Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Evidence please that's just pish.
(Hi everyone else, shhh don't tell Baz I am talking to you, this should be good for a laugh)

Quote one 

How can they magic up another £500? Either there is as mad Baz bangs on about "a transparent, and democratic vote" which is respected, or there isn't!

me thinks perhaps a few are getying a bit embarrassed by community options almost always losing out to paying the clubs latest bill?

Quote two

So is that you saying that there shouldnt be a democratic process which smisa and its members stick to? Or the Smisa committee as in this istance can just make it up as they go along?

Proof that you are more concerned with any governance you can use to be negative against SMISA than the actual charitable actions themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote one 

How can they magic up another £500? Either there is as mad Baz bangs on about "a transparent, and democratic vote" which is respected, or there isn't!

me thinks perhaps a few are getying a bit embarrassed by community options almost always losing out to paying the clubs latest bill?

Quote two

So is that you saying that there shouldnt be a democratic process which smisa and its members stick to? Or the Smisa committee as in this istance can just make it up as they go along?

Proof that you are more concerned with any governance you can use to be negative against SMISA than the actual charitable actions themselves. 

Luvin those posts demonstrating how much I wanted the community option to be chosen, and you opposed it at every turn..!
What a f**king OG..

Lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

There's that crushing positivity again. :lol:

You reckon every single poster on here is wrong about you?

That only you are right?

Like I have alluded to earlier. When someone has an overwhelming negative view about something (or generally in life) that person will be incapable of recognising the positivity in giving support. I am very supportive of our current BOD, the current BTB situation and I am now in support of the new proposal. I think they all reflect positive aspects to move our club forward, I also feel as a club we have progressed on and off the park in recent years. I feel a big part of that credit goes to the structure put in place by our BOD and the movement to fan ownership.

It is unquestionable that some people on here take exception to that. The evidence is overwhelming that some fans on here attribute my above view to sucking up GLS arse, staggering when you consider they’re SMFC supporters. That manifests itself in different ways, couple that with me calling out where there is a clear vendetta against SMISA/ BTB/ GLS from some and the guaranteed contributors that always only have negative things to say regardless of scenario. My voiced opposition against all of that is often mistaken for me not allowing or appreciating other opinion, it’s simply not true.

The small group of St Moan fans banding together on almost anything I post doesn’t mean every single poster on here has a view on me, a noisy minority I would say using BTB votes as an indicator. What would be a more accurate way for you to put it would be, for the most part contributors in recent years that have ticked some/ all of certain boxes I have opposed. Some examples; illegal activity at SMISA/ SMFC, regulatory breaching related to BTB/ SMFC, our chairman lying to us about income, the appointment and role of GM.

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion but I make no excuses when it comes to unsubstantiated claims of illegal activity, underhanded dealings and lies related to my football club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dickson said:

No Bazil. 

I'll ignore your attempt to once again play the man and simply point out that Richard Atkinson has already confirmed that he held talks with Kibble back during the 10000Hours bid. The only material difference is the number of shares Gordon Scott is selling / being left with, and the fact that we now have a third party with the power to veto every major decision the fans think they can make through fan ownership. 

Makes a mockery of the whole idea of fan ownership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dickson said:

It was me who brought it up and the reason was to ask fans to think through what might have happened had Kibble had a veto on the boardroom vote back in 2012.

My argument was that the sport couldn't be seen to treat "Rangers" differently to how they had already dealt with Gretna, Clydebank, Airdrieonians and Third Lanark - just because "Rangers" had a large fan base that brought revenue to the game. I believed passionately that if "Rangers" were treated differently then you might as well pull the shutters down across every senior ground in Scottish Football cause you'd signalled that the sport in Scotland was completely f**ked! 

I'm glad I was on the right side of history back then. But had a third party held a veto on the board back then can we be sure that they wouldn't have forced a St Mirren board to follow the obvious short term business needs of the club - over what was morally right and correct?

 

What I think would have happened is it would have caused distain in the support. People can claim I am overlay positive, negative (the lines seem blurred for some) or whatever they want with this next point, I don’t care. But there are few things (possibly none) in football I have felt more strongly about. I would not have bought a St Mirren season ticket or attended a match again while GIlmour remained at the club, if he had voted for the new club into the top flight (exception would be if there was some sort of supporters vote that resulted in a yes). Voting no was the ethical thing to do, I emailed the club to let them no this and may have put it on here (or facebook can’t remember).

