Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

[alwaysabuddy]

22 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The completion of the deal earlier is also not a benefit, it's returning his capital.

How can it not be a benefit to get "his capital" returned early and in addition get a little extra on top

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, alwaysabuddy said:

How can it not be a benefit to get "his capital" returned early and in addition get a little extra on top

The extra on top I already addressed. 

It wouldn't be a members benefit to contradict our constitutional requirements. IMO that has been shown in the fact it isn't stopping the deal. Again though, if anyone thinks we are in breach of our constitution that ties back to regulatory requirement, they're welcome to whistleblow. I am positive the outcome would be no action. 

My point, is about LPM splitting hairs regarding benefits to a member, the reality is it is completely irrelevant to the proposal. 

[Lord Pityme]

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.
 

Err... not being in smisa, and if I was in, only having one vote... how could I, or any one member veto anything?
Perhaps if votes like the one for this proposal required the Actual majority of Smisa members to vote in favour of (75%) then it would give comfort that it's not fan run or Scott run but run by consent of the majority?
Your quote of the £300k is upside down and back to front.
The concern for me, and as I read and hear what appears to he the majority of smisa members is.

Everything Kibble promise we were told would happen in the current deal. It hasn't, now we are told it can only happen if an outside body take over more than a quarter of the club!

Why? Not heard one reason why we need to surrender a quarter of the club other than to let Scott get £300k back and stay on the board.

The smisa members pledged to pay the full asking price, and did not want their money back!

Why are they being treated like this?

[portmahomack saint]

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

 

 

The more you write about is the 8% that SMISA has no prior agreement with regarding him getting more cash.

Personally I'd be for SMISA to purchase any other shares that folk were willing to sell.

 

You forgot to add.... except the Kibble wans 

[portmahomack saint]

2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

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....

I've just posted rolls of tinfoil and clingfilm to your home address. The foil's for your head and the clingfilm is to wrap your arms to the side of your body so you stop typing.

Hope you sent some to Bazil too

[Lord Pityme]

Hope you sent some to Bazil too

What pass them to himself? Lol

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

Hope you sent some to Bazil too

Tinfoil hat for trusting in an extremely detailed plan that has the buy in from several stakeholders that have:

1. progressed our football club since they've came on board

2. Managed an extremely well thought of and well managed charity  

May as well get one out for not believing the earth is flat lol. The clingfilm though, aye fair enough. 

 

[East Lothian Saint]

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Err... not being in smisa, and if I was in, only having one vote... how could I, or any one member veto anything?
Perhaps if votes like the one for this proposal required the Actual majority of Smisa members to vote in favour of (75%) then it would give comfort that it's not fan run or Scott run but run by consent of the majority?Your quote of the £300k is upside down and back to front.

The concern for me, and as I read and hear what appears to he the majority of smisa members is.

Everything Kibble promise we were told would happen in the current deal. It hasn't, now we are told it can only happen if an outside body take over more than a quarter of the club!

Why? Not heard one reason why we need to surrender a quarter of the club other than to let Scott get £300k back and stay on the board.

The smisa members pledged to pay the full asking price, and did not want their money back!

Why are they being treated like this?

I think the problem is SMISA are just a few folk on a committee. The majority of members have no interest on being on that committee never mind the board. They joined to save the club not necessarily run it. 

Don't have a clue on percentages but if you use this forum as a source it appears many of them can't even be arsed voting on the £2 spend.

I'm Just saying, maybe the kibble might actually be interested in doing some work that most SMISA members wouldn't be arsed about.

If as you suggest  SMISA are inept and in league with the enemy. Why not limit the damage they can do buy diluting their responsibility and getting assistance from BIG BOYS who know what they are doing and will be more arsed about getting involved than most SMISA members.

 

[Lord Pityme]

I think the problem is SMISA are just a few folk on a committee. The majority of members have no interest on being on that committee never mind the board. They joined to save the club not necessarily run it. 
Don't have a clue on percentages but if you use this forum as a source it appears many of them can't even be arsed voting on the £2 spend.
I'm Just saying, maybe the kibble might actually be interested in doing some work that most SMISA members wouldn't be arsed about.
If as you suggest  SMISA are inept and in league with the enemy. Why not limit the damage they can do buy diluting their responsibility and getting assistance from BIG BOYS who know what they are doing and will be more arsed about getting involved than most SMISA members.
 

Oh i agree Kibble will be ready from the get-go to get stuck in. What they are going to get stuck in to are projects that benefit Kibble!
Does anyone really think they are going to run a series of interventions for young vulnerable people, then hand the fees they get from local authorities all over the uk to st mirren?
Yes the stadium and Ralston will be used a lot more. But that will be for programmes that Kibble take the money on.
I can foresee issues in the future when smfc interests/priorities are sidelined to accommodate Kibble programmes.
Who will win out if Kibble want Ralston to run a programme and the U12's want it at the same time?
Feck me our women's team barely get a look in on club facilities, what hope have they got when Kibble block out the calendar?

