Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts


7 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Where LPM lost me was when he went on about Kibble not being local to the community. I think he's gone too far there. The fact is that Kibble might be a national charity but they do a great deal of work in the local area so to me that doesn't come into it. 

However you have accused me of the same thing that you are accusing LPM of here. I have always stated that community partnerships were the way to go. I've been shouting that loudly on every St Mirren outlet for longer than SMISA have existed. What I have never once proposed though is that those charities and community groups should have to pay a fee to the chairman, or to buy shares in the club, in order to make those mutual benefits happen. I have also never suggested that those community groups should have the ability to veto just about everything in the everyday operation of the football club. 

What I would love to see happen is for the SMISA membership to vote down these proposals, but to also send a message to the SMISA committee that despite their rejection of the proposals they would still like to see a partnership between SMISA and the Kibble to find a way to deliver what both sides want without the undue influence on the club board and without the need for the charity to give a £300k hand out to the Aston Martin driving, property developer Chairman of the football club. 

 

The red flag regarding you is that you focus on what IMO are very minor details. Now you can say, that's just the nature of the deal but we both know that is always the way it goes with you regardless of subject. Your mask also slipped with the negativity towards GLS (continuing in this post, the car he drives has nothing to do with him getting his money back at what ultimately would equate to a loss over time), previously you even went to the extent of using negative connotations like "asset stripping" My observation of you is it's more important to disagree on something than it is to look at the benefits of a deal. That's backed up by even you saying this is "exactly" the kind of deal you wanted. 

The Kibble see a benefit in buying a shareholding, down to protecting their investment is my take from the meeting and notes. St Mirren/ SMISA see a benefit in it. What's the problem? From your posts, your issues are two fold. 1. A guy that made the biggest contribute by far to SMFC being fan owned getting his money back early, without a penny profit (don't have a clue why this is an issue) 2. a veto that has observably been blown out of proportion that will only be an issue in the most extreme scenarios or where kibble will vote on ethical grounds. Are you genuinely saying with all you have claimed you have an issue with Kibble voting down a payday loan company as our sponsor or rejecting us changing our strip colour? 

Re your last paragraph. Are these two points really such red lines for you that you would reject a deal "exactly" like you were looking for? A bitterness towards GLS and a veto protecting their investment that presents extremely low risk of hurting the club? Your view is either an attempt to be awkward or petty, there is no other explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where LPM lost me was when he went on about Kibble not being local to the community. I think he's gone too far there. The fact is that Kibble might be a national charity but they do a great deal of work in the local area so to me that doesn't come into it.  However you have accused me of the same thing that you are accusing LPM of here. I have always stated that community partnerships were the way to go. I've been shouting that loudly on every St Mirren outlet for longer than SMISA have existed. What I have never once proposed though is that those charities and community groups should have to pay a fee to the chairman, or to buy shares in the club, in order to make those mutual benefits happen. I have also never suggested that those community groups should have the ability to veto just about everything in the everyday operation of the football club. 

What I would love to see happen is for the SMISA membership to vote down these proposals, but to also send a message to the SMISA committee that despite their rejection of the proposals they would still like to see a partnership between SMISA and the Kibble to find a way to deliver what both sides want without the undue influence on the club board and without the need for the charity to give a £300k hand out to the Aston Martin driving, property developer Chairman of the football club. 

 

 

Again...sigh...I have nothing but respect for the work Kibble do, and who it benefits.

The facts are Smisa and the club are stating all that Kibble will do in this proposal will benefit the local community.

When in fact it will benefit young people, and perhaps their communities across the uk.

For me charity begins at home!

Look at the phenomenal response to the 12 days of xmas food bank appeal.

Local people, followers of the club coming together to benefit their own.

That's what the club and smisa should be targeting not simply shifting responsibility for looking good to Kibble.

Here's what it should look like...

https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/

 

We should be building our own charity, rather than letting one build itself in our nest.

We need to build partnerships that make our club fans and community more resilient. Read through this... we could easily team up with a club charity like this to learn how to build our own.

https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/business/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LPM, I know the foundation of light really well - as you know. 
The Foundation partners with amongst others the Princes Trust. What part of Sunderland do they come from? 
https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/careers-training/premier-league-works/
I agree with much of what you are saying. I just think you are barking up the wrong tree with your concern that Kibble aren't just Paisley based. 
Theres a clue in the name "partners" more than happy to have Kibble on board as partners rather than being the board
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, me too. I wouldn't have any community partners on the board - but I'd have loads of community partners working with the club. 
 
