Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

50 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. 

We could appoint from outside the club someone with expertise in finance and running high office willing to work for minimum wage....  Derek MacKay's looking for a job  :toilet

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest TPAFKATS
We could appoint from outside the club someone with expertise in finance and running high office willing to work for minimum wage....  Derek MacKay's looking for a job  :toilet
Not yet he's not, unfortunately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two other articles on the home page are about a game that was postponed. The club should be actively promoting the game on Friday. Our priority must be to stay in the league. 

 

I am referring to the two articles referencing the cup tie

One match info and the other a buddievision interview with Jim Goodwin dated 17th Feb

Agree with priorities games wise but editorial content of website is first come first dealt with, so cup tie first

Set timer for first Hearts article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, portmahomack saint said:

We could appoint from outside the club someone with expertise in finance and running high office willing to work for minimum wage....  Derek MacKay's looking for a job  :toilet

But don't let him anywhere near the academy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go onto Hearts website. They are actively promoting hospitality beam back for Friday night at Tynecastle and also QF.

What we really need is Basil getting the gig of “Head of PR and Communication”. 

Not interested in Hearts website

Do they have a game before Friday to discuss/promote coz we do

No! hence promoting their own agendas for Friday night

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Go onto Hearts website. They are actively promoting hospitality beam back for Friday night at Tynecastle and also QF.
What we really need is Basil getting the gig of “Head of PR and Communication”. 
You sure he's not already in post as head of PR and comms [emoji1]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Voting cant be going to plan when smisa are all over these boards and fan Facebook page desperately trying to smear anyone with the temerity to question or challenge the Kibble proposal.
Very unedifying, and will be, as these things always are, noted by the support.

Can you please point out to me one instance of SMISA trying to smear anyone. I have yet to see SMISA post on any thread on BWA never mind this one. Every post is the persons personal opinion. I think you are imagining / hearing things again. As I stated well back in the thread you are gagging to call the vote "rigged" if it goes against how you would have voted if you had a say which we all know you don't. The result will be a fair and binding one no matter which way it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please point out to me one instance of SMISA trying to smear anyone. I have yet to see SMISA post on any thread on BWA never mind this one. Every post is the persons personal opinion. I think you are imagining / hearing things again. As I stated well back in the thread you are gagging to call the vote "rigged" if it goes against how you would have voted if you had a say which we all know you don't. The result will be a fair and binding one no matter which way it goes.

So its 'your opinion' that states as gospel what my future intentions may, or may not be?

Ffs read that back to yourself pal... its bonkers.

 

Just stick to your line of disagreeing with anything I comment on, even if its unquestionably correct. Lol

Then natural order will be maintained.

 

Edit: for official smisa smear campaign read on here posts by 'Brilliant Disguise'... although its actually a piss poor disguise that practically leads to the posters front door!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dickson said:

Let me deal with the middle paragraph first. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board and then deliberately sabotage the running of a club. If I can point you in the direction of Stockport County as a place to do a bit of research you might notice that a man called Brian Kennedy put in substantially more than ten times that amount into the club clearing off the clubs debts in a deal done with the supporters trust - with part of the deal being that Sale Sharks, whom he owned, would ground share at Edgeley Park. At the time, on the face of it, it looked like a tempting deal. It didn't quite work out that way in the end though. I'd encourage you to read up on it. It landed up with Stockport County committing to pay 30% of all transfer fees to the Sale Sharks owner. 

Now I'm not saying that Kibble are in anyway doing something as shifty as that, but they will be getting their £300k back one way or another and that veto is a very powerful weapon to have to ensure they get what they want. 

As for the pitching to the board, trust me, if SMISA think that there is a mutual benefit to working with Kibble they would listen to whatever pitch they were making anyway. Kibble wouldn't need to be minority shareholders with a powerful veto to make that happen. 

As for the last paragraph, I hope you aren't counting me in the list of people you think are making a pitch as a potential board candidate but just incase you are can I dispel that notion. At no point have I ever tried to gain favour with anyone on these forums or with any St Mirren fan. I have no desire to be on any committee or board at senior football level in Scotland. I've done my time on committees at amateur level in two different sports and I'm at a stage in my life where I want to enjoy my spare time. I agree that fan ownership can be difficult, and there have been disastrous examples like the Stockport County one. The leadership of these things is hugely important and I'd agree I don't see the right sort of people at SMISA currently. But that's not to say that those who could run the club don't exist amongst the support. Apart from anything else AFIAK Gordon Scott and Stewart Gilmour are both members of SMISA.  

