Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Dickson said:

You've never been there have you. 

I recommend it. Try out the cafe while you are there. 

And that means it would work just as well for all football clubs in Scotland? If only people much closer to SMFC with far more business astuteness than you had thought about it... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


19 minutes ago, Dickson said:

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. . 

 

I would not let LPM look after my dog never mind giving him a role in the Club. The BTB scheme was always going to come to this point on who and how they run the Club/Business when they take control. Your correct in that SMISA have shown to date that apathy exists in member engagement and the lack of experience in running. A business such as a football club. 

Kibble at least bring a tried and test knowledge of being able to run a business that is 20 times the size of SMFC. The question is can they run a Football Club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dickson said:

WTF are you talking about. What Herald article? 

I am not talking myself up Bazil. Each one of those items is checkable on this forum. I'd imagine that some on here even remember the arguments that ensued and the derision it got me. Some of what I am talking about predates BtB too by some distance. Infact some of the community projects that I was talking about - particularly when it came to the Spartans and to the Atlantis Leisure Centre  - was right at the start of the 10000Hours campaign to buy the club. 

There's little point in going over it all over and over again. You've made a lot of false claims about what happened with me and SMISA but this is a thread about the dilution of fan ownership at St Mirren FC and I think that's far more important than petty point scoring. 

 

The one LPM references about the bigot brother two stand arrangement.

Oh you were, it gave me a wee chuckle. I think what’s checkable on the form is you using anything at your disposal to have a negative outlook on practically any SMFC related subject. I’d say your admittance to this deal being “exactly” what you’re looking for, yet still manage to troll over negative nonsense shows that. Let me ask you, nothing about your ripping apart of BTB back in the day that you regret or look upon differently? Four years in and you still think you were completely right on it, even considering where it has taken the club to date? Each to their own.

It is not a false claim, I’ve explained very clearly to you the duty and the steps that would have been taken regarding your previous claims. It was very well documented that you were crying breach back in the day. You were wrong.

8 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Yes it would. That's exactly the point I've been making. If you knew your Scottish Football History you would know that it was the community partnership between football clubs and the people around them that grew the sport in the first place. 

There is absolutely no way to know if we mirrored their business plan regarding their stadium and the surroundings that it would deliver the same results. If it was that easy you’d have every club in Britain doing it. I had my concerns back in the day about people making these suggestions, I recognised the risk involved, I think the risk is significantly reduced with someone like the Kibble involved. Do I still think it will all work out and be sunshine and skittles? Undecided but I now think it's a risk worth taking. 

Strange that this sounds like "exactly" what you want, will grow income for SMFC, benefit some of the most deprived in our community & beyond yet you're still hung-up on a guy getting his own money back + a bit extra for previously owned shares that probably won't even cover the lost interest his involvement has cost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dickson said:

So let me get this straight just for my own head. You reckon that there is no way the local education authority would trust St Mirren to deliver a schools based project on their behalf? You think there is no way an pre and after school care club would work at St Mirren. You think that a coffee shop in Paisley couldn't possibly turn a profit You think there is no demand for office space or conference facilities at the stadium. And you think there are no suitable community partnerships that could operate between St Mirren and the local community unless it's Kibble. 

And yet you claim I am consumed with negativity. 

 

No Stuart, your back to exactly what you used to do, spin comments to absolute rubbish. First of all I have never said "there is no way" I have never said "couldn't possibly turn a profit" about anything, those claims are all lies from you. 

What I am saying is there is no magic formula where if you say something will definitely work, it will definitely work. There is no no way to know if we were to have done all this stuff ourselves some years ago it would 100% of all came up well. Do you really think it's that easy to succeed in business? It is perfectly reasonable to have reservations about all of the above at our stadium, there was then and there is now. My personal view is I am a lot more confident right now on these kind of deliverable, assuming this vote is a yes. 