Now I mention this because it’s an extreme scenario, there has never been another situation that would cause me to turn my back on Scottish professional football. The veto has risks, of course it has but the risks are absolute minimal. The risk to the Kibble in not having one, I believe justifies it. The chances of a decision coming up that will hamper SMFC and benefit Kibble are very small IMO. It’s been pointed out to you that the veto is aligned to other 25%+ shareholding, you can’t let it go because of your need for the negative. Surely you don’t think we all believe it’s just a coincidence that you always have the most negative possible outlook at any given scenario? There’s a separate issue here, could Kibble have forced a yes vote? Do we know the veto means they would get their opposite way? I doubt that but maybe someone should ask. My take on it is they can knock back major decisions but can’t force others, for example if they wanted an astro pitch and we said no, they couldn’t veto our no.

4 minutes ago, Dickson said:

No Bazil. 

I'll ignore your attempt to once again play the man and simply point out that Richard Atkinson has already confirmed that he held talks with Kibble back during the 10000Hours bid. The only material difference is the number of shares Gordon Scott is selling / being left with, and the fact that we now have a third party with the power to veto every major decision the fans think they can make through fan ownership. 

It's just not true Stuart, chats with a partnership with the Kibble is different from them heavily investing and a documented share agreement. You go to your negative as usual but it is complete nonsense to suggest “talks with Kibble” is the same as a business, shareholding partnership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:
2 hours ago, beyond our ken said:
Just a wee word of caution
all charities are founded with a set of aims and values 
by setting up a close relationship with SMISA kibble will be using the assets of the club in pursuit of theirs
despite repeated attempts at contact, kibble have not responded to my request for a copy of their original trust deed which still governs their operation 
 
if you don’t know their aims then how can you sign up to a partnership with them?

I may be able to help you, what did you send in your request for the information?

i simply asked to be directed to or furnished with a copy of the original trust deed of 1841 (i think) which is the original terms of reference and  is quoted on their website as being the basis on which they operate

Edited by beyond our ken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Luvin those posts demonstrating how much I wanted the community option to be chosen, and you opposed it at every turn..!
What a f**king OG..

Lol

Spin away, you asked for proof and I provided it. Governance over the most vulnerable in society, shame on you. Further evidence you say? You have almost completely disregarded the community/ vulnerable people benefit you apparently so desperately wanted, you have done a complete 180 since the moment this went public. You have even started posting about the existing arrangement not dividing fans. You’ve became one of the biggest advocates for a deal you cried about for almost four years lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Just a wee word of caution

all charities are founded with a set of aims and values 

by setting up a close relationship with SMISA kibble will be using the assets of the club in pursuit of theirs

despite repeated attempts at contact, kibble have not responded to my request for a copy of their original trust deed which still governs their operation 

 

if you don’t know their aims then how can you sign up to a partnership with them?

This might help ...

https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=10048

The subsidiary charity, Kibble Education and Care Centre, has the same objects and charitable purposes.  As does Kibbleworks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spin away, you asked for proof and I provided it. Governance over the most vulnerable in society, shame on you. Further evidence you say? You have almost completely disregarded the community/ vulnerable people benefit you apparently so desperately wanted, you have done a complete 180 since the moment this went public. You have even started posting about the existing arrangement not dividing fans. You’ve became one of the biggest advocates for a deal you cried about for almost four years lol.
You've lost it bud!
A blind man can see you are posting made up drivel. Honestly I worry for your mental health.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

double irony alert!!!!!!

you operate here under the alias of Bazil and claim to have NEVER ONCE used an alias on the forum

You have only ever posted under an alias, yah dummy!

Lol, oh dear. It's been a hair splitting kinda week hasn't it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

You've lost it bud!
A blind man can see you are posting made up drivel. Honestly I worry for your mental health.

Afraid not, it's there in black and white. You showed a very shameful view regarding supporting some of the most vulnerable in society. Called you out then, called you out now. 

Don't you worry about my mental health, it's all dandy. Someone that seems to be having a prolonged breakdown because of the support and success of a man he doesn't like though... Actually, stinks more of jealousy than a mental health issue to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Spin away, you asked for proof and I provided it. Governance over the most vulnerable in society, shame on you. Further evidence you say? You have almost completely disregarded the community/ vulnerable people benefit you apparently so desperately wanted, you have done a complete 180 since the moment this went public. You have even started posting about the existing arrangement not dividing fans. You’ve became one of the biggest advocates for a deal you cried about for almost four years lol.

