Lord Pityme Posted February 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 Is this one of our potential new board members?BBC News - Council leader Mark Macmillan given non disclosure 'ban'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26480939 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 A six year old article where the watchdog said he was guilty of an oversight.Your trolling's getting worse - you really must try harder.Thanks for highlighting the 'guilty' aspect. LolMaybe they ban innocent councillors though? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 fact this, evidence that Then "I presume"! Now that is an 'Irony Alert' lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 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 More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 20 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: 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 They correlated, clear for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 19 hours ago, Slartibartfast said: 21 hours ago, bazil85 said: But it's relevant going back to the related post. My comment had nothing to do with that post, so still irrelevant. Seemed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 20 hours ago, BuddieinEK said: or Baz! 20 hours ago, BuddieinEK said: Just because we remember differently doesn't mean one of us has to be wrong Slarti! 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! 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! 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 More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 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 More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 NoI hope you are right.I truly do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 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 More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Cornwall_Saint Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 Is it really a fan owned club when an outside company has a veto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smcc Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 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 More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 The question asked is whether the the veto presents NO danger or risk to St Mirren. Your answer means that you think it does!Your point is?Do you believe it presents NO risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 In a few years if the SMiSA membership voted to keep the family stand free from the two arse cheeks would Kibble veto that decision? If given a mandate... Of course they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 I bet that would not happen in the Bundesliga with the 50+1 ownership model that some would have us believe applies to SMiSA-Kibble partnership.It would if GLS said so and Baz had a vote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 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 More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 15, 2020 Report Share Posted February 15, 2020 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. Still can't count to one!Still cannot answer a question as asked!Still the need for spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 16, 2020 Report Share Posted February 16, 2020 Did you read up on the "oversight"?Would you trust him with your online passwords? [emoji50][emoji850] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted February 16, 2020 Report Share Posted February 16, 2020 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 More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 16, 2020 Report Share Posted February 16, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 16, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2020 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..VotedSpoke and seconded a proposal to award his employers a contract.....Oversight, or load of shite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 16, 2020 Report Share Posted February 16, 2020 9 hours ago, BuddieinEK said: Still can't count to one! Still cannot answer a question as asked! Still the need for spin. If you insist answered raging that I called you out on your reverse psychology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 16, 2020 Report Share Posted February 16, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts