made since GLS came in and I am very happy that many people much closer to the deal than you think it's a good one.

Well you weren't right on BTB with your original view, why do you think you're right now? Same as LPM I wouldn't be surprised if you had pushed more in the opposite direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of the way it works, yeah. Same as you don't get any say on who owns ASDA just because you do your shopping there every week [emoji23]
 
f**k me, some of this stuff is absolutely hilarious!
Well if the fans aren't involved why bother?
We'll just evolve into St Kibble Fc 2020. Or Youngs Boys Kibble. Lol
Thanks for confirming the official line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
One of the reasons I asked the organisation that is in this area, who run a similar establishment, are the same, incompetent managers who have no real skills and they appoint similar incompetent people throughout the organisation.
My daughter worked in the one here and despite loving the challenges left after being let down umpteen times by management.
MY experience with "charitable" organisations has been that they are overwhelmingly badly managed.
On outrageous salaries and flounce about playing at the job.
I'm not convinced they, the Kibble, will bring much of note to the party, time will tell. 
The video from last nights meeting will explain all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of the way it works, yeah. Same as you don't get any say on who owns ASDA just because you do your shopping there every week [emoji23]
 
f**k me, some of this stuff is absolutely hilarious!




The shares Kibble are buying belong to Gordon Scott. In what way is that a "budgeted asset" [emoji23]


 
f**k me, some of this stuff is absolutely hilarious!


When I bought into BtB I was given a detailed plan... A vision.

Pay so much money for a predetermined time and then SMISA will own an agreed number of shares.

Now... When we give the money over... We get shares in return.

Will those shares be assets of SMISA?

Under the new proposal, will we have approximately £300,000 less in shares?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Get first Dibs" - as in the members would need to vote to sell them to Kibble?
Yeah, a massive concern.
A concern right up there with a big meteor hitting St.Mirren Park.
Sorry isnt that exactly what the members are being asked to do now?
And just over a week ago the members probably did put it up there with a big meteor hitting St Mirren park.
Useful analogy. Cheers
Link to comment
Share on other sites



When I bought into BtB I was given a detailed plan... A vision.

Pay so much money for a predetermined time and then SMISA will own an agreed number of shares.

Now... When we give the money over... We get shares in return.

Will those shares be assets of SMISA?

Under the new proposal, will we have approximately £300,000 less in shares?
Dont you know you're not supposed to hold Scott or Smisa to any agreement or promise they made?
You hate St mirren dont you.. go on admit it hater. Lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, SMISA aren't asset stripping. It's Gordon Scott who is doing that. He is the only one getting a financial advantage from the packaging of facilities that don't belong to him. Gordon Scott would have got his money back anyway, he didn't need to sell off access to facilities and services to get it. 

I've outlined the kind of community involvement that I wanted to see happen many times over. Just look back at my posts over the last 10 years. I would have been working with community partners to establish mutual benefits that would see the expansion of the clubs facilities, and an increase in revenue over time. Community partnerships are a good thing. As LPM previously stated the Foundation of Light at Sunderland is a great example that St Mirren could follow. They work with community partners to provide services that they frankly don't have the skills to provide. What they do have though is the facilities to host them and they allow community partners to work with them to deliver their goals. And just so you know none of Sunderlands community partners holds a shareholding in the club. 

Now dont you start making useful suggestions, or examples of how it should be built!

Kibble have got "Big Expertise" you know... ok it's in rehabilitation of young people who have serious issues, and not a football club, but its BIG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickson said:

To be clear, SMISA aren't asset stripping. It's Gordon Scott who is doing that. He is the only one getting a financial advantage from the packaging of facilities that don't belong to him. Gordon Scott would have got his money back anyway, he didn't need to sell off access to facilities and services to get it. 

I've outlined the kind of community involvement that I wanted to see happen many times over. Just look back at my posts over the last 10 years. I would have been working with community partners to establish mutual benefits that would see the expansion of the clubs facilities, and an increase in revenue over time. Community partnerships are a good thing. As LPM previously stated the Foundation of Light at Sunderland is a great example that St Mirren could follow. They work with community partners to provide services that they frankly don't have the skills to provide. What they do have though is the facilities to host them and they allow community partners to work with them to deliver their goals. And just so you know none of Sunderlands community partners holds a shareholding in the club. 

It's simply not true. A new arrangement has been proposed by someone that wants to buy out GLS early. That arrangement has went through discussions and presented to members, the fact his money is returned after five years instead of 10 is irrelevant in a claim of asset stripping. You have a deal on the table "exactly" as you'd want yet you spin the negative. You clearly do not care about the community over hammering GLS/ SMISA. 

I would wager any deal you have ever spoke about, if it resulted in GLS getting money back early you would still create a new profile to come on here and moan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Anyone concerned if the proposal is voted through then by agreement Kibble get first dibs on Smisa's shares?

I think Kibble buying 27% of the club is the beginning of the erosion of fan ownership.

Once the BTB deal is complete & SMISA owns 51% of The Club. How many of the 1300 (or so) are going to continue paying on the never never to remain SMISA members?

Only time will tell..

That's the time that I'd expect there to be the significant drop off and if that money isn't coming in monthly & that rainy day fund doesn't grow as the SMISA committee think it'll grow and/or Kibble are getting more out of the deal than St Mirren, then SMISA will be in a very precarious position and fan ownership could be at risk.

Here's a bit of blurb from SMISA' BTB campaign.

Quote

Remember, the fans owning the club and the fans running the club are not the same thing. For example Barcelona is owned by the fans but they elect a president, who then appoints a board to make the decisions.

Our expectation is that a fan-owned St Mirren will see SMISA appoint a board of people qualified to run the club, and - through our majority shareholding - retain the power to change them if we weren’t happy.

But the beauty of this model is we have years to work out the detailed structure and make a smooth transition to fan ownership, which Gordon will help us do. In that time we will have a fan on the board and can gain experience of how the club is run – so that when the time comes we as a support will be ready to be owners

see that wee bit in red? Will SMISA, with 51% have the clout to change the Kibble reps if we weren't happy with them? I don't think so.

SMISA & St Mirren can work very successfully with Kibble without Kibble buying shares in the club and by doing so, will ensure the safeguarding of this fan ownership model.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
see that wee bit in red? Will SMISA, with 51% have the clout to change the Kibble reps if we weren't happy with them? I don't think so.
SMISA & St Mirren can work very successfully with Kibble without Kibble buying shares in the club and by doing so, will ensure the safeguarding of this fan ownership model.
 
No. Kibble will have 2 reps and they will appoint them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quickie

If the vote is in favour & Kibble buy these shares from GLS.

What is the purchase price? Is it the same price that SMISA was going to pay for them or is it more or less. If it is more? Why? If it is less, Why?

I don't expect it to be less as SMISA was buying at the purchase price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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