Only half a turn. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

no mention of the original trust deed there

so no, no help at all

Apologies.  You said that you were interested in seeing the objects (aims) of the charity so I thought it might be helpful for you to have a link to them.

Given that it is the social enterprise that is cited as the party that SMISA are dealing with, I assume that it is not actually the charity constituted by trust but rather a company limited by guarantee which is constituted by memorandum and articles of association.  You can get that off the Companies House website if you wish but if you can't be bothered looking, I can tell you that the objects of the company are the same as those stated on the OSCR website that I linked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afraid not, it's there in black and white. You showed a very shameful view regarding supporting some of the most vulnerable in society. Called you out then, called you out now. 
Don't you worry about my mental health, it's all dandy. Someone that seems to be having a prolonged breakdown because of the support and success of a man he doesn't like though... Actually, stinks more of jealousy than a mental health issue to me. 
Ok evidence it!
Can you not see your previous post completely disproves your accusation?
This is why I worry you dont see what you've said yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Let me deal with the bold bit first. 

10000Hours weren't offering a shareholding in the football club or a veto. There was a different structure to 10000Hours and those that followed it understood it. There was two levels of board. One was the CIC board, and the other was the club board. Kibble were in talks to be on the CIC board. They would have held no influence or veto over the football club at all. There was never any signed agreement because 10000Hours failed to conclude their purchase of shares from Gilmour and Co. What I would add as well though is that it would be possible to have a legally binding community partnership agreement drawn up that would have protected Kibble without the need for them to buy £300k worth of shares. As I've said many times already I'm comfortable enough with Kibbles involvement - I think it will probably be a good thing - however the share sale and the extended power of veto doesn't sit well with me. 

As for the rest, well first of all thank you for your appraisal of the 2012 situation. As I've also pointed out though there are matter of great importance in the sport that come up at fairly regular intervals in the Scottish game. One other example I have given was from 1992. Back then the St Mirren board of directors were faced with a vote of national significance. Rangers and Celtic wanted to start a new breakaway league that would see them trouser a far larger chunk of TV money than they did previously. The proposal was for the inception of a new league - the SPL - breaking away from the old Scottish Football League. The SPL would limit membership to clubs that had a minimum 10,000 seats. St Mirren had 9,400 odd at the time and were in the second tier. 

At the vote all 10 top flight teams voted for the new league but the voting structure meant they needed the support of two more. Raith Rovers, who had 10,000 seats, and who were riding high in the league backed them. One to go but no-one else met the SPL criteria. The only other club with 10,000 seats was Queens Park but they weren't a full time professional club. The club that cast the decisive vote - St Mirren. Years later when Gilmour was bemoaning having to pay out for a new stand, I challenged him. He was on the board at the time in 1992 and I presumed they had instructed their representative - John Paton - to vote for it. Gilmour claimed that wasn't true. Paton had been instructed to vote against the proposal but he voted for it when he got to the meeting. 

The reason for bringing that up - well the new structure suggests that the two Kibble reps on the board are going to be more available for these kinds of meeting than the SMISA reps on the board who will have their own day jobs to attend to. So is there a danger that once again the club could be faced with a situation where someone who doesn't support the club casts a vote of the same significance? 

There's loads of other examples of meetings where this could be important, from setting minimum prices at football grounds, to voting for different league reconstruction models, or even just for to re-appoint the CEO of the SPFL. The kind of decisions that independent Supporter Associations were keen to ensure fans had a say in - yet which at St Mirren could be veto'd by an outside body. Its not quite as benign as you think. 

Lastly if Kibble proposed a plastic pitch at the SDA, the SMISA members on the board wouldn't need a veto. They would hold the 51% voting majority. The veto isn't there to protect SMISA, or the St Mirren support, it's there to protect Kibble! 