Sometimes on here I've found myself typing things like "even by your standards, the lies in this post are pathetic" but as many of us know, this is right on par for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Dickson said:

So let me get this straight just for my own head. You reckon that there is no way the local education authority would trust St Mirren to deliver a schools based project on their behalf? You think there is no way an pre and after school care club would work at St Mirren. You think that a coffee shop in Paisley couldn't possibly turn a profit You think there is no demand for office space or conference facilities at the stadium. And you think there are no suitable community partnerships that could operate between St Mirren and the local community unless it's run by Kibble with the power to veto SMISAs membership. 

And yet you claim I am consumed with negativity. 

 

Lots of empty offices in Paisley. One has already been turned into a Motel, another has submitted planning permission for hotel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
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. 
Spoiler

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

 

Im not convinced that a coffee shop would be feasible at St. Mirren Park. Kibble are though and if this proposal is successful they'll be going ahead with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I would not let LPM look after my dog never mind giving him a role in the Club. The BTB scheme was always going to come to this point on who and how they run the Club/Business when they take control. Your correct in that SMISA have shown to date that apathy exists in member engagement and the lack of experience in running. A business such as a football club. 
Kibble at least bring a tried and test knowledge of being able to run a business that is 20 times the size of SMFC. The question is can they run a Football Club.
Mibees we should give them a trial first?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dickson said:

I guess there was just a better pool of talent at Spartans then eh? Better brains, better businessmen, higher achievers, people with bigger ambitions for their football club and for their local community. Yes that must be it. After all they are doing it and they have the support of their local community whereas at St Mirren SMISA stood petrified, not sure what the word "community" meant never mind having the social skills to go and talk to local community groups. 

See the difference between Spartans and St Mirren is their fans weren't asked to donate upwards of  £100 per ball for some first team players to kick about, or to pay players wages. They were asked to support services supplied by the club where profits would be re-invested in growing the number of services the club could offer for the local community. 

You, it appears, have come late to the conclusion that working with the local community is a fantastic idea, so great infact that you think it's only right SMISA should give up control of St Mirren FC to allow a third party, a minority shareholder, a veto on any major decisions at the club. 

 

Nope, yet again spin away. Whether you understand it or not the demographic, the location and the opportunities differ from location to location in this world. By your logic, maybe you should explore the interest in starting a skying holiday business in the Maldives, they seem to be lacking. Someone thinking their business idea universally can't fail under any circumstances doesn't mean it's true... I am not like you though and won't assume the ridiculous, so can I just clarify that's your take? All the mentioned items, if put in place at St Mirren park, were void of any risk? 

I would wager if they had a similar set-up and asked, the fans would back it. The nature of football fans is generally to prioritise the club they support, we know that's lost on you. I would also wager they'd pick playing in the SP over where they currently are. Not even you can deny the league progress made by SMFC since BTB launched. 

Again completely incorrect, always seen the benefit in it, always taken pride in what we have done as a club over the years for the community (SMISA included). I just realise it isn't always as simple and clear cut as people make out. In times of fire fighting, we backed the team, that ended with a promotion and survival in the top flight of Scottish football. In a football sense the decisions made were the right ones.. In a community sense, a stronger St Mirren is more beneficial

We are now on the brink of forming a very interesting partnership that will allow our ties with the community to undoubtedly grow. I mean seriously, what do you think we should have done differently here? apart from not support a team that risked relegation to the third tier of Scottish football. for the first time in its history of course 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

Kibble at least bring a tried and test knowledge of being able to run a business that is 20 times the size of SMFC. The question is can they run a Football Club.

Two parties, one to look after the business side, the other, football. As one would image, one can't be trusted to look after the other.  OMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see the topic go the same way as all the others that baz gets involved with.

It may have been covered in the previous 40 or so pages but the only reason I can see why GS would want Kibble involved is because he can't trust SMiSA. If Kibble (or any other well run business) get on board, they will be calling the shots for everything and SmiSA will be able to do nothing about it. Any services coming from Kibble to the club, you can be certain the club will need to pay for (they are a charity remember) can't just give assets (staff; time etc) away for nought.

