Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

[pod]

3 hours ago, pod said:

Why don't you give The Sun an exclusive.  Get in contact with them and tell them how a local charity is not being very charitable and how it could be the end of a historical football club.    

You don't have to say from who, other than from a Lord.  

[bazil85]

29 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

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.

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.

These are all things that can come up on any board with a split major shareholding. If anyone is under the impression that split major shareholding companies are all sunshine and rainbows, they’re of course wrong, if anyone is under the impression that they can’t work, they’re also wrong. It is also naive to think no problems exist when one party has over 75% shares in a company/ no secondary 25%+ shareholder. So what’s the bottom line here? Risk exists in business.

No matter what way you skin it, there’s risk in a fan ownership buyout. Any fan ownership can be scrutinised and any will have risk. Your options are then to avoid, reduce, share or retain the risk. If we assume the veto in it’s quoted form is a redline for Kibble (not sure if it is someone with more concerned with the veto can ask if they want), our options are retention or avoidance.

To come to a decision you focus on risk and reward, in other words is the benefit the Kibble bring worth the risk? That will depend on how severe you think this risk is (back to my point on scenario analysis/ risk appetite). Some have taken one look and said absolutely not, to me I think it’s pretty acceptable to imagine Kibble and SMFC will pull in the same direction, as such I’m happy to accept the risk. Doesn’t mean any one person is right or wrong, it’s all about risk appetite.

Your point I have highlighted on “never know” exists in all versions of all football ownership arrangements in the world. It isn’t a reason not to do business. As for it being too late for us to do anything, we are still the strongest party remember. This contributes to reducing the risk materialising. Kibble having us bent over as you put it, I can’t think of a realistic scenario for this. But back to my point, is this apparent risk of them vetoing St Mirren hampering major decisions, that no one can think of examples of, worth turning down the reward in dealing with the Kibble?

[bazil85]

28 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

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.

We have lots of information, I feel it's plenty. You might not, if so ask the questions. For me it's blowing up a minor risk. That's my view as someone that's worked in risk management for a long time. People don't need to share it but I have given clearly my points to why I feel that's the case. 

27 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

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.

For me this is you saying, maybe there will be disagreements between the parties. Of course there will be, it doesn’t mean they’ll be to the detriment of our club. A veto doesn’t mean they can push through something different. The same could happen with the larger SMISA majority, SMISA BOD members could (and would) disagree from time to time.

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Still trying to get the last word then, so you can claim victory? 

As I have said many times before, I enjoy this part of BAWA so the last word isn’t really the issue, still happy to give you it if that’s what you want? My claim of victory over you has nothing to do with who said the last word, it’s regarding the content of your posts. Arguments, returning to points you said you wouldn’t, simply claims of things that are wrong, etc.

As I have previously said a few times on this forum, there is an old saying, "accuracy is often mistaken for pedantry by the less intelligent".  Give me an example of where I have spun anything.

 Eh see above, like literally the sentence before “As I have…” And no, you are often pedantic. Another thing you do (often when frustrated at being constantly bested in debate) is try to call attention to intelligence.

I have challenged some of your claims though not a lot of them, mainly the details rather than the overall claim.  In fact, you seem to be taking a lot of my posts and opinions on this matter and rewording them as your own thoughts/ideas.  As I have already thought through them before I posted them myself, why would I challenge you repeating them?

1. Must have missed it, what claims did you challenge? No need to go back and find them (remember that) just a brief recap will do
2. I have taken none of your posts/ opinion as my own. The subject is very targeted, similar opinion is inevitable. I can assure you that nothing you’ve said so far has influenced my view on this topic.

My point was regarding us being on the same side on the points you challenge LPM on, as such I obviously wouldn’t expect you to challenge them. But again I am not repeating any of your points, all views are my own thanks. 

 

[WeeBud]

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We have lots of information, I feel it's plenty. You might not, if so ask the questions. For me it's blowing up a minor risk. That's my view as someone that's worked in risk management for a long time. People don't need to share it but I have given clearly my points to why I feel that's the case. 

For me this is you saying, maybe there will be disagreements between the parties. Of course there will be, it doesn’t mean they’ll be to the detriment of our club. A veto doesn’t mean they can push through something different. The same could happen with the larger SMISA majority, SMISA BOD members could (and would) disagree from time to time.

It means they can stop something happening that potentially could be good, financially at least, for the club in the example I gave you Baz which is somewhat different to just disagreeing, that is exactly what a veto is...………….that isn't an opinion it is a fact!!

