Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

And there you go, bringing up situations where I gave you the last word and claiming victory.  You're just after saying that you don't do that. :hammer

 

I'm not on any side here.  Where would you get that idea from?  Where have I stated my preference on the way the vote should go?  All I have done is point out and question the flaws in claims from both sides.  It just so happens that, in this thread, most of them have come from your mirror image poster.

Nope, just situations where you were wrong, spinning, being needlessly pedantic in debate and how I called you out on it. The last word was completely irrelevant, I even offered it to you multiple times and you chose repetitive messages over an admittance you wanted it. Same goes here, if you want it, just ask. 

The side where LPM is being beyond ridiculous in some of his claims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, guinness said:

if Kibble is only interested in using the catering side etc for training purposes would it really matter to them which division we are in? Is there not a danger they could veto some decision that could keep us up but be costly?

That makes no sense. A strong SMFC means a more financially sound SMFC and a larger profile. No major shareholder would want the company they've invested in to take a considerable drop in income. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Yep. They don't have a veto on "anything" just what would be considered a special resolution under the arrangement. There are some points that always come under that but it isn't exhaustive. Special resolutions can be written into an agreement for other decisions that would not normally need to come under special. The nature of a football club makes this very subjective. A look online there isn’t a great deal of information and there is nothing in the legislation that details to the contrary. The main concerns on these pages are around the examples (astro pitch, selling sponsorship rights). As I have said before, this might put the fear into some with a very high risk adverse outlook but I suggest they do some scenario analysis. What realistic scenario could come-up that would benefit Kibble and hamper SMFC (considering that a sponsorship deal linked to the Kibble that we didn’t want would very likely have conflict of interest repercussions anyway). Kibble also can’t propose and carry special. Normal resolutions with their shareholding.

The main reason why I would “accept the risk” is the very likely situation where Kibble and SMFC will mutually benefit from being pulled in the same direction.

Come now Baz, they will have veto over "major decisions", this is where it is different from the "special resolution" situation.

Again I am not saying that this is all a bad thing and I'm still undecided which way I'll vote but let's stick to "actual" facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Yep. They don't have a veto on "anything" just what would be considered a special resolution under the arrangement. There are some points that always come under that but it isn't exhaustive. Special resolutions can be written into an agreement for other decisions that would not normally need to come under special. The nature of a football club makes this very subjective. A look online there isn’t a great deal of information and there is nothing in the legislation that details to the contrary. The main concerns on these pages are around the examples (astro pitch, selling sponsorship rights). As I have said before, this might put the fear into some with a very high risk adverse outlook but I suggest they do some scenario analysis. What realistic scenario could come-up that would benefit Kibble and hamper SMFC (considering that a sponsorship deal linked to the Kibble that we didn’t want would very likely have conflict of interest repercussions anyway). Kibble also can’t propose and carry special. Normal resolutions with their shareholding.

The main reason why I would “accept the risk” is the very likely situation where Kibble and SMFC will mutually benefit from being pulled in the same direction.

Do we as a club know what these special resolutions would be that would allow Kibble to have their veto?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Ok the OP is a bit tongue in cheek, but the underlying question remains.
If this deal is voted through, and smisa numbers drop as a result?
Who is going to pick up the slack?
The general nature of football fans will probably mean that they assume that Kibble are in charge, and will fund the club. Raising the very clear & present danger of smfc turning into Kibble FC by default/apathy/inevitability...
The point (completely wrong imo) being made by some is "well there isnt the skill set required among saints fans to run the club anyway"

Really? How so with Hearts & Well, oh yes and as the smisa chair likes to suggest our mirror image Barcelona?

I agree too many of the wrong people are in there now, but the fans have had little influence in shaping that.
Where we are at imo is the current board & smisa saying "we're done, its beyond us" so they, and minded members see Kibble as a safe haven. Nice and comfy, just kick back and let Kibble do it all.

To me we are at 'Point Break'... that being we really need to take a decision to break the apathy/laziness/lack of giving a f**k etc and 'break' what's setting in, so we can reset on tbe right path for fans, club and community.

See this for what it is, the board and Smisa are throwing in the cap, in the hope that, as Homer Simpson asks.. "cant somebody else do it?"

Through saving face, refusing to admit their done etc, etc... choosing the wrong people.

They are turning away from fans to hide/save admitting their shortcomings, and dressing this up as REAL fan ownership despite having already declared the last proposal was that and so much more.