There is a reason why someone would want to have 75% or as close to 75% of the shares, if you dont know, look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, melmac said:

Good to see the topic go the same way as all the others that baz gets involved with.

It may have been covered in the previous 40 or so pages but the only reason I can see why GS would want Kibble involved is because he can't trust SMiSA. If Kibble (or any other well run business) get on board, they will be calling the shots for everything and SmiSA will be able to do nothing about it. Any services coming from Kibble to the club, you can be certain the club will need to pay for (they are a charity remember) can't just give assets (staff; time etc) away for nought.

There is a reason why someone would want to have 75% or as close to 75% of the shares, if you dont know, look it up.

Smoke and Mirrors. The magic number to have overall control of a company is 75% of the shares not 71% or nearly 75 %. It’s 75% 

SMISA were never going to have the magic number. They always going to be accountable to the remaining. 29% of shareholders. Look it up

So having 71% or 51% does not change much on the shareholding control

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke and Mirrors. The magic number to have overall control of a company is 75% of the shares not 71% or nearly 75 %. It’s 75% 
SMISA were never going to have the magic number. They always going to be accountable to the remaining. 29% of shareholders. Look it up
So having 71% or 51% does not change much on the shareholding control
Did the 71% not exclude GLS remaining 8% which he is now willing to part with?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS





Just an idea but, using the example already given of the catering at Ralston, maybe Kibble are saving money on renting/building premises (and fitting it out) to give the young folk the experience while also not having to worry about getting enough customers in to cover costs. The club save £500 per week (IIRC) and Kibble also save money and have essentially no risk to the enterprise. Maybe things like that are where the value comes from, maybe not, just an idea.

It's more important that they can be trusted to act in St Mirren's best interests and/or do as the board has decided than it is that they are a St Mirren supporter.
Yeah, I think the catering stuff at training complex is a given for kibble however it amounts to about 25k a year for SMFC (if open all year and not shut through summer).
Of course the maintenance and replacing of the kitchen and catering equipment is a cost borne by SMFC, so savings lower again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big thing that I dont think Smisa thought through, and maybe Scott and Kibble dont care about is the fact, however this vote goes, it divides the smisa membership.

There are more than a few saying they are out if the vote doesn't go the way they think it should!

 

Think about that for a second, smisa have lit a fuse under their own future!

I think they are getting it now and are shell shocked how it might all turn out.

 

Once the genie is out the bottle....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS



The big thing that I dont think Smisa thought through, and maybe Scott and Kibble dont care about is the fact, however this vote goes, it divides the smisa membership.
There are more than a few saying they are out if the vote doesn't go the way they think it should!

Think about that for a second, amiss have lit a fuse under their own future!
I think they are getting it now and are shell shocked how it might all turn out.

Once the genie is out the bottle....


And others who are in favour are also talking about stopping their payments once the shares are purchased early.
Link to comment
Share on other sites






And others who are in favour are also talking about stopping their payments once the shares are purchased early.
This could be a problem but.....

SMISA has known since at least November 2018 that they'd have the finances to complete the purchase by August 2023.

Their plan then, was not to complete the purchase but to continue the full 10 year commitment of collecting £12 & £25 from it's members and build up funds.

Regardless of what each member pays monthly, SMISA membership will only continue if you or I continue paying a monthly fee. No one other than the SMISA committee know what that potentially looks like.

Continue as is with £12 & £25 options
Reduced fee £10 or £7.50 or £5 or something else?

I am not sure that members (not all) thought past the day of purchase & that a continued financial commitment would be necessary to maintain their membership.

This deal with Kibble is not what was sold to the supporters and asking us to sign up to BTB & commit to paying between £1440 & £3000 over the 10 year period.

Folk have claimed this new deal "saves us money"
That's true only if your intention is not to continue membership of SMISA after the purchase is complete & your happy that your 'bit' was to donate between £1440 & £3000 & then walk away.

You are going to have to continue paying a SMISA membership fee to continue (having "a say" (no matter how much of a say)) being a member of SMISA.

