proudtobeabuddy Posted February 9, 2020 Report Share Posted February 9, 2020 5 hours ago, portmahomack saint said: So am I But I don't see why we need to be selling off 27% of the the club to have it, Why can't the board arrange this partnership with the Kibble without selling this shareholding, Kibble said at the meeting a partnership can easily be broken, That's true when the interest of both parties clash, And that is the problem in this deal is, For instance what if a Business like say BET365 with a turnover of 2.86 billion wanted to have their names on our shirts, and advertising all over the stadium, Representing their company a fan owed football club in Scotland etc etc ( and why wouldn't they I give them plenty every year) the kibble could scupper the deal if it went against their morals and beliefs, Some charities won't even accept lottery funding because they see it as gambling and immoral, This is just one example where we could have a disagreement, Our hands will tied in this deal, We could lose out on some serious sponsorship, I don't think the Kibble should have a major say in the direction the football club should or shouldn't take, No one knows what's around the corner, Major decisions should be left to the people that matter most, And ST MIRREN FC should always come first Surely our board wouldn't sign up to that? It's not the early 20th century. I can't see GS and co. accepting that as a condition to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 9, 2020 Report Share Posted February 9, 2020 13 minutes ago, Dickson said: Oh yes they would I've got to be honest - this was always a major worry of mine. The competency of the football fan to do the work involved to stay abreast of the matters in which they are being asked to have an opinion in a club with fan ownership. Many football fans have never bothered to read the "Laws of the Game" and are happy to follow dodgy interpretations of the rules from football commentators and pundits and when it comes to this kind of stuff we have to realise the same applies. Football fans tend to be far happier spending hours on a football forum posting their ill informed opinions than they are reading through proposals and legal agreements. I bet you've already cast your vote "proudtobeabuddy" haven't you? No i haven't.... and my point was that Kibble can have an opinion but won't control the appointment of major sponsors solely, all parties involved in the running of the club will vote on these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 Your point is wrong The legal agreement states that it has to have "mutual approval" https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-vote Try reading it. It's even written in plain English. So tell me... are you back to supporting St Mirren again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 Your point is wrong The legal agreement states that it has to have "mutual approval" https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-vote Try reading it. It's even written in plain English. Feel free to share with us why the BOD, including the proposed Kibble involvement, would wish to harm the club in any way or damage the trust of its supporters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford prefect Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 Feel free to share with us why the BOD, including the proposed Kibble involvement, would wish to harm the club in any way or damage the trust of its supporters? That's definitely the point. I understand people voting against it because they want 100% fan ownership. Which, if you count the other 20% on top of the 71, you'd be really close. I respect that. However people looking to paint kibble as some malevolent influence seeking to rape and pillage our club are sniffing too much glue, suffering from paranoia or in certain cases on this thread, downright trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 10, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 No i haven't.... and my point was that Kibble can have an opinion but won't control the appointment of major sponsors solely, all parties involved in the running of the club will vote on these issues.They have voted and a veto on the board, they can pass or block what they like. Also given the chairman brought them in with them paying him £300k, I am sure they'll have at least one other vote to count on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 10, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 Not on religious grounds, but given the forms of addiction some of their clients will have been unfortunate to be trapped in, it would be difficult, if nigh on impossible for them to align their brand with betting, lending, pawning, alcohol etc...Ironically That just about covers 71% of main sponsors in football@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 10, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 If they have a veto, why would they need another vote? You just disparaging GLS again?Disparaging, or getting real?They are keeping him on as chairman, he is letting them in. It's the way of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 Not on religious grounds, but given the forms of addiction some of their clients will have been unfortunate to be trapped in, it would be difficult, if nigh on impossible for them to align their brand with betting, lending, pawning, alcohol etc...Ironically That just about covers 71% of main sponsors in football@ I'm quite happy for us not to be sponsored by any of these