 

 

The Stockport/Kennedy situation is not the same as the SMISA/Kibble one. Kennedy put money in to the club as a loan to bankroll them and prevent them going under. He stipulated conditions for the repayments of his loan. I appreciate that there is irony on how that all turned out. It’s not the same as buying £300k of shares to get on a board where you have no control to force your own agenda through. You may have a “veto” however to use it continually would question their role on the board and their own agenda. Ultimately the business would fail with blatant use of the veto.

Like most people i am slightly sceptical of why KIbble are doing this and what they get from it. However they have a long established business that has been developed on Core Local Values. They do not have a reputation of being parasites or asset strippers. They appear to have a desire to build and work with from within on another long established business.

Idealistically its not the fans ownership that i romantically dreamed of. However what is the alternative. Fans with agendas and chips on their shoulders trying to run a £m business as if it was a bowling club. Businesses are not run by committees, they are run by a strong board of flexible Directors who can adapt and move with the times.

The Directors of a business are the custodians of said business. It is their responsibility to ensure that they leave it in a better place than when they started.

 

Edited by Brilliant Disguise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Stockport/Kennedy situation is not the same as the SMISA/Kibble one. Kennedy put money in to the club as a loan to bankroll them and prevent them going under. He stipulated conditions for the repayments of his loan. I appreciate that there is irony on how that all turned out. It’s not the same as buying £300k of shares to get on a board where you have no control to force your own agenda through. You may have a “veto” however to use it continually would question their role on the board and their own agenda. Ultimately the business would fail with blatant use of the veto.
Like most people i am slightly sceptical of why KIbble are doing this and what they get from it. However they have a long established business that has been developed on Core Local Values. They do not have a reputation of being parasites or asset strippers. They appear to have a desire to build and work with from within on another long established business.
Idealistically its not the fans ownership that i romantically dreamed of. However what is the alternative. Fans with agendas and chips on their shoulders trying to run a £m business as if it was a bowling club. Businesses are not run by committees, they are run by a strong board of flexible Directors who can adapt and move with the times.
The Directors of a business are the custodians of said business. It is their responsibility to ensure that they leave it in a better place than when they started.
 
You do know you are talking directly to smisa?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

So its 'your opinion' that states as gospel what my future intentions may, or may not be?

Ffs read that back to yourself pal... its bonkers.

 

Just stick to your line of disagreeing with anything I comment on, even if its unquestionably correct. Lol

Then natural order will be maintained.

 

Edit: for official smisa smear campaign read on here posts by 'Brilliant Disguise'... although its actually a piss poor disguise that practically leads to the posters front door!

What bit was that. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

So why do Smisa not have vetoes currently?

SMISA current have over 25% of shares. This technically allows them to have this magic “veto” that everyone keeps alluding to.

 

In fact we are being brainwashed to believe that GLS not only runs SMFC he runs SMISA with a strangle hold equivalent to Kim Jong Um. Yet he only has 51% shares in the club.

Now that apparently SMISA will only get 51% they will have no influence on how to run the club

Wake up and smell the pish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

So its 'your opinion' that states as gospel what my future intentions may, or may not be?

Ffs read that back to yourself pal... its bonkers.

 

Just stick to your line of disagreeing with anything I comment on, even if its unquestionably correct. Lol

Then natural order will be maintained.

 

Edit: for official smisa smear campaign read on here posts by 'Brilliant Disguise'... although its actually a piss poor disguise that practically leads to the posters front door!

You should change your alias to Irony Man. 

Smear Campaigns. That all you do. Nothing constructive just smear, agenda, innuendo, bitterness with sauce for the massive chip.

It started with Richard Atkinson and when he left you moved on to the next target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMISA current have over 25% of shares. This technically allows them to have this magic “veto” that everyone keeps alluding to.
 
In fact we are being brainwashed to believe that GLS not only runs SMFC he runs SMISA with a strangle hold equivalent to Kim Jong Um. Yet he only has 51% shares in the club.
Now that apparently SMISA will only get 51% they will have no influence on how to run the club
Wake up and smell the pish
If Scott doesn't control smisa, how come the membership have not been consulted on ONE issue since BtB landed?
Despite assurances from smisa and Scott they would@
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should change your alias to Irony Man. 
Smear Campaigns. That all you do. Nothing constructive just smear, agenda, innuendo, bitterness with sauce for the massive chip.
It started with Richard Atkinson and when he left you moved on to the next target.
Nice... true colours out now.
Wonder who the forum reckon you are?
Lets play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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