[bazil85]

18 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Plausablity eh? 

Do you know whose ideas I was pinching? Its no secret, I credited them at the time. I even highlighted a education contract they'd won to deliver a session on how to brush your teeth. It was Edinburgh Spartans. Yep the semi pro Lowland League side who had proved beyond all doubt that their kind of working with the community was extremely plausible. 

Ridiculed by SMISA so it was. Yet when told to by Gordon Scott so he can make some money they bend over, drop their pants and give away the right to veto every major decision at the club to an organisation who say they are looking at putting soft play into the 1877 club. 

Yes the Kibble partnership was almost exactly what I wanted. I just didn't envisage that SMISA would gift away control of the club to get it. 

Oh dear Stuart, it’s difficult for me to know if this is just one of your games or you genuinely don’t see any issue with your points here. The situation Spartans are in regarding their stadium location, demographic, near by facilities, pitch surface(s) and other facilities is not like for like to the Ferguslie park based Simple Digital Arena. Just because it works for one club in Scottish football doesn’t mean it will work for all of them. Now to stress, I am not saying it universally wouldn’t have worked back then but I would have had reservations of us doing all that you suggested in a short period of time during a point of transition for our club. I also have reservations now as I’m sure everyone does but the deal and link up with the Kibble certainly fills me with more of a confidence than what coffee shops and soft plays did back then. But fair play to Spartans on the way they have utilised their space, let’s hope this partnership allows us to mirror some of their success.

Again Gordon Scott isn’t making money, this is more spin that shows your bitterness. Overall, GLS will have lost more money in his BTB involvement than any other SMFC fan. If his concern was making money he wouldn’t have got involved with the fan buyout. Guess if it’s some sort of coping mechanism for you to think otherwise, fine. The veto has been addressed, I have no concerns and no matter how many times you envision (fantasise about?) doomsday, it won’t change my personal risk assessment of it. You’ve shown yourself, aspects they can veto aren’t greatly different from other companies with 25%+ shareholders.

They haven’t, more scaremongering. Your continued go to, do you not take on board how wrong you were about BTB originally and how that might be the case now?

[bazil85]

21 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Nope. It would be a waste of time as Baz would only open the package if it came from GLS.

Word!

[East Lothian Saint]

51 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Oh i agree Kibble will be ready from the get-go to get stuck in. What they are going to get stuck in to are projects that benefit Kibble!
Does anyone really think they are going to run a series of interventions for young vulnerable people, then hand the fees they get from local authorities all over the uk to st mirren?
Yes the stadium and Ralston will be used a lot more. But that will be for programmes that Kibble take the money on.
I can foresee issues in the future when smfc interests/priorities are sidelined to accommodate Kibble programmes.
Who will win out if Kibble want Ralston to run a programme and the U12's want it at the same time?
Feck me our women's team barely get a look in on club facilities, what hope have they got when Kibble block out the calendar?

I cannot agree or disagree with anything you say because I don't have a clue  (possibly like most SMISA members but maybe I'm a minority) how the club is run day to day or what plans it has for the future. I am not up to speed with the current interests or challenges in most aspects of the club other than the bit on the park.

I can tell you who the players are and who I think is playing well and playing shite because I go to games but I've never been to a board meeting or even a SMISA meeting.

I'm just worried that without the proper expertise. If SMISA (of which I am a member) get complete control. Then the lunatics will be running the asylum.

The  volatile £2 spend discussions, the scepticism about SMISA from non SMISA Fans  and the fascination with getting it right up GS on here does not paint a pretty picture of fan ownership.

You more than anyone has been banging the Question SMISA drum.

Fan ownership is beginning to scare me more than the thought of a kibble veto. The anarchy which could be unleashed if every Shull, faraway and  st Ricky suddenly thinks they should have as big a say as the board is frightening.  No one knows how things will work if we reject Kibble. There is no plan.

The Kibble may not be ideal but we have no real leadership at present. 