 

And again as I have said, you can only focus on the negative, it seems like you are incapable of doing anything else. My take on where it differs is SMFC and Kibble would be tied and bound to mutual progression. It would be in both our interests, the 10000 hours arrangement would have made it easier for them to walk away. Now there is a partnership that makes it beneficial to drive for success at St Mirren Park. The veto, we may as well drop it. You won’t let it go, you won’t entertain the very small risk factor, that it makes no sense for Kibble to veto deals to the detriment of SMFC. I accept that’s something you’ll hold onto because heaven forbid you had to speak favourable about anything related to St Mirren.

Matters of great importance every 20 years I can deal with… I’m joking of course but again it shows your very risk adverse view of the world, quoting very isolated scenarios, one of which where we have had a casting vote and the vote was cast incorrectly to the BOD view is surely once in the lifetime of the football club (again back to risk adverse). There will always be challenging aspects in the future and I don’t think any form of a BOD will fully mitigate it. The nature of business is risk, I know I deal with it daily. If we had the view you have that the risk of these concerns materialising is enough to stop a proposal, we’d probably still be sitting with Gilmour as the chairman ready to celebrate our 15th anniversary of being on the market. But as above, no point continuing, I’m happy with what I see as a tiny risk related to the veto, I do see it as benign, you don’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
22 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
He was making an argument that they had't reviewed it. I wasn't, I gave an opinion that they would have based on who they were. As I have said, opinions are fine to have. 

That's totally irrelevant to my point.

But it's relevant going back to the related post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Ok evidence it!
Can you not see your previous post completely disproves your accusation?
This is why I worry you dont see what you've said yourself.

I did

No it doesn't 

You can worry all you want, it's clear on here that you have a tendency to claim towards the fantasy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have acknowledged that I think the partnership with Kibble will, on balance, be a good thing for the club. Is that not me being positive about the deal? 
You think you are being positive, but to be honest I think you are being reckless and cavalier. You want everyone to ignore the pitfalls and to drive through this proposal on the basis of trust no matter how the legal agreement is drafted. Are you like that with decisions that involve your own personal finances, or just the things that are being paid for by everyone else? 
 
And that is the nub of a few posters like Baz.
That being if you challenge, question or offer a differing viewpoint to that of the club and/or smisa you are, in their view Negative.

On a jovial, but salient note... that was how ordinary people in Germany were characterised if they challenged the mantra of the Nazi's.

Even in the way these posters attack things it's an attempt to silence freedom of speech!

If you think that's weird, far fetched etc.. try finding any poster on here having a go at Kibble, or at anyone who is/has voted for, or supported the proposal! Just try and find one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did
No it doesn't 
You can worry all you want, it's clear on here that you have a tendency to claim towards the fantasy. 
Lol... no Baz dont evidence my clear position. Please let everyone see the evidence that shows I opposed a vote to award funds to the xmas meal.
And that I wanted the funds to go to a club option instead.
Jeez its laughable just typing that line out.
C'mon Baz gies aw a laugh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dickson said:

I have acknowledged that I think the partnership with Kibble will, on balance, be a good thing for the club. Is that not me being positive about the deal? 

You think you are being positive, but to be honest I think you are being reckless and cavalier. You want everyone to ignore the pitfalls and to drive through this proposal on the basis of trust no matter how the legal agreement is drafted. Are you like that with decisions that involve your own personal finances, or just the things that are being paid for by everyone else? 

 

It sure is, did it hurt? 

Believe me, I have been over everything in the proposal. I also feel a lot of people that are involved in the deal deserve a fair amount of good faith given the so far success of BTB, and their business success. I do not want everyone to ignore the pitfalls, I want people to apply a degree of common sense... What I do want people to do is ignore the made up pitfalls, like the claims of asset stripping and that GLS getting his money back early is somehow a blocker to this deal. 

Regarding my own personal finance, I would also scrutinise decisions and reflect on the opinion/ expertise of people much closer to each scenario. God I'd hate to be a mortgage or investment adviser to you? "Just one point for us to consider for the next three and a half hours, remember 1929?" 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Lol... no Baz dont evidence my clear position. Please let everyone see the evidence that shows I opposed a vote to award funds to the xmas meal.
And that I wanted the funds to go to a club option instead.
Jeez its laughable just typing that line out.
C'mon Baz gies aw a laugh.

I shared two of your posts that show you favoured governance to not allow the vote over the support for some of the most vulnerable in our community. You had more concern for the source of the money than the people it benefited.

That wasn’t what I said or what I was referencing. This was a subsequent vote to the normal three month spend, keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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