Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

[Lord Pityme]

 
 
 

 
I'm wrong on no fronts, and you know that Baz, I mean, LPM.
 
So they aren't reneging then. OK.
 
If I renegotiated my mortgage deal so a neighbour could buy a part of "my" land, am I reneging on my deal with the bank? In this case, I would be SMiSA (having an agreement to pay for something that another holds), GLS would be the bank (holding the thing that I have an agreement to pay for) and Kibble would be the neighbour (buying a % of the land that I currently have an agreement to buy).
 
It's just an analogy, so don't try to find slight differences (which there are bound to be or it wouldn't, by definition, be an analogy), it's good enough for this.
 
Most of the rest is just your usual anti-GLS nonsense.
 
It isn't hard to understand, it's perfectly obvious that you're talking pish.
 

Another piss poor attempt at deflection. But it is worth a read for the car crash rant!

[Lord Pityme]

Again from the Smisa constitution.....

"The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit
of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members."

It could not be clearer... the current proposal is an unquestionable benefit & profit of one member!

I dont for one minute think, smisa or Scott, are seeking to exploit Scott's membership of Smisa to this end. I do think however, they simply do not think to check the constitution to see what is or isnt aligned with it. And that's on Smisa!

[Lord Pityme]

It actually gets worse for smisa as abandoning the agreement that would see Smisa members hold 71% of the club for a much reduced shareholding, and the deal allowing an outside national body to buy into the club is in direct contravention with one of Smisa's principle objects...!

"4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;"

How do smisa justify that? Completely abandoning their objects..!

[BuddieinEK]

It actually gets worse for smisa as abandoning the agreement that would see Smisa members hold 71% of the club for a much reduced shareholding, and the deal allowing an outside national body to buy into the club is in direct contravention with one of Smisa's principle objects...!

"4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;"

How do smisa justify that? Completely abandoning their objects..!

It actually gets worse for smisa as abandoning the agreement that would see Smisa members hold 71% of the club for a much reduced shareholding, and the deal allowing an outside national body to buy into the club is in direct contravention with one of Smisa's principle objects...!

"4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;"

How do smisa justify that? Completely abandoning their objects..!

Re 4.2...
They answered that already.

St Mirren independent SUPPORTERS Association no longer feel able to trust supporters to act in the best interests of the club, so will trade supporter influence and ownership for community influence and ownership! [emoji850]

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Again from the Smisa constitution.....

"The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit
of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members."

It could not be clearer... the current proposal is an unquestionable benefit & profit of one member!

I dont for one minute think, smisa or Scott, are seeking to exploit Scott's membership of Smisa to this end. I do think however, they simply do not think to check the constitution to see what is or isnt aligned with it. And that's on Smisa!

No matter how often you say it and no matter how much you want it to be true, there is no issue here. A new deal has been presented for SMISA members to vote on, part of that deal is buying out GLS early, there is nothing in the constitution that says we can't give him back his money early so there's no issue, constitutionally or from a reg/ leg perspective. His share sale outside of his SMISA bought ones are irrelevant, again nothing that details a shareholder can't sell their additional shares because they belong to SMISA. Your fixation on sch a minor, trivial point further backs up what all regular contributors know. Your unfounded disdain comes from a dislike/ jealousy (possibly) towards GLS. 

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

It actually gets worse for smisa as abandoning the agreement that would see Smisa members hold 71% of the club for a much reduced shareholding, and the deal allowing an outside national body to buy into the club is in direct contravention with one of Smisa's principle objects...!

"4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;"

How do smisa justify that? Completely abandoning their objects..!

The correlation in goals between SMISA and the Kibble in positively influencing our community. Next. 

[Lord Pityme]

Re 4.2...
They answered that already.

St Mirren independent SUPPORTERS Association no longer feel able to trust supporters to act in the best interests of the club, so will trade supporter influence and ownership for community influence and ownership! [emoji850]

The only flaw in that plan is that Kibble... are not a local community organisation. They operate across the uk.

[Brilliant Disguise]

8 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Nothing to worry about really.

What alarm bells?

 

What could possibly go wrong there?

 

Kibble are just protecting their investment, or so I was told!

 

Here's me thinking SMISA had invested even more.

 

No matter how much this is played down or justified, there is the potential for some real scary shit in the future.

 

What could go wrong with these clauses.

From what i can see the conditions being applied are good governance for any business.. Kibble wish to stop SMISA aka the Club associating themselves with brands, names and organisations that may bring a quick buck but ultimately tarnish the club and the Kibbles name. The clubs legacy is one of its major assets that require to be protected.

This clause is not the doomsday veto that is being mooted on here by others. The clause does go beyond the normal stature of company law However its not the smoking gun that some are looking for.

The clause does not allow Kibble to force their will on the club. It stops the Club selling the brand or its colours to a strip club, money lender, drug dealer the list goes on. 

The Director clause is the biggest hurdle to overcome in that a Kibble Director in theory could n not be removed. However i suspect that should their presence be continually obstructive or create bad blood then Kibble would remove possibly remove them.