It's 'Point Break' buds... will you just slide the slippers on and let it wash over you, or Break it, to Fix it..?

Verbose kech, you can't half speak a lot and say feck all ........of interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

So it's only relevant when you say it is?  That explains a lot, actually.

 

Do you think I'm on LPM's side now?  You earlier claimed that I was on your side.

But again I haven’t done what you claim regarding the last word so you’re point... once again, is irrelevant. 
 

regarding which part Exactly? Remember I will always call you out on your word spin and pedantic debating techniques. 
 

I’ve not seen you challenge me on my view regarding the proposal so far, you’ve challenged him multiple times. so I’d say still on mine regarding him talking rubbish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Come now Baz, they will have veto over "major decisions", this is where it is different from the "special resolution" situation.

Again I am not saying that this is all a bad thing and I'm still undecided which way I'll vote but let's stick to "actual" facts. 

As I go onto say it’s not. Research online you’ll see ‘special resolutions’ aren’t exhaustive and are often defined when the share dealing is proposed/ finalised. Exactly what we are saying. 
 

again I would urge anyone to do some scenario analysis. The risk is there but I genuinely can’t understand anyone coming to a conclusion beyond minimum.  
 

as for dealing in ‘actual facts’ it’s actual fact that risk exists in practically any business venture. We are dealing in severity of risk not existence of. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Do we as a club know what these special resolutions would be that would allow Kibble to have their veto?

Some examples included but not an exhaustive list. The nature of special resolutions is they aren’t exhaustive, can check that in the legislation behind them. And in many other companies documentation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

As I go onto say it’s not. Research online you’ll see ‘special resolutions’ aren’t exhaustive and are often defined when the share dealing is proposed/ finalised. Exactly what we are saying. 
 

again I would urge anyone to do some scenario analysis. The risk is there but I genuinely can’t understand anyone coming to a conclusion beyond minimum.  

Baz, I don't have to research online I have personal experience to rely on and know the difference. Again I am not saying anything against the deal or Kibble but it all has to be understood and unfortunately you regularly blur the lines!!

Interesting wee bit in bold don't you think!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reluctant to comment on this, as I am not in possession of all the facts. To do otherwise amounts to speculation. 

https://www.kibble.org - info gleaned from the website indicates it's a children's charity. I can see why a relationship with such a charity might be mutually beneficial - football being a good, wholesome activity and the club helping local children and potentially growing our fan base. It costs the club very little to allow kids to sit in unsold seats, for example.

The charity certainly has a large income: https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=SC026917

What are people's concerns about the charity's involvement? Personally I cannot see any problem. It's clearly a professionally run organisation and if the club can benefit from the charity's management, then all is good. I think the club and the charity have some shared aims, and can work together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Some examples included but not an exhaustive list. The nature of special resolutions is they aren’t exhaustive, can check that in the legislation behind them. And in many other companies documentation. 

If I was eligible to vote in this, I’d want to know exactly what Kibble could potentially veto before I voted in favour. It feels like we are going blind into this. 

I have my concerns about fan ownership itself (although I back the idea of a football club being owned by people who actually care about it), but I also struggle with the idea of a fan owned club who can be overridden by an outside company. We should be aiming to get all of the details regarding things like the veto before voting on this IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we as a club know what these special resolutions would be that would allow Kibble to have their veto?
Baz is clutching at imaginary straws. Kibble dont need special resolutions to veto things, they can just do it in the boardroom as the proposal states there have to be Three-way agreements.
Some feckin threesome that'll be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Baz, I don't have to research online I have personal experience to rely on and know the difference. Again I am not saying anything against the deal or Kibble but it all has to be understood and unfortunately you regularly blur the lines!!

Interesting wee bit in bold don't you think!!

The issue is the lines are blurred, if you have experience yourself you’ll know the subjective nature of this legislation.

If you’re suggesting I am in anyway linked to the Kibble or this deal, I’m not. The we debating the side on the chat that the veto is not a big risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

If I was eligible to vote in this, I’d want to know exactly what Kibble could potentially veto before I voted in favour. It feels like we are going blind into this. 

I have my concerns about fan ownership itself (although I back the idea of a football club being owned by people who actually care about it), but I also struggle with the idea of a fan owned club who can be overridden by an outside company. We should be aiming to get all of the details regarding things like the veto before voting on this IMO.