[Lord Pityme]

It's all gone a bit Smeagol/Gollum around here. Lol

[Lord Pityme]

What happens if we are relegated and the usual cost cutting measures are brought in, and the club drops meals for the players?
I dont think Kibble are factoring in what, if any involvement they want if we drop out of the top league?
They kinda alluded to this in their proposal.

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

What happens if we are relegated and the usual cost cutting measures are brought in, and the club drops meals for the players?
I dont think Kibble are factoring in what, if any involvement they want if we drop out of the top league?
They kinda alluded to this in their proposal.

Aye you're right, no one has thought about the impact of relegation in this deal, lol

[bazil85]

21 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

It means they can stop something happening that potentially could be good, financially at least, for the club in the example I gave you Baz which is somewhat different to just disagreeing, that is exactly what a veto is...………….that isn't an opinion it is a fact!!

It is a fact that not all BOD members will agree all the time. It is a fact regardless of the Kibble proposal or otherwise. Yo're not highlighting risks that exist just because of a second major shareholder. Kibble vetoing a potential scenario isn't automatically a bad thing but it will overwhelmingly likely be an extreme minority of events, possibly never. 

I won't change my view on this, I have reviewed the deal in great depth and don't think the risk is close to big enough to question my vote. You can think otherwise, no drama. 

[WeeBud]

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It is a fact that not all BOD members will agree all the time. It is a fact regardless of the Kibble proposal or otherwise. Yo're not highlighting risks that exist just because of a second major shareholder. Kibble vetoing a potential scenario isn't automatically a bad thing but it will overwhelmingly likely be an extreme minority of events, possibly never. 

I won't change my view on this, I have reviewed the deal in great depth and don't think the risk is close to big enough to question my vote. You can think otherwise, no drama. 

I'm not sure I've read anything to suggest that anyone is trying to change your view and your view is something you're entitled to as is your vote.

Anyway this has taken up enough of my time this afternoon........I'm off to work on a Constitution I am helping to write for a set-up not too dissimilar to what we've been discussing...…...it will include a Constitution , the Rules of Governance (of said Constitution) By-Laws and areas of authority, spend limits etc. Having read a lot of the points in the various discussions on here and listened to others views and opinions  it has given my a broader understanding on the potential pitfalls of not protecting certain assets and aspects sufficiently....every day's a school day and all that!!

[stlucifer]

6 hours ago, bazil85 said:

The particular poster that has been leading this point has achieved exactly what he wanted (all be it with a very small number of contributors) what I would suggest to you is to do some scenario analysis. Envision some scenarios where the Kibble veto could be detrimental for St Mirren yet beneficial for them. Then determine how likely you think that scenario is. 
 

Before you do that though I would maybe evaluate your understanding. They will not have control to force through major decisions, only a veto. A 51% shareholder has control to stop any decision by nature of their holding. 
 

don’t mean for any of that to sound condescending by the way, just clarifying for you. 

I don't require clarification. And you ARE being condescending while assuming I have been duped by another poster's supposed machinations.

I have looked at the facts as they are put to us and have come to the conclusion that there is a case for NOT giving a minority shareholding the right to stop club business from being done.

It doesn't require me to give scenarios as I think it a matter of principal that the majority shareholder has the ability to run the club as they see fit. Do you really think Gordon Scott would be happy with this scenario while he holds the majority of shares? If not then, why not?

[stlucifer]

2 hours 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.  

"Major"  is entirely different from "special".

[bazil85]

56 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

I mentioned this in a reply to someone else earlier: you claiming that people have returned to the same argument when they haven't.  They have just highlighted the fact that you use the same faulty logic/constantly make unsupported assertions/fail to back up those assertions when asked to do so/use the same crap patter in just about every thread.

Where have I claimed something that is wrong?

My logic isn’t faulty, I do not make unsupported assertations (I feel I’m always clear when giving fact or opinion, if asked I clarify). I’ll back-up facts as I see fit, I take this approach because you’re far from the only pedantic poster on here.

Oh, how far must I go back? As I have said, I agree with much of your content to LPM (I go onto elaborate further down, this is usually the bit where you move the goalposts and claim you haven’t given a view on something or some sort… You know what you do, I don’t need to tell you)

1. That I claim getting the last word as victory
2. You wrongly claimed you wouldn’t get in an argument with me
3. You were wrong on acceptable use of the word “affordable”
4. You were wrong in claims you were “done” with certain argument points
5. There will be others but as above, I pick when I back-up facts because of pedantic posters

How is that spinning?  It's a f**king question.