 

 

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

9 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Re 4.2...
They answered that already.

St Mirren independent SUPPORTERS Association no longer feel able to trust supporters to act in the best interests of the club, so will trade supporter influence and ownership for community influence and ownership!

The only flaw in that plan is that Kibble... are not a local community organisation. They operate across the uk.

Not a bad thing, unless you have issue with helping other vulnerable people outside Renfrewshire? 

[Brilliant Disguise]

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

11 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Re 4.2...
They answered that already.

St Mirren independent SUPPORTERS Association no longer feel able to trust supporters to act in the best interests of the club, so will trade supporter influence and ownership for community influence and ownership!

The only flaw in that plan is that Kibble... are not a local community organisation. They operate across the uk.

That is a crock of shit and from a small minded individual with no concept of a good business model. The kibble “no we only take people form Renfrewshire, you go and find your own local organisation”

The kibble are based and resourced in Renfrewshire. That is what make them local.

That’s like saying SMFC is not a local club. We have employees and players that were not from Renfrewshire and we take money from fans that are not from Renfrewshire. Therefore in your ivory tower we are not a local club.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Brilliant Disguise

[Lord Pityme]

That is a crock of shit and from a small minded individual with no concept of a good business model. The kibble “no we only take people form Renfrewshire, you go and find your own local organisation”

The kibble are based and resourced in Renfrewshire. That is what make them local.

That’s like saying SMFC is not a local club. We have employees and players that were not from Renfrewshire and we take money from fans that are not from Renfrewshire. Therefore in your ivory tower we are not a local club.

So on that thinking Sports Direct are a local organisation that we should pal up with?

As are Morton... or any organisation with a branch in Renfrewshire... what a laugh.

 

Here's another good laugh... if Kibble are resourced from Renfrewshire (which isnt Paisley) how do the local authorities across the UK that they pitch to and take on their clients "resource" them..?

 

[Brilliant Disguise]

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

So on that thinking Sports Direct are a local organisation that we should pal up with?
As are Morton... or any organisation with a branch in Renfrewshire... what a laugh.

So where else do the Kibble operate from other than Renfrewshire. Give me registered premises not some pish that they take vulnerable kids from Cornwall.

[Lord Pityme]

So where else do the Kibble operate from other than Renfrewshire. Give me registered premises not some pish that they take vulnerable kids from Cornwall.

Where do Facebook operate from?

The bulk of Kibble's clients are from, and return to communities across the UK.

Great what Kibble do, but they are not and actually dont claim to be a Local community organisation.

 

[BuddieinEK]

What could go wrong with these clauses.
From what i can see the conditions being applied are good governance for any business.. Kibble wish to stop SMISA aka the Club associating themselves with brands, names and organisations that may bring a quick buck but ultimately tarnish the club and the Kibbles name. The clubs legacy is one of its major assets that require to be protected.
This clause is not the doomsday veto that is being mooted on here by others. The clause does go beyond the normal stature of company law However its not the smoking gun that some are looking for.
The clause does not allow Kibble to force their will on the club. It stops the Club selling the brand or its colours to a strip club, money lender, drug dealer the list goes on. 
The Director clause is the biggest hurdle to overcome in that a Kibble Director in theory could n not be removed. However i suspect that should their presence be continually obstructive or create bad blood then Kibble would remove possibly remove them.
 
 

So now the ability to veto the very business plan of the club is being downplayed to the colour of the strips? Subtle.

You admit the veto goes beyond normally acceptable business practice.

Maybe you can explain why?

I've still to hear a satisfactory answer!

If it presents no risk, why not just remove it?

Do you have any thoughts on why it is deemed both necessary and appropriate?

I have an answer from SMISA and am really still none the wiser.

[bazil85]

^^^ Even more pathetic than the tactics used in the 2018 Christmas dinner vote. Does this mans shame know no bounds? 

[Brilliant Disguise]

4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Where do Facebook operate from?

The bulk of Kibble's clients are from, and return to communities across the UK.

Great what Kibble do, but they are not and actually dont claim to be a Local community organisation.

 

So the Kibble sell their services out with Renfrewshire therefore that makes them not a Local Company. Yet they have 4 premises in Renfrewshire, they employee people presumably local to them, they pay local business rates but they are not local.

SMFC are therefore not local.

If the Kibble was only selling services locally they would not have a £30m turn over and over 600 staff. 

[Lord Pityme]

^^^ Even more pathetic than the tactics used in the 2018 Christmas dinner vote. Does this mans shame know no bounds? 

That's funny... especially since you actually quoted me backing the vote for this COMMUNITY option over the piss poor club money grabs last week.
The gift that keeps giving...

[Lord Pityme]

So the Kibble sell their services out with Renfrewshire therefore that makes them not a Local Company. Yet they have 4 premises in Renfrewshire, they employee people presumably local to them, they pay local business rates but they are not local.

SMFC are therefore not local.