It’s a fair ask if that’s what concerns you. just not something that worries me. The list provided and wording regarding “major” is enough for me. As I have said, I can think of very few scenarios that hampering SMFC would benefit the Kibble and none of them are likely to materialise due to our shareholding and the detrimental impact it would have on both sides.

Different people have different feelings towards risk though, absolutely fine. IMO it is a massively risk averse outlook that would be concerned with this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Baz is clutching at imaginary straws. Kibble dont need special resolutions to veto things, they can just do it in the boardroom as the proposal states there have to be Three-way agreements.
Some feckin threesome that'll be.

Still waiting on anyone given me some plausible scenarios where this would be an issue. Best I've had is an urban legend that supposedly happened once in 140+ years lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Still waiting on anyone given me some plausible scenarios where this would be an issue. Best I've had is an urban legend that supposedly happened once in 140+ years lol. 

Somebody did way at the start Baz......shirt sponsorship, now would that come under major decision or special resolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It’s a fair ask if that’s what concerns you. just not something that worries me. The list provided and wording regarding “major” is enough for me. As I have said, I can think of very few scenarios that hampering SMFC would benefit the Kibble and none of them are likely to materialise due to our shareholding and the detrimental impact it would have on both sides.

Different people have different feelings towards risk though, absolutely fine. IMO it is a massively risk averse outlook that would be concerned with this.  

Therein lies the problem - “major”. What one believes to be minor, another may believe to be major. There’s no line drawn.

It is fair to say you can’t envisage a scenario where Kibble may benefit from hampering SMFC, but we never know what potential scenarios will be thrown up and I think with it being a massive situation for the club (there aren’t many things bigger than change of ownership/key shareholders), I feel we need to address this with foresight instead of hindsight. In other words, a scenario we may not see right now happens in future, and suddenly we have our eyes opened to what the potential scenario would be. By then it’s too late to do anything, and if they wanted, Kibble would have us bent over ready to be rammed. I’m not suggesting that Kibble will do this, but I struggle with the idea that a fan-owned club can only proceed with what it wants if the outside company agrees.

41 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Baz is clutching at imaginary straws. Kibble dont need special resolutions to veto things, they can just do it in the boardroom as the proposal states there have to be Three-way agreements.
Some feckin threesome that'll be.

You’ve summed up my main concern. The fan owned club who can only do what they want if the outsider agrees to it. I feel there are many, many more questions and answers needed before a vote takes place. This has come around too quick and feels too rushed for my liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Somebody did way at the start Baz......shirt sponsorship, now would that come under major decision or special resolution?

That doesn't mean they would veto something at our determent, they also don't have the power to put something through without SMISA backing. My ask was a plausible scenario that would likely materialise as an issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The issue is the lines are blurred, if you have experience yourself you’ll know the subjective nature of this legislation.

If you’re suggesting I am in anyway linked to the Kibble or this deal, I’m not. The we debating the side on the chat that the veto is not a big risk.

They don't have to be blurred if the Constitution , the Rules of Governance (of said Constitution) and By-Laws are written properly, it is also possible to have areas of authority, spend limits etc written in as well …………. I think as much of this info should have been issued before anyone was asked to vote on something this important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

That doesn't mean they would veto something at our determent, they also don't have the power to put something through without SMISA backing. My ask was a plausible scenario that would likely materialise as an issue. 

Why is this not plausible Baz, they may veto on ethical grounds (something I might even agree on but that is an irrelevance)re betting sponsorship for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’ve summed up my main concern. The fan owned club who can only do what they want if the outsider agrees to it. I feel there are many, many more questions and answers needed before a vote takes place. This has come around too quick and feels too rushed for my liking.
I think that's a position many find themselves in.
If it's such a good proposal, and it's been worked on for months, then why arent smisa representing the support and insisting a proper and rigorous consultation period is applied.
Then all stakeholders who wish to, can properly test and challenge Smisa, smfc and Kibble!
And perhaps come to more than one option for a successful partnership, or at least deal with the biggest issue ever facing supporters.
That being voting to allow someone else take over more that a quarter of the club!
The haste, bluff, spin and done deal thinking behind this is an affront to smisa operating S a Community Benefit Society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this not plausible Baz, they may veto on ethical grounds (something I might even agree on but that is an irrelevance)re betting sponsorship for example.
And therein lies another example of people acting like smisa & the club by trying to shout down legitimate concerns.
If they had a applied a proper 3 month consultation process then the support may have felt more onboard having had the opportunity to shape the proposal, rather than it being presented as a done deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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