Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts


59 minutes ago, Kirkie said:

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.

Are you associated with Kibble?

if so, would you know if there it’s problem with making the text of the trust deed public

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, guinness said:

I logged on to the site you vote on. Can I ask that Ms Sturgeon can use a similar site if we have another independence referendum?. Loads of items extolling the virtues of the new deal and only a YES button visible. If you have the temerity to vote NO you have to use a wee drop down box to uncover the NO button. Certainly not an even handed approach. Will there be independent verification of the voting numbers?

 

I voted yesterday and had no such issue.  Either option was quite easy to find and choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickson said:

You also want people to ignore the very real pitfall that is the enhanced veto rights that have been given to Kibble. 

 

I don't, I literally just referenced it. I want people to apply a degree of common sense to it. It isn't a "very real pitfall" in my opinion and that's based on the benefits of mutual growth in this arrangement. Whereas of course the risk exists, I imagine it would be very minimal that the parties will be pulling in different directions from what I've read. 

Your opinion is it's more significant and others are welcome to share that but for me there is a caveat that practically any subject you get involved in is all doom and gloom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Are you associated with Kibble?

if so, would you know if there it’s problem with making the text of the trust deed public

No, I have absolutely no association with Kibble.

I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't provide the text of the trust deed.  Charities are obliged to give a copy of their governing document and/or accounts to anyone that asks for them.  You don't even need to give them a reason for asking although they are entitled to charge a reasonable fee for provision.  However, in the case of a multi-million pound charity it would seem slightly churlish of them to charge!  I'm not sure what would be considered a reasonable time for them to comply with the request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Really, have you convinced yourself what's in your head is right, and what's written down is false. Get help but seriously sort yourself out
Link to comment
Share on other sites




I still don't recall it that way but memory can be a funny thing. Obviously one of us is wrong but, to be honest, it doesn't matter enough to me to look into it, I'm just happy that SG voted the way he did, for whatever reason.
Just because we remember differently doesn't mean one of us has to be wrong Slarti! [emoji12]

The important thing is learning from it.

Mr Positivity sees negligible danger in the veto.

Dickson has rightly highlighted that had the veto been in place the outcome could have been very different.

Despite claiming to be passionate about the outcome back then and willing to give up his season ticket (as was I and I told SG as much), Mr Positivity is willing to put the club in the same danger all over again.

Irony, hypocrisy or a mixture?

Lines are blurred with him!Screenshot_20200214_165117.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

It does. It could be both of us, but at least one of us has to be wrong.

"Could" have been different, you are right, but there is absolutely no way to quantify it. A lot of things are possible but, without certainty, all anyone can do is try and work out the likelihood of each presented scenario. Unfortunately, there are those with agendas (on both sides) who will try and present their own case as fact without having anything to back it up.

Baz is the usual suspect on the forum but, in this case, LPM has been the one most guilty of it. I'm still waiting on answers to the questions I asked him days ago about the things he asserted as fact. I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, nice to have a civilised discussion on here, for a change. emoji38.png

It's a fact Kibble are not investing in St Mirren,they are just buying shares from GS, thereby breaking the GS/Smisa agreement.The cash is going to the Chairman ,who until he says otherwise, will not be investing any of the cash into the club.

It's a fact that this minority  shareholder has demanded veto rights in the running of the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a fact Kibble are not investing in St Mirren,they are just buying shares from GS, thereby breaking the GS/Smisa agreement.The cash is going to the Chairman ,who until he says otherwise, will not be investing any of the cash into the club.
It's a fact that this minority  shareholder has demanded veto rights in the running of the club.
Dont be bringing facts to a propaganda campaign.lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does. It could be both of us, but at least one of us has to be wrong.

"Could" have been different, you are right, but there is absolutely no way to quantify it. A lot of things are possible but, without certainty, all anyone can do is try and work out the likelihood of each presented scenario. Unfortunately, there are those with agendas (on both sides) who will try and present their own case as fact without having anything to back it up.

Baz is the usual suspect on the forum but, in this case, LPM has been the one most guilty of it. I'm still waiting on answers to the questions I asked him days ago about the things he asserted as fact. I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, nice to have a civilised discussion on here, for a change. [emoji38]
In the picture I posted, which one is wrong?

I love civilised debate and discussion.

I am even, despite how it might seem on here, willing to listen to all viewpoints.

That's how you learn. That's how you grow.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.

Certain other posters cannot.

Despite protestations, they are no less than antagonistic master baiting keyboard warriors with mental health issues!

Back to the matter on hand tho Slarti...

Fear not... I respect your right to be wrong!

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji12]Screenshot_20200208_220513.jpeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:
3 hours ago, waldorf34 said:
It's a fact Kibble are not investing in St Mirren,they are just buying shares from GS, thereby breaking the GS/Smisa agreement.The cash is going to the Chairman ,who until he says otherwise, will not be investing any of the cash into the club.
It's a fact that this minority  shareholder has demanded veto rights in the running of the club.

Dont be bringing facts to a propaganda campaign.lol

Could be worse ,I see the Fans Council are having their Burns Supper on Valentine's  day, great planning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours 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? 

 

Are you still calling yourself a customer or have you got fed up with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Legal fees need paid to draft another agreement between SMiSA and GLS. Why GLS isn't (apparently) paying anything towards it I have no idea. Kibble have nothing to do with it.

I would presume that GLS and Kibble are paying any legal fees they have in regards to the sale by GLS to Kibble.

Kibble have nothing to do with it? Seriously?

Did SMISA propose this arrangement without the support of the membership?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Just because we remember differently doesn't mean one of us has to be wrong Slarti! emoji12.png

The important thing is learning from it.

Mr Positivity sees negligible danger in the veto.

Dickson has rightly highlighted that had the veto been in place the outcome could have been very different.

Despite claiming to be passionate about the outcome back then and willing to give up his season ticket (as was I and I told SG as much), Mr Positivity is willing to put the club in the same danger all over again.

Irony, hypocrisy or a mixture?

Lines are blurred with him!Screenshot_20200214_165117.jpeg

Excellent example of a dialectic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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