types of companies.I'm not so happy about a minority shareholder having a veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 I could only speculate, however the fact is that Portamahock is 100% correct. It is right there in the legal agreement you are being asked to sanction. Kibble WOULD be able to block a major sponsor if they didn't like it. Yet despite it being there in the legal agreement you want to defend your initial stupidity by casting aspersions on those who are pointing out this fact to you. Tell me, you didn't happen to offer your wisdom to Hamilton Accies when they signed away their fortunes did you? After all why would a rich Nigerian Prince have his eyes on a relatively small sum of money in a Scottish Football club bank account. In the video they already reference that Kibble would have blocked St Mirren having "Wonga" as a shirt sponsor so the exact scenario has already been stated. If you can't grasp why a religious charity might block a rich bookie from sponsoring St Mirren you are even more stupid that I gave you credit for and that is before you factor in the undisputed fact that the Kibble representatives on the football board do not have to be St Mirren fans - infact they are highly unlikely to be St Mirren fans. Personally, I am relatively comfortable with the deal but one thing is painfully obvious. The new deal that SMISA want their membership to sign up to gives the members less control over their football club than was initially the aim. Despite still having a majority shareholding, Kibble would hold a veto against any major decisions the fans make. Calling me stupid Is like me calling you a fat twat... childish and boring. But then I’m not the troll here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 10, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 So what? If they have a veto they don't require another vote. That's the whole point if a veto.With the other vote they can pass whatever they like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 They have voted and a veto on the board, they can pass or block what they like. Also given the chairman brought them in with them paying him £300k, I am sure they'll have at least one other vote to count on.Having watched the video I’m sure these people are sane reasonable people who want what is best for Kibble and also St Mirren.. just because all the trolls on here think differently is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 Not on religious grounds, but given the forms of addiction some of their clients will have been unfortunate to be trapped in, it would be difficult, if nigh on impossible for them to align their brand with betting, lending, pawning, alcohol etc...Ironically That just about covers 71% of main sponsors in football@ Eh that leaves 29% lets go with them [emoji23] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 Having watched the video I’m sure these people are sane reasonable people who want what is best for Kibble and also St Mirren.. just because all the trolls on here think differently is irrelevant.Yeah, everyone is sane and reasonable so long as you agree with them. Once they decide something you don't agree with, outrage is probably all you will have as you glibly voted through their power as they were sane and reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Dickson said: I could only speculate, however the fact is that Portamahock is 100% correct. It is right there in the legal agreement you are being asked to sanction. Kibble WOULD be able to block a major sponsor if they didn't like it. Yet despite it being there in the legal agreement you want to defend your initial stupidity by casting aspersions on those who are pointing out this fact to you. Tell me, you didn't happen to offer your wisdom to Hamilton Accies when they signed away their fortunes did you? After all why would a rich Nigerian Prince have his eyes on a relatively small sum of money in a Scottish Football club bank account. In the video they already reference that Kibble would have blocked St Mirren having "Wonga" as a shirt sponsor so the exact scenario has already been stated. If you can't grasp why a religious charity might block a rich bookie from sponsoring St Mirren you are even more stupid that I gave you credit for and that is before you factor in the undisputed fact that the Kibble representatives on the football board do not have to be St Mirren fans - infact they are highly unlikely to be St Mirren fans. Personally, I am relatively comfortable with the deal but one thing is painfully obvious. The new deal that SMISA want their membership to sign up to gives the members less control over their football club than was initially the aim. Despite still having a majority shareholding, Kibble would hold a veto against any major decisions the fans make. Can you tell us where you got the idea the idea that Kibble is a religious charity/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 10, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 Having watched the video I’m sure these people are sane reasonable people who want what is best for Kibble and also St Mirren.. just because all the trolls on here think differently is irrelevant.So its trolling to point out how any future boardroom issue could pan out?These be some of the same reasonable people who promised fans would be consulted before any decision to accommodate extra sectarianism/bigotry/racism for cash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 I am a fat twat, so I take it you are