That is what smisa should be using the influence expertise, contacts and good will of its members to bring to, and help build at the club.
Not let someone take the damn thing over ti suit their ends. How ever well intentioned they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Agreed, me too. I wouldn't have any community partners on the board - but I'd have loads of community partners working with the club. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

That is what smisa should be using the influence expertise, contacts and good will of its members to bring to, and help build at the club.
Not let someone take the damn thing over ti suit their ends. How ever well intentioned they are.

So just to clarify, for both of you. You support BTB in its current format over this proposed change? Even after years and thousands of messages lamenting SMISA, GLS, BTB, often about community involvement and support. That deal you have probably been the two biggest critics of (even to the extent of claiming they were breaching regulations) is still better than this one?

Still better than a deal that very much moves charitable focus and community bond building into the SMFC boardroom... Cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dickson said:

No Bazil. Again I would suggest you go and read what has been actually said. 

You don't seem to understand, I'm asking, pretty much if you had a vote?

I'm not asking what your overall preference to fan ownership is, right now there are two options on the table. I'm sure you have also considered which option would potentially guide yo to your ideal scenario and as such weighed that into how you would approach a vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dickson said:

I think I've been pretty clear Bazil. I would vote to reject the proposal. As it stands the veto and the suspicion and lack of detail on what Kibble plan to do to get their return on investment, for me, makes it an absolute non starter. 

My hope would be that SMISA would then go and talk to Kibble and a way to work together without the need for the veto and without the need for them to spend £300k up front on shares they think are worthless. If agreement couldn't be reached, then I'd hope SMISA would start to engage with the many other community groups where there could be mutually beneficial partnerships. 

So why did you say no the first time I asked? You favour BTB in its current format despite years of attempting to talk it down. 

That might be your next step hopes but it’s far from a possibility that they would do that. The Rolling Stones said it best, you can’t always get what you want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dickson said:

Oh dear. 

I don't think you and I are going to agree. 

I didn't see eye to eye at all with Stewart Gilmour and the previous board but the one great thing they did for St Mirren was they got the club out of debt, and away from the influence of the Clydesdale Bank. Yet here we see St Mirren supporters like you happy to give away that influence over the running of the club to a third party all over again.

 

Luck and fortunate timing were the greatest asset of SG and the previous board. Some times in business that’s they way it goes.

Remember the reason we are having this debate is down to SG and his consortium selling their shares. They only sold to SMISA via GLS because after 2 years no one was interested in paying them the monies they thought they were due. 

The debt the club were in to the banks is not the same as Kibble buying 27% off the shares. The banks could have liquidated the club, the Kibble can’t, SMISA would veto the vote

Edited by Brilliant Disguise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

The debt the club were in to the banks is not the same as Kibble buying 27% off the shares. The banks could have liquidated the club, the Kibble can’t, SMISA would veto the vote

Indeed.

The comparison between The Kibble and The Clydesdale bank is absolutely ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the proposal, watched the video, asked and had answered my questions and have now voted. I really do like the idea of the link up with Kibble and acknowledge the need for the expertise on offer but I still can't see why the shares are required to achieve the aims and requirements of both the club and Kibble, as a result i've voted no. I'll continue to pay my monthly cash no matter what the result so let's see what the result is on Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2020 at 5:38 PM, stlucifer said:

I'm as concerned about the terms of this proposal as you LPM but, quite frankly, you're talking pish.

Scott paid for his shares to allow SMISA the time to take control. SMISA were/are obliged to pay for them ergo GLS gains nothing extra from this proposal. he just gets some of his cash early.

mmmm - wrong

as previously confirmed GLS shareholding with the Kibble proposal will be well under 1%

under the original deal he would retain 8%

therefore he will be selling over 7% more via the new proposal and to quote div many pages ago "he ain't giving them away"

So yes he will gain from the proposal as apart from getting his cash early (and I have no real issue with that) he also gains by selling more shares

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alwaysabuddy said:

mmmm - wrong

as previously confirmed GLS shareholding with the Kibble proposal will be well under 1%

under the original deal he would retain 8%

therefore he will be selling over 7% more via the new proposal and to quote div many pages ago "he ain't giving them away"

So yes he will gain from the proposal as