It’s a leading question, related to a point I’ve already shown as wrong.

I call attention to peoples claims on pedantry.  See if people would just answer questions instead of body swerving them there would be no need for the pedantry claim (which seems to happen when people have been questioned on something that they have asserted as fact, but without any evidence) and therefore no need for me to bring up that quote.

Do you know what it is to be pedantic? You having the view that people should just answer your pedantic questions to avoid you being called pedantic is utter nonsense. I’ve called you out on it more than once, I’m not going to answer ridiculous questions to fan your ineffective argument style.   

f**ked if i can remember, but it was minor points.

Was it something pedantic?

Aye, OK. All your own work, eh?  Funny how your own opinions tend to come just after someone else has posted something almost identical.  you could save typing if you just quoted the person and used Ricky's "I agree" patter, rather than rewording it and presenting it as your own.  I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just that it has definitely been influenced by several other posters on here.

Can You give an example of this? Not saying it hasn’t happened because as I say it’s a targeted subject but I have not taken anyone’s ideas as my own. If there’s a crossover it’s because of the subject matter.

We're on the same side in challenging LPM?  I'm challenging him for using the same tactics as you do. 

Really? So views on the veto, the oversight point? This isn’t you taking a side, you’re just calling out LPM’s tactics… What a lot of work you’ve put in to sit on the fence. I find it strange that there isn’t a single comment where you say you don’t disagree with him, you just have issue with his approach though. Or have I missed it?   

 

[bazil85]

30 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

I don't require clarification. And you ARE being condescending while assuming I have been duped by another poster's supposed machinations.

I have looked at the facts as they are put to us and have come to the conclusion that there is a case for NOT giving a minority shareholding the right to stop club business from being done.

It doesn't require me to give scenarios as I think it a matter of principal that the majority shareholder has the ability to run the club as they see fit. Do you really think Gordon Scott would be happy with this scenario while he holds the majority of shares? If not then, why not?

I've came to the conclusion the reward is worth the risk, if you think the risk of Kibble using this to the detriment of SMFC as opposed to protect their investment fine. 

Yes I think he would, the scenario remains a veto for major decisions, they don't have the power some are suggesting to run the club. I think from the comments GLS would be of the opinion Kibble will pull in the same direction as SMFC. 

[bazil85]

25 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

"Major"  is entirely different from "special".

Read up on it, the decisions they can influence can be written into special resolution. The examples given are perfectly reasonable in my opinion. I think there are just a number of people that have blown up a very minor risk. I guess time will tell if it goes through. 

[Ayrshire Saints]

You mean the shirts won't have Kibble emblazoned across them [emoji44]

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

[portmahomack saint]

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Read up on it, the decisions they can influence can be written into special resolution. The examples given are perfectly reasonable in my opinion. I think there are just a number of people that have blown up a very minor risk. I guess time will tell if it goes through. 

That's the big issue, They shouldn't have any influence 

[StanleySaint]

You should try a calculator first.....
1200 members x £175 = £210,000
Second with                  = £210,000
Total                                 = £420,000

So is that calculation based on one stand or two?

[WeeBud]

17 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

You mean the shirts won't have Kibble emblazoned across them

They may well do but I doubt very much if would be Bet-Kibble or Kibble-Bet that we'd see!!

[pod]

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

I dont think Kibble are factoring in what, if any involvement they want if we drop out of the top league?
They kinda alluded to this in their proposal.

They're business men. Probably not clever enough to think of that. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by pod

[Brilliant Disguise]

2 hours ago, Dickson said:

I don't know if you are counting me as one of the biggest critics but I think my journey has been well documented and it's not puzzling at all. I remain completely supportive of fan ownership and completely committed to community partnerships between football clubs and their local community groups. I just have two issues with this deal. 

1. I don't understand why the community group, Kibble, has to pay £300k for shares they themselves appear to believe are completely worthless, just to gain access to facilities that they should be able to rent from the club anyway,. 

2. I don't get how giving a third party a veto on any major decisions that fans make in the club they own fits any form of the concept of what fan ownership is supposed to be about. 

The £300k i presume gives the Kibble a guaranteed opportunity to pitch to the board their ideas that would be mutually beneficial to both the Club and the Kibble. Without the shares they are just another 3rd party pitching. There have been moans by others of a lack of additional revenue schemes to date however they are also against a body wanting to prove their track record of generating a revenue stream.