SMISA will still exist in any event. If it blunders on for another 5 years without kibble, I suppose it means we can keep the GS is Cnut threads running and keep spending our £2 pot on stuff non smisa folk don't want and keep fantasising and scheming about how we can wrestle 300K from GS because he should have gone under if Gilmour had been more prudent.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Still undecided.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by East Lothian Saint

[Lord Pityme]

I cannot agree or disagree with anything you say because I don't have a clue  (possibly like most SMISA members but maybe I'm a minority) how the club is run day to day or what plans it has for the future. I am not up to speed with the current interests or challenges in most aspects of the club other than the bit on the park.
I can tell you who the players are and who I think is playing well and playing shite because I go to games but I've never been to a board meeting or even a SMISA meeting.
I'm just worried that without the proper expertise. If SMISA (of which I am a member) get complete control. Then the lunatics will be running the asylum.
The  volatile £2 spend discussions, the scepticism about SMISA from non SMISA Fans  and the fascination with getting it right up GS on here does not paint a pretty picture of fan ownership.
You more than anyone has been banging the Question SMISA drum.
Fan ownership is beginning to scare me more than the thought of a kibble veto. The anarchy which could be unleashed if every Shull, faraway and  st Ricky suddenly thinks they should have as big a say as the board is frightening.  No one knows how things will work if we reject Kibble. There is no plan.
The Kibble may not ideal but we have no real leadership at present. 
SMISA will still exist in any event. If it blunders on for another 5 years without kibble, I suppose it means we can keep the GS is Cnut threads running and keep spending our £2 pot on stuff non smisa folk don't want and keep fantasising and scheming about how we can wrestle 300K from GS because he should have gone under if Gilmour had been more prudent.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
Still undecided.
 
 

I think you are missing my point.
It's this chairman, this Smisa committee who told us that they, and we did indeed possess the skill set to make BtB successful.
Not fan run, but fan owned.
Were they lying to us?

[East Lothian Saint]

6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I think you are missing my point.
It's this chairman, this Smisa committee who told us that they, and we did indeed possess the skill set to make BtB successful.
Not fan run, but fan owned.
Were they lying to us?

I think they may have come to the same conclusion as me. Namely, "F**k some one has to run this and the way things are going the lunatics will be running the asylum. We need help"

Now they are asking the lunatics to make a decision.

I don't think you could get a stronger admission of Truth.

Edited February 12, 2020 by East Lothian Saint

[Lord Pityme]

I think they may have come to the same conclusion as me. Namely, "F**k some one has to run this and the way things are going the lunatics will be running the asylum. We need help"
Now they are asking the lunatics to make a decision.
I don't think you could get a stronger admission of Truth.

Or... this was always the plan?
Kibble featured heavily in the 10000 hours clusterf**k ad did Scott again...! Trying to punt his shares.
I knew something like this was on the cards before BtB was landed! It's no surprise to me, especially with the complete lack of effort made since BtB to work with and help to make the community more resilient.
Add to that not ONE additional revenue stream being created by the club. NOT ONE!
This was the endgame they wouldn't tell you about.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

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]

So it'll save you money as you will stop paying into the smisa BTB scheme. It's conjecture to say that smisa will stop or reduce the monthly subs.

[bazil85]

13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Or... this was always the plan?
Kibble featured heavily in the 10000 hours clusterf**k ad did Scott again...! Trying to punt his shares.
I knew something like this was on the cards before BtB was landed! It's no surprise to me, especially with the complete lack of effort made since BtB to work with and help to make the community more resilient.
Add to that not ONE additional revenue stream being created by the club. NOT ONE!
This was the endgame they wouldn't tell you about.

Still not true, a complete and repeated lie. 

[pod]

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Oh i agree Kibble will be ready from the get-go to get stuck in. What they are going to get stuck in to are projects that benefit Kibble!
Does anyone really think they are going to run a series of interventions for young vulnerable people, then hand the fees they get from local authorities all over the uk to st mirren?
Yes the stadium and Ralston will be used a lot more. But that will be for programmes that Kibble take the money on.
I can foresee issues in the future when smfc interests/priorities are sidelined to accommodate Kibble programmes.
Who will win out if Kibble want Ralston to run a programme and the U12's want it at the same time?
Feck me our women's team barely get a look in on club facilities, what hope have they got when Kibble block out the calendar?

That wouldn't be very charitable. 

[Iamhammer]

The first though for me with regards to voting was the original plan I was sold on 71% of the club owned by SMISA, was I willing to accept 51% and the veto.  Since then other questions have arisen which does lead to doubt that this is the correct way to take the purchase forward.  Also in this thread Bazil85 pointed out to me that GLS was a successful business man (think he used the word very) who would have made more money on his investment had he not got involved in BTB, thus allowing him to write off his worthless shares had the consortium sold to a third party.  This begs the question if he is so successful why does he need the Kibble to take the club forward? 

[portmahomack saint]

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

SMISA has first refusal on them, so not except them.

You have first dibs now and you don't want them 

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, Iamhammer said:

The first though for me with regards to voting was the original plan I was sold on 71% of the club owned by SMISA, was I willing to accept 51% and the veto.  Since then other questions have arisen which does lead to doubt that this is the correct way to take the purchase forward.  Also in this thread Bazil85 pointed out to me that GLS was a successful business man (think he used the word very) who would have made more money on his investment had he not got involved in BTB, thus allowing him to write off his worthless shares had the consortium sold to a third party.  This begs the question if he is so successful why does he need the Kibble to take the club forward? 