Vote SMISA member onto the Club board.
Buying new footballs or towels for the club etc. Err that's about it.

Owning only 51% of the Club is the start of the erosion of the fan ownership model we originally bought into.

St Mirren & Kibble can work together very successfully without giving up any of the 71% shareholding or Kibble buying as much as 27%.

As both parties have stated 300 or so years between them within the local community. Neither is going away but they could work together very successfully and they could do it with mutual respect for each other without Kibble buying any % of the club.

Here's a wee extract from what we bought into.

Over the years, Gordon will work with SMISA to make a sustainable transition to majority fan ownership when we are ready to do so at some point in the future.

In doing so we can safeguard the future of our club and its role within the Paisley community forever. Sound exciting? You’ve got the power to make it happen

It says bugger all about a 3rd party sweeping in with fairly large shareholding or having such a big say on club business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

The big thing that I dont think Smisa thought through, and maybe Scott and Kibble dont care about is the fact, however this vote goes, it divides the smisa membership.

There are more than a few saying they are out if the vote doesn't go the way they think it should!

 

Think about that for a second, smisa have lit a fuse under their own future!

I think they are getting it now and are shell shocked how it might all turn out.

 

Once the genie is out the bottle....

 

 

Your goal for almost four years was it not? It’s honestly unbelievable how much you’ve disregarded the position you held right up until the day of this announcement. Evidence if ever there was that your view will polarise opposite GLS regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites






And others who are in favour are also talking about stopping their payments once the shares are purchased early.
I meant the division all members will experience regardless of how they vote. Sorry if that wasnt clear.
I left smisa, but still saw it as the only way to secure fan ownership, and never suggested anyone else should leave.
It is distressing the division that has now be sown, to facilitate one members profit, and give an organisation who have been trying to get their foot in the door for years, free reign.
On a more partisan note!
What bit of Kibble paying £300k to be able to run their programmes and take the fee for their clients they deal, with from local authorities across the UK, and stick it in Kibble's bank do some not get?
Anything Kibble do that makes money, Kibble will keep, its not going to the club community or smisa... it's going into Kibble's bulging bank account.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I meant the division all members will experience regardless of how they vote. Sorry if that wasnt clear.
I left smisa, but still saw it as the only way to secure fan ownership, and never suggested anyone else should leave.
It is distressing the division that has now be sown, to facilitate one members profit, and give an organisation who have been trying to get their foot in the door for years, free reign.
On a more partisan note!
What bit of Kibble paying £300k to be able to run their programmes and take the fee for their clients they deal, with from local authorities across the UK, and stick it in Kibble's bank do some not get?
Anything Kibble do that makes money, Kibble will keep, its not going to the club community or smisa... it's going into Kibble's bulging bank account.

The number of contributors on here that are actively against this is not much higher than any previous £2 vote from what I can tell. Of that number, some have openly said they will go with the majority. That leaves a very small number of toy throwers (like yourself previously). You have made points on division in the past that have turned out to be false and SMISA remains in a very strong position compared to initial targets. We have also seen a few comments over social media of fans that will return to SMISA if this is voted through. Hell, even the only person on the planet that can rival you for negativity regarding SMISA has said the proposal is "exactly" what he was after. 

As Div has said before, your negative spin is clouded. The mask slipped on your content a long time ago and most on here realise your prophecies of doom hold absolutely no substance after multiple claims. Wee comments like "to facilitate one members profit" shows the reason behind your need for negativity, it is very clear. Your view is further eroded by unfounded claims Kibble will use this deal to the financial benefit of themselves and themselves alone. It is perfectly easy to understand that a strong and growing SMFC would be in the interest of their business partner. 

I maintain the view I have held all along on this. Your wee unfounded outbursts are a coping mechanism while you have to watch someone you don't like and an organisation you grudge progress the football team you support. It's looking increasingly likely this proposal will go through, if that's the case, again time will tell if you were wrong about it like you have been for the first years of this proposal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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