 

The other points re the veto. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board then deliberately sabotage the running of the club. Surely all members on a board should work together for the benefit of the company. That’s what being a Director in law requires you to do. There will be times when board members disagree. However a good Director swallows his pride accepts the decision and moves on. A egotistical huffy board member with their own agenda spits the dummy out, goes on line to advise all that want to listen about how the big boys stole his baw, proceed to resign from the board then continually berate every movement that the former board do.

As i have stated already. In my opinion SMISA running the entire club is a disaster in the making. I have yet to see anyone to date with capability of running the club and drive it forward. On line you now start to see individuals old and new trying to get themselves noticed as potential board candidates. The BTB needs a 3rd party to assist in running the club. 

[Lord Pityme]

The £300k i presume gives the Kibble a guaranteed opportunity to pitch to the board their ideas that would be mutually beneficial to both the Club and the Kibble. Without the shares they are just another 3rd party pitching. There have been moans by others of a lack of additional revenue schemes to date however they are also against a body wanting to prove their track record of generating a revenue stream.
 
The other points re the veto. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board then deliberately sabotage the running of the club. Surely all members on a board should work together for the benefit of the company. That’s what being a Director in law requires you to do. There will be times when board members disagree. However a good Director swallows his pride accepts the decision and moves on. A egotistical huffy board member with their own agenda spits the dummy out, goes on line to advise all that want to listen about how the big boys stole his baw, proceed to resign from the board then continually berate every movement that the former board do.
As i have stated already. In my opinion SMISA running the entire club is a disaster in the making. I have yet to see anyone to date with capability of running the club and drive it forward. On line you now start to see individuals old and new trying to get themselves noticed as potential board candidates. The BTB needs a 3rd party to assist in running the club. 

Back again Div?

[Brilliant Disguise]

Just now, Lord Pityme said:

5 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

The £300k i presume gives the Kibble a guaranteed opportunity to pitch to the board their ideas that would be mutually beneficial to both the Club and the Kibble. Without the shares they are just another 3rd party pitching. There have been moans by others of a lack of additional revenue schemes to date however they are also against a body wanting to prove their track record of generating a revenue stream.
 
The other points re the veto. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board then deliberately sabotage the running of the club. Surely all members on a board should work together for the benefit of the company. That’s what being a Director in law requires you to do. There will be times when board members disagree. However a good Director swallows his pride accepts the decision and moves on. A egotistical huffy board member with their own agenda spits the dummy out, goes on line to advise all that want to listen about how the big boys stole his baw, proceed to resign from the board then continually berate every movement that the former board do.
As i have stated already. In my opinion SMISA running the entire club is a disaster in the making. I have yet to see anyone to date with capability of running the club and drive it forward. On line you now start to see individuals old and new trying to get themselves noticed as potential board candidates. The BTB needs a 3rd party to assist in running the club. 

Back again Div?

Nope. Nor am I GLS, JLS or Bazil (mad as a)

I’m Spartacus 

[Lord Pityme]

Nope. Nor am I GLS, JLS or Bazil (mad as a)
I’m Spartacus 

Hi ho Silver..!
Funny this you coming on given the smisa board consider everyone on bawa, and the Facebook fan page as lunatics, not to be engaged with.

[madball]

After much deliberating I've decided to vote no. A lot of what Kibble would bring to the table is commendable and would certainly help in aspects of the club, however concerning is the fact that this has been carved up without looking at other ways to get members more actively involved and also the structure of the deal.

I've been on other committees and always found that when the consequences of non-activity were laid out then people understood and came forward. I'll hold my hands up and say that I didn't come forward last twice as my other activities elsewhere wouldn't have meant that I had spare capacity to do anything. It seems underhand to have progressed as far as they have with the proposed deal without advising members we were considering looking for alternative options to the 71% model and also not to present any case around alternatives (ie other charities / organisations approached).

On the structure of the deal I'm not comfortable with what has been stated regarding number of seats and potential veto. The ability for material decisions, which may be in the financial best interests of the club, but at odds with the direction of Kibble, to be vetoed is not what I'd want from the board. The board have talked previously about putting financial sense ahead of the wishes of fans (Old Firm in Family Stand), but are now recommending a deal where shackles will be put on the ability to make directional decisions that could be profound for financial well-being.