Does it beg that question? The original deal wasn't to put GLS in charge of a club he owns, it was to move the club to fan ownership. That principle hasn't changed, only the structure of the deal has changed bringing the Kibble in. 

[East Lothian Saint]

55 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Or... this was always the plan?
Kibble featured heavily in the 10000 hours clusterf**k ad did Scott again...! Trying to punt his shares.
I knew something like this was on the cards before BtB was landed! It's no surprise to me, especially with the complete lack of effort made since BtB to work with and help to make the community more resilient.
Add to that not ONE additional revenue stream being created by the club. NOT ONE!
This was the endgame they wouldn't tell you about.

The plot thickens

42 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Still not true, a complete and repeated lie. 

or does it.

 

Even more confused.com

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Dickson said:

O I totally get what you mean. I mean the demographic around Ainslie Park is all luxury developments, Aston Martin cars, and £multi millionaires. Oh wait! Really? Haud on! Oh, the Scottish Government says it's one of the most deprived areas in Edinburgh. It says Ainslie Park is surrounded by two council housing schemes - East and West Pilton. Wikipedia says it's got a high crime rate with loads of anti social behaviour, joyriders, and stolen high powered vehicles. 

Never mind eh. A coffee shop in Edinburgh eh? They don't have many of them there. No competition so it's good everyone from Morningside who fancies a cuppa will head straight there. Oh, there's loads of coffee shops in Edinburgh. Wow, who'd have thunk it. 

Still it's not quite Ferguslie Park eh? LPM is clearly mental thinking a coffee shop would work. Bonkers idea - unless it's done by the Kibble. Yep they are the only ones could make a coffee shop work. 

  Hide contents

Just incase anyone missed it - I'm being sarcastic. 

 

The demographic does have an impact on how successful these projects can be but I am not for a second saying it relates only to affluence, again you have completely missed the point.  You surely realise affluence isn’t the only factor in making community related football (and other) projects work in an area? Hence why I can see it working in Ferguslie Park in theory. 

My comments were related to the positioning of Ainslie Park and its surroundings. From a quick look there is a modern leisure Centre and a much more built up area than where our stadium is. Good effort Stuart but yet again this is far too easy for me.

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, East Lothian Saint said:

The plot thickens

or does it.

 

Even more confused.com

Have a wee search into the club over the life of BTB, you’ll see it is categorically not true there has been no additional income streams.... in fact who knows, maybe they’ll one day cover the story on Buddievision 

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Honestly I agree with a lot of what you are saying. 

I am a big advocate for Fan Ownership - always have been. In the mid to late 90's I befriended a number of football fans at struggling English clubs through the business that I was running at the time. They were setting up Independent Supporter Associations at clubs like Exeter City, Stockport County, Wycombe Wanderers, Bury, Swansea City and Chesterfield - with the goal of buying up shares in their club and trying to get a seat on the board. The ultimate goal was to have fans in football boardrooms all around the country so that fans could have a say in the way national associations ran the game. 

I followed what they were doing, their battles and how their team were getting on - obviously with very mixed results through some very trying situations for their clubs. Where it worked well it was usually down to the vision and leadership of a few people at the top. They'd lay out a vision that all their members could buy into and they would slavishly follow that vision to achieve goals and targets along the way. Generally membership buy in would remain strong and when it was needed the members would back their committee when the call went out. Where it didn't work so well was where ego's and the potential for personal - lets call it promotion - got it the way, and where leaders believed they, and only they, knew best and where they would shut out the views of their members. 

When I look at SMISA I see much of the latter. There are ego's, a complete deafness, a lack of vision, no published business plan, no ideas and a lack of direction. At SMISA there is a lot of frilly skirts and no knickers which is what I guess you get when you partner a politician with professional PR men. Guys who have ideas and vision are seen as a threat and it doesn't help that at St Mirren the likes of LPM, who does appear to have ideas and vision, are seen as completely unelectable by an online community, many of whom can't move on from the last time they had an argument.

Kibble probably do have the expertise to run the club in a better way. But giving a single organisation the power to veto the membership of the Supporters Association who got them there isn't, for me at least, what fan ownership is all about. . 

 

Speaking about a guy that can’t move on from a Herald article published four years ago... 

Talking yourself & LPM up will not change the facts as they’ve been presented on this website many times. There is a clear bias stemming from personal vendettas against people linked to SMISA. As such both your views have been clouded and both your views to date have been proven wrong regarding BTB. Why anyone should believe this time it should be different I don’t know. 
 

at least we aren’t getting ‘armageddon’ and claims of regulatory non-compliance posts this time... well almost 

Edited February 12, 2020 by bazil85