If the Kibble was only selling services locally they would not have a £30m turn over and over 600 staff. 

They do not market themselves as a Local Community Organisation.... ask them why?

 

Plus if the proposal is passed then smisa are in direct contravention of their object to "4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running

and ownership of the Club;"

It's all there in black & white cockles

 

Edit: Hillington is in Glasgow lol

 

[Brilliant Disguise]

12 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

So now the ability to veto the very business plan of the club is being downplayed to the colour of the strips? Subtle.

You admit the veto goes beyond normally acceptable business practice.

Maybe you can explain why?

I've still to hear a satisfactory answer!

If it presents no risk, why not just remove it?

Do you have any thoughts on why it is deemed both necessary and appropriate?

I have an answer from SMISA and am really still none the wiser.
 

I don’t know why the Kibble have included the clause. 

However i have already given you a plausible reason to why they wish to to be in place. They wish to protect their Name and the Brand from a band of fans who may be willing to  sell the mane of the club to a strip club, drug dealer, money lender or some other unsavoury organisation that would devalue.

You must be aware of the ongoing debate on the morality of football clubs being sponsored by betting companies. Does the club wish to be associated with an organisation that brings misery to millions of people.

Scenario (Completely Hypothetical as the scenario is not legal, but go back 25 years)

Benson & Hedges wish to have their name on our shirts and are willing to pay £1m per year. Is this in your eyes what is more important brand or money 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Brilliant Disguise

[Brilliant Disguise]

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

They do not market themselves as a Local Community Organisation.... ask them why?

Plus if the proposal is passed then smisa are in direct contravention of their object to "4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running
and ownership of the Club;"
It's all there in black & white cockles

LPM tactic number 1. Do not answer the question asked. Go for deflection

Clause 4.2 is that todays smoking gun.

Lost cause. The SMISA members will decide with a democratic vote on what they wish. That the powers of fans ownership

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

That's funny... especially since you actually quoted me backing the vote for this COMMUNITY option over the piss poor club money grabs last week.
The gift that keeps giving...

Nope, I quoted you showing governance regarding the additional vote was more important to you than the community benefit. You misinterpreted it as me saying you voted for the club benefit in the primary vote and I told you that. 

Kibble helping children in different parts of the UK is completely irrelevant to this discussion (bar praising the work they do). It should in no way be raised as an argument against the vote. Shocking outlook that yet again shows a GLS/ SMISA vendetta trumps absolutely anything else for you regarding St Mirren. 

[Lord Pityme]

I don’t know why the Kibble have included the clause. 
However i have already given you a plausible reason to why they wish to to be in place. They wish to protect their Name and the Brand from a band of fans who may be willing to  sell the make of the club to a strip club, drug dealer, money lender or some other unsavoury organisation that would devalue.
You must be aware of the ongoing debate on the morality of football clubs being sponsored by betting companies. Does the club wish to be associated with an organisation that brings misery to millions of people.
Scenario (Completely Hypothetical as the scenario is not legal, but go back 25 years)
Benson & Hedges wish to have their name on our shirts and are willing to pay £1m per year. Is this in your eyes what is more important brand or money 

If Betfair want to sponsor the club to a significant amount. How many fans would be happy at Kibble vetoing it because it doesn't sit with their brand?
Youd gave a fecking riot on your hands when the tail starts wagging the dog

[Lord Pityme]

LPM tactic number 1. Do not answer the question asked. Go for deflection
Clause 4.2 is that todays smoking gun.
Lost cause. The SMISA members will decide with a democratic vote on what they wish. That the powers of fans ownership

Is that the white flag I see. Lol

[Lord Pityme]

Nope, I quoted you showing governance regarding the additional vote was more important to you than the community benefit. You misinterpreted it as me saying you voted for the club benefit in the primary vote and I told you that. 
Kibble helping children in different parts of the UK is completely irrelevant to this discussion (bar praising the work they do). It should in no way be raised as an argument against the vote. Shocking outlook that yet again shows a GLS/ SMISA vendetta trumps absolutely anything else for you regarding St Mirren. 

Lol...

[bazil85]

Just now, Lord Pityme said:

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Nope, I quoted you showing governance regarding the additional vote was more important to you than the community benefit. You misinterpreted it as me saying you voted for the club benefit in the primary vote and I told you that. 
Kibble helping children in different parts of the UK is completely irrelevant to this discussion (bar praising the work they do). It should in no way be raised as an argument against the vote. Shocking outlook that yet again shows a GLS/ SMISA vendetta trumps absolutely anything else for you regarding St Mirren. 

Lol...

And is that your white flag? lol

[Brilliant Disguise]

1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

If Betfair want to sponsor the club to a significant amount. How many fans would be happy at Kibble vetoing it because it doesn't sit with their brand?
Youd gave a fecking riot on your hands when the tail starts wagging the dog

I believe that beating companies sponsoring football clubs is a conflict of interest. As well as being morally wrong. that just my opinion.

If the Kibble veto such a decision i would welcome their governance