Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

All these worst case scenarios make me wonder why any of you guys would ever 1) get married as your spouse could cheat on you, 2) have a job as you could get fired, 3) drive as you could be in a fatal accident, 4) eat as you could die of food poisoning, 5) join SMiSA as the SMiSA board could steal all the money ...

You know it's dangerous to cross the road, don't you? [emoji38]

Everything is about limiting risk, it's impossible to eliminate it all together. Kibble want to protect their investment as much as possible and have asked for a few things that their level of shareholding doesn't guarantee by law, but nothing IMO that raises a red flag. That's why I asked "why" they would do these things, not if they could.

Yes, SMiSA need to minimise the risk to their investment too and maybe having experienced business people on the board does that.
Sarcasm is beneath you Slarti.

You feel Kibble are more entitled to manage risk than SMISA?

Risk associated with purchasing shares that nobody has yet fully or satisfactorily explained why that needs to be the preferred method of joint working or partnership.

PS... Using your analogy, you are aware that marriage is on the decline, co-habiting is on the increase, and cheating is just as prevalent in either case! [emoji12]

Keeping that veto alive after SMISA own 51% of the shares is effectively putting your nuts in a vice and giving someone else control of the handle!

Not my idea of acceptable risk!
Link to comment
Share on other sites


32 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

Why would the veto protect smisa as much as kibble(I see someone replied similar, but the veto isn't only for the interim period}) when GLS is out and smisa have 51% what do they need protected from? This seems strange int erms of usual company structures. The veto is Only there to the benefit of kibble, no one else. 

Yes sorry, I meant through the transition period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alwaysabuddy said:

Div - re the 8% shareholding

 By selling his shares to Kibble either

GLS will actually be receiving more cash that he would be under the current proposal where he is left with the 8%

OR

He is receiving the same money in total therefore effectively either SMISA or Kibble are paying nothing for them, which begs the question of who gets the "free" shares ?

.  

My understanding of that would be the former. He's not going to be giving those shares away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alwaysabuddy said:

 

Must say I'm with BEK on this one - the board produce a BP which the Kibble reps don't like they can veto it.

That cannot be right and is completely unworkable     

The Kibble reps are on that board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:
1 hour ago, div said:
I can only speak for myself but I won’t be paying £37 a month for me and the boy to be SMiSA members once the shares have been bought.
Let’s suppose that SMiSA membership drops to £5 a month once BTB concludes.
Each £12 a month member would be £7 a month better off.
The deal coming in 5 years early is a bit of an exaggeration but 3 years early would be about right. 36 months @ £7 a month is £252.
Spin on that emoji12.png

So if my wife buys shoes that she doesn't need... and they are reduced from £200 to "just" £100... She hasn't spent £100... She has saved it?

If she committed to buy the shoes, and finds when she gets there that they are half the price she was committed to pay, then yes, she's saved £100 😁

I committed to pay £12 a month for 10 years through BTB.

If BTB completes ahead of schedule, for whatever reason, and my SMiSA subs then reduce (and they will once the club is bought), then I've saved myself some money.

I don't think that's spin, it's just common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she committed to buy the shoes, and finds when she gets there that they are half the price she was committed to pay, then yes, she's saved £100 [emoji16]
I committed to pay £12 a month for 10 years through BTB.
If BTB completes ahead of schedule, for whatever reason, and my SMiSA subs then reduce (and they will once the club is bought), then I've saved myself some money.
I don't think that's spin, it's just common sense.
What if you were paying for Doc Martens but were delivered flip flops instead... but they arrived early and you got cash off? [emoji12]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

What if you were paying for Doc Martens but were delivered flip flops instead... but they arrived early and you got cash off? emoji12.png

Haha!

I'd veto that, Flip Flops in this weather would be madness!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:
7 hours ago, alwaysabuddy said:
Must say I'm with BEK on this one - the board produce a BP which the Kibble reps don't like they can veto it.
That cannot be right and is completely unworkable     

If the Kibble reps are part of the board that produces the business plan, why would they veto it?

You could ask. If they are part of the board, with a minority share, that produces the BP, why would they need a veto and why should they have one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could ask. If they are part of the board, with a minority share, that produces the BP, why would they need a veto and why should they have one?
As a minority at board level, they could be outvoted on either something they wanted included in the business plan that SMISA didn't... or something they didn't want included on the business plan that SMISA did.

If they felt strongly enough, they could then veto the whole business plan.

I'm thinking further down the line, possibly different people on board.

None of us knows what is ahead which is why whatever we agree has to be right for us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dickson said:

Where did they propose that Sonny? As far as I can make out the proposal has them with two board members on the football club board and a veto against "any of the major decisions"I haven't heard them propose to attract their contacts to sponsor or rent facilities either. Although I accept that might well be part of the plan. 

The one example that Gordon Scott gave as to how they could cut costs could be done quite easily without the need for £300k worth of shares. Just let them take over the catering at the training ground. If they are cheaper than £1000 per week, great. I'm sure supervised apprentices could cook up chicken pasta just as well as any catering company. 

The thing that I find most remarkable though is the turnaround in opinion. I called for co-operation and partnerships with community groups and local charities many years ago. It was ridiculed by many of the forum members on here. I remember being told many times over that the only "community" we were interested in was the supporters of the club - even by committee members at SMISA. I called for the stadium to be open 7 days a week, that was laughed at cause there was nothing anyone would rent out and we'd be wasting money on heating and lighting. Richard Atkinson was laughed at for suggesting the laundry could be rented out, and was heavily criticised for wanting to bring a church group to the stadium. LPM suggested opening a coffee shop in the 1877 club. I suggested pre-school and after-school child care in the dome. All laughed at. "We wouldn't want kids and outsiders ruining our facilities" was one of the arguments I remember. Another pointed at other businesses in the local area - loads of empty office space, and the failure of the airport parking business to show it wouldn't work. St Mirren even appointed a director for a short while who was supposed to investigate ways to drive up use of the facilities at the stadium. 

