Brilliant Disguise Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: 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@ You were part of the inner circle, you sold me the BTB dream. Why did you allow GLS to control SMISA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brilliant Disguise Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: I think he's you. I think its him also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brilliant Disguise Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 48 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Facts smisa. What's the committee view on providing a benefit to one member (GLS) by facilitating his profit in share dealings, contrary to the constitution,? Asking for a lot of friends. Again more innuendo. Is it profit ? Profit is where you buy for a price and sell for a greater price. The friends bit is just blatant lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brilliant Disguise Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: So, if you're him and he's you, who the f**k am I? I think he is you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally02 Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: So, if you're him and he's you, who the f**k am I? Lord Above - oops! Lord Pity Me? Someone in the House of Lords! Screaming Lord Such ? Only the Lord knows! LPM - who is he? Edited February 18, 2020 by sally02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Again more innuendo. Is it profit ? Profit is where you buy for a price and sell for a greater price. The friends bit is just blatant liesWell in the case of breaching the smisa constitution, whether a member makes more than they paid for something is irrelevant!The question is are they benefitting from being a smisa member?And unquestionably in this case, this member is. This is evidenced by the smisa committee requesting ALL smisa members to vote, to change an agreement, the outcome of which is ONE member benefitting to the tune of £300k, a d the membership getting a diminished settlement than agreed, and voted on.A clearly cut breach of the constitution, it could not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Nah loads of people know me on here.They dont know who...Brilliant Disguise/CocklesSlarti BSallyBazilEtc.. etc.. are.Now theres irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperately Seeking Susans Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 I'm Spartacus!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally02 Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Ok Kirk! RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally02 Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Nah loads of people know me on here. They dont know who... Brilliant Disguise/Cockles Slarti B Sally Bazil Etc.. etc.. are. Now theres irony! I know who you are - I was asking you who Slarti was? Irony ? - An Edinburgh punter asking his new burd if she can press clothes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 3 hours 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. Would you count on it, given your underwhelming record regarding SMISA claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 On 2/17/2020 at 11:51 AM, Slartibartfast said: If the deal is not voted through and SMiSa numbers drop as a result, who is going to pick up the slack? See what I did there? I don't think anyone has said that there definitely isn't the skill set there, they have said that very few has put themselves forward for election who have the required skill set. In fact there are just very few at all who have put themselves forward for election. Maybe because some of those who have different opinions went in a wee huff and quit SMiSA rather than staying and fighting for what they believe. Just a thought. SMISA numbers to drop after a decision to stick to the original plan that they signed up to? Interesting concept, but far less likely than the other scenario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: SMISA numbers to drop after a decision to stick to the original plan that they signed up to? Interesting concept, but far less likely than the other scenario Based on? Seen very few people openly saying they would consider quitting. Few (probably more) comments about people looking to rejoin/ join. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Why don't Smisa have vetoes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Why don't Smisa have vetoes?They never sought them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshire Saints Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 2 hours 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! So you are now assuming that a poster is actually SMISA in "disguise" - you are losing it big time, conspiracy theories coming out your ears now. As for the opening sentence we will see peoples reactions when the result is announced - not long to wait. Like the vast majority I won't be bothered either way, the membership will decide and I will abide by it. The fun will be watching others react. I expect a lot of toys out of the pram regardless of how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Why don't Smisa have vetoes?SMISA have the same power as Kibble if the case arose where they objected to a decision made by the chairman. I asked that question in an email last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 So you are now assuming that a poster is actually SMISA in "disguise" - you are losing it big time, conspiracy theories coming out your ears now. As for the opening sentence we will see peoples reactions when the result is announced - not long to wait. Like the vast majority I won't be bothered either way, the membership will decide and I will abide by it. The fun will be watching others react. I expect a lot of toys out of the pram regardless of how it goes.You say 'toys out of prams' if members do as they are asked and cast a vote? Who hurt you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 18, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Is the member "benefiting" from being a member, or are they "benefiting" and a member? In other words, is this deal reliant on GLS being a member of SMiSA?Immaterial...The fact is he is benefitting as member as a vote of the entire membership has been called to facilitate the sale of his shares.He couldn't sell them any other way until ten years were up, and smisa reneged on the agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brilliant Disguise Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said: Well in the case of breaching the smisa constitution, whether a member makes more than they paid for something is irrelevant! The question is are they benefitting from being a smisa member? And unquestionably in this case, this member is. This is evidenced by the smisa committee requesting ALL smisa members to vote, to change an agreement, the outcome of which is ONE member benefitting to the tune of £300k, a d the membership getting a diminished settlement than agreed, and voted on. A clearly cut breach of the constitution, it could not be. Your now changing your claim of the earlier post from quote “benefit to one member (GLS) by facilitating his profit in share dealings, contrary to the constitution,” To now GLS is diminishing the SMISA settlement of getting 51% of shares for 51% of the cost. Is the reduced percentage really that relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iamhammer Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said: Your now changing your claim of the earlier post from quote “benefit to one member (GLS) by facilitating his profit in share dealings, contrary to the constitution,” To now GLS is diminishing the SMISA settlement of getting 51% of shares for 51% of the cost. Is the reduced percentage really that relevant As far as I'm concerned yes, if I entered into an agreement to buy 71 % of say land, and then the seller decides that I can only have 51 % and that a new 3rd party will have a veto on what I want to do with the land, I would remove myself from the deal and look for my money back. Add this to the fact that, the kibble get the shares and GLS gets 300k (which they are both entitled to if the deal goes ahead), then why are SMISA paying the legal fees? This not only puzzles me but gives concerns for the future as to what else we will pay for. Edited February 18, 2020 by Iamhammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 Quote from SMISA re shareholding..."Kibble are making a massive investment in St Mirren in terms of cash, staff time, and their own operations, but for them to be able to do so... they need a degree of influence over that investment, which only a shareholding will give." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said: Nah loads of people know me on here. They dont know who... Brilliant Disguise/Cockles Slarti B Sally Bazil Etc.. etc.. are. Now theres irony! Good few people on here know me, if anyone is that interested in that fine but as others have said, I see little point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapsalmon Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 3 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said: SMISA current have over 25% of shares. This technically allows them to have this magic “veto” that everyone keeps alluding to. The new deal appears to have a veto drawn up in a legal agreement to allow them to block more than what would be deemed normal under company operating structures. Something which is not there now for smisa. At the moment smisa as a 25% shareholder have the right to block special resolutions. The question being asked I believe is why are kibble being afforded more power than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted February 18, 2020 Report Share Posted February 18, 2020 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 pishYou've pretty much proven the point without realising it.GS has a majority of shares and currently gets pretty much what he wants at board level. SMISA can't veto anything. SMISA will have the same amount once they buy GS shares, if this proposal goes through, however kibble WILL have a veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts