Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts


10 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.

fact this, evidence that

Then "I presume"!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Thanks for highlighting the 'guilty' aspect. Lol

Maybe they ban innocent councillors though? Lol

At least there is some irony in his sense of humour

Councillor Mark MacMillan, the Labour leader of Renfrewshire Council, said: "Burning the Smith Commission was a hugely symbolic gesture - for all the wrong reasons. It was insulting to every Scot who wants to leave the disagreements of the referendum behind and begin the journey of building the fairer and better and nation we all want to live in.

"For these members, their temporary break up with the SNP will be forgotten by Valentine's Day. It's not a punishment, it's a pardon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

or Baz! emoji850.pngemoji12.png

 

20 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

 

18 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

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.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji12.pngScreenshot_20200208_220513.jpeg

yOu’Re AlWaYs ThE oNe ThAt NeEdS tHe LaSt WoRd 

lol

I mean the ridiculous part is even a point we agree on, BEK still tries to start an argument. Obviously mixed in with the same spin that this deal is somehow putting the club in an apparent danger that didn’t exist 😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

 

 

yOu’Re AlWaYs ThE oNe ThAt NeEdS tHe LaSt WoRd 

lol

I mean the ridiculous part is even a point we agree on, BEK still tries to start an argument. Obviously mixed in with the same spin that this deal is somehow putting the club in an apparent danger that didn’t exist 😕

So the VETO in the proposal presents NO danger or risk to St Mirren?

Yes or No. One word answer!
Bet you can't!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

So the VETO in the proposal presents NO danger or risk to St Mirren?

Yes or No. One word answer!
Bet you can't!!!

More word spinning, do you ever get tired of it? Of course it presents a risk, you have no business that is risk free. I personally think the risk is easily worth the reword. 
Oh and reverse psychology might work for you in the future but not When it’s so very obvious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Io

More word spinning, do you ever get tired of it? Of course it presents a risk, you have no business that is risk free. I personally think the risk is easily worth the reword. 
Oh and reverse psychology might work for you in the future but not When it’s so very obvious. 
You can't count!
That was more than one word.

Yes or no.

Told you that you couldn't do it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:
So the VETO in the proposal presents NO danger or risk to St Mirren?
Yes or No. One word answer!

Bet you can't!!!

No

The question asked is whether the the veto presents NO danger or risk to St Mirren.  Your answer means that you think it does!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Io

You can't count!
That was more than one word.

Yes or no.

Told you that you couldn't do it!

I still answered it. Yes it is a risk, there are practically no risk free businesses agreements. 
 

and I told you it was a reverse psychology attempt. It didn’t work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether it's local or national government, it's always an "oversight" when political types get caught.

Wonder if "Labour refuse to answer Kibble Questions" was an oversight too.

Don't they ask the question

"Anyone got any pecuniary interest in this"

"I work for Kibble" would not have been overseen then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether it's local or national government, it's always an "oversight" when political types get caught.

Wonder if "Labour refuse to answer Kibble Questions" was an oversight too.

Don't they ask the question

"Anyone got any pecuniary interest in this"

"I work for Kibble" would not have been overseen then.
You absolute twat!
Have you any idea the shite Baz will come up with to defend the indefensible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only to you.
"The head of the hearing panel said: "The councillor not only failed to declare a financial interest and participated in a vote on the motion but also spoke to and seconded the proposal in its favour."

So a councillor who works for Kibble..

Voted

Spoke

and seconded a proposal to award his employers a contract.....

Oversight, or load of shite?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:


You're really not very good at this, are you?

He was found guilty of an "oversight", i.e. a mistake, not deliberately doing anything.


Fact what? Evidence what?

I presume due to the fact that I do not know if they will even have any legal fees for it.Only to you.

Didn’t seem overlay relevant putting me in this message... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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