Yet get Kibble to pay Gordon Scott £300k for his shares and SMISA sell community involvement as a good thing - I'm sure Kenny Morrison must have raised an eyebrow or two -  and the same people who laughed before are telling everyone it's the best idea on the planet and not to worry about a third party having a veto over any major decisions at the club cause that's just a "red herring". 

Weird isn't it?!

The issue here Stuart is many of those things you say above are good ideas, you were far from the only one or the instigator for them. The plausibility and manner to execute may not have been right at the time which caused debate. Part of the benefit the Kibble partnership will bring in attracting new people to the stadium, it’s a fair concern people had that we might not have been able to do that ourselves back then. 

The more pressing issue with your debate back then and now is it is wrapped up in complete negativity. You default pick the most negative possible position. We are seeing that right now where on one hand you say this is ‘exactly’ the sort of deal you’d want and on the other you make accusations of asset stripping and concerns about major shareholders protecting their assets, it’s ridiculous. 
 

If only you could look past your negativity and see if SMFC, SMISA & Kibble can make all those things work there won’t be a major risk of Kibble downing tools & hindering major SMFC decisions because it would hurt them. The risk as it is presented seems massively low for this reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irony Alert.....!
Most of the actions and interventions Kibble promise to take are the same actions potential Smisa members were told would happen if BtB was landed.

FYI.... none of that happened, but people still vote to support those who promised them.

Any reason to believe that those actions will happen with the next best, all singing all dancing proposal?

Judge them by what they have actually delivered, not what they promise before making a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, I'm questioning 3 parties having a veto.  
Unless the terms of that are very clearly defined then there is the potential for every decision of the majority shareholder to be vetoed
And given one of those parties will just have trousered £300k..! From another of those parties it ain't rocket science to work out how decisive votes might go....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, div said:

Div - re the 8% shareholding

 By selling his shares to Kibble either

GLS will actually be receiving more cash that he would be under the current proposal where he is left with the 8%

OR

He is receiving the same money in total therefore effectively either SMISA or Kibble are paying nothing for them, which begs the question of who gets the "free" shares ?

8 hours ago, div said:

My understanding of that would be the former. He's not going to be giving those shares away!

So GLS gets cash for his minority 8% shareholding yet the remaining circa 20% of mainly supporter held shares get nothing.

I have no agenda against GLS and have not yet decided which way to vote, just pointing out that GLS not only gets his cash earlier than planned but actually gets more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
So GLS gets cash for his minority 8% shareholding yet the remaining circa 20% of mainly supporter held shares get nothing.
I have no agenda against GLS and have not yet decided which way to vote, just pointing out that GLS not only gets his cash earlier than planned but actually gets more.
 
And it's all against the Smisa constitution! No member is allowed to benefit from membership.
The benefit has to be for the community. I.e. St mirren fans, etc..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

And it's all against the Smisa constitution! No member is allowed to benefit from membership.
The benefit has to be for the community. I.e. St mirren fans, etc..

He's not benefiting from membership the 8% are separately owned shares. The completion of the deal earlier is also not a benefit, it's returning his capital. More splitting hairs but no you don't have a vendetta against GLS at all... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not benefiting from membership the 8% are separately owned shares. The completion of the deal earlier is also not a benefit, it's returning his capital. More splitting hairs but no you don't have a vendetta against GLS at all... 

Even a numpty like you knows he can only sell these shares if he gets the Smisa membership to vote to rip the agreement he he signed with them!

 

It makes Philip Schofield look straight!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Even a numpty like you knows he can only sell these shares if he gets the Smisa membership to vote to rip the agreement he he signed with them!

 

It makes Philip Schofield look straight!

 

 

If this was challenged it would not be considered any kind of breach. To claim the deal can't go through because a member of SMISA owns other shares would be an unrealistic blocker and as such the regulator would not entertain it. As I have said before to you and others claiming untoward regarding BTB. Don't believe me, whistleblow. You'll also be told to jog on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS

Judging by those against Gordon Scott, He will only be forgiven if he gifts his 300k worth of shares, the £300k he stood to lose because allegedly, according to reports on here, he was shafted by the last board and Btb  which most of his critics signed up for was the only way to recoup his cash. Did you not all sign up to pay him back???? Whilst saving the club.

Then there is TF who by his own admission got shafted by Livingston and lost his company in the last business deal he thought was a good idea. 

On past deals we have two directors already who don't have very good track records.

So GS and TF have come up with another idea. Have they learned from past experience and really carried out the due diligence on this one. The SMISA Committee Think so.

So if SMISA committee follow in the footsteps of GS and TF and we get shafted again it would just prove how inept St Mirren as an entity are. Do we have any business acumen at our disposal at all? 

Maybe The kibble could provide that.

Just from the stuff I have read on here and other social Media sites Btb is chasing a dream of fan ownership without any idea of how it could work. Even Colin at the meeting said we still thought we had another 5 Years to work it out. What kind of plan is that.

If we had 71% of the club guys like LPM and Dicko would probably have influence over Veto's and decisions while Cockles and Brazil would go to war with them. Starti would through the toys out the pram, POD would crack a joke and EK bud would resign. No disrespect guys.nothing personal substitute any Fans  name you want.

Maybe the Kibble will bring some much needed leadership to the table as well as some business acumen.

Just a thought.

 

Edited by East Lothian Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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