admitting you are stupid.... [emoji1787] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truesaint Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 Thought Jimmy (Gillespie) Calderwood covered most of the questions quite well in the video. Personally the most important factor for myself was 1) The financial stability of the club and 2) The financial stability of Smisa now and going forward. I don't think dropping the current contributions to BTB is a great idea and would prefer continuing along the same lines to create a bigger emergency pot if push came to shove. I would have liked to have seen a vote on contributions before this deal is voted upon to provide some reassurance on SMISA's potential financial position in the future. Can't see a big betting firm or the likes sponsoring us now or in the future and don't really want to see Mecca Bingo on our shirts. It is most likely to be local firms as it has been in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 10, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 You never answered the actual question, you only claimed I was wrong on what I thought. But, since you have since admitted to someone else that you don't actually know if they are a religious charity then there's no need to answer now.71% is a joke... whoosh!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truesaint Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 20 minutes ago, Dickson said: Motherwell are sponsored by Paddy Power. It is the biggest sponsorship deal they have ever had in their clubs history and they haven't got their logo on their shirts. I wouldn't be so quick to write off the possibility of major sponsors in the future. I didn't think that a club like St Mirren would attract interest from a major sponsor like JD Sports yet the club did. Fair point. Fair play to PP though who also agreed to not having their name on the shirt. With the Ladbrokes Scottish Cup and previous history of betting and alcohol firms in football in general it would be nice to see a move from these type of businesses but the SFA should lead the way. Money talks but responsible sponsorship should also be a key factor for a club going forward. “We know our place, and it’s not on your shirt.” PP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 3 hours ago, ford prefect said: 10 hours ago, proudtobeabuddy said: Feel free to share with us why the BOD, including the proposed Kibble involvement, would wish to harm the club in any way or damage the trust of its supporters? That's definitely the point. I understand people voting against it because they want 100% fan ownership. Which, if you count the other 20% on top of the 71, you'd be really close. I respect that. However people looking to paint kibble as some malevolent influence seeking to rape and pillage our club are sniffing too much glue, suffering from paranoia or in certain cases on this thread, downright trolling. As yet I have been undecided as to the pro's and con's of Kibble-Gate, but I am now beginning to believe the paranoid over the rationalists (didn't someone say just because you believe they are out to get you........doesn't mean they aren't..................or something similar) I think I am now favouring the people who wish the fans to retain enough votes so as to not be held to ransom over a vote. Do I think Kibble want to harm St Mirren? No I don't. Do I believe that Kibble wish to have power to influence policy? Yes I do. Kibble are not (nor would they be allowed to) spending 300K of a Charity's reserves without a business plan to back up that investment (because that is what it is), so that 300k give them the power of VETO, I would suggest that SMISA VETO that proposal. They are NOT spending 300K because they support St Mirtren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 I wonder sometime about the ability of SMISA since they keep sending me emails about this deal and how to register to vote. Fed up telling them I stopped being a member 3 years ago. Worrying that they are unable to take me off their mailing list but want to run a football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 10, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 It's a big decision to accept a gambling, alcohol or pawnbroker sponsor, or not?I would rather not have have a gambling site anywhere near the club.However it becomes a huge decision when the offer up to half you annual playing budget, each year of a 3 year deal!Does The Bet Fred arena sound any worse than the SDA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 I am a fat twat, so I take it you are admitting you are stupid.... I read the legal agreement - I would hope that SMISA members would too. This change to BTB is extremely significant. If "fans" of the club can't treat this with the serious consideration it deserves then fan ownership really is a f**ked model. Stop posting shite on the forum and use your spare time to get clued up on one of the biggest decisions St Mirren fans have been asked to make about the club in decades. No I’m not stupid but thanks for clarifying [emoji3] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 10, 2020 Report Share Posted February 10, 2020 So its trolling to point out how any future boardroom issue could pan out?These be some of the same reasonable people who promised fans would be consulted before any decision to accommodate extra sectarianism/bigotry/racism for cash?I’m against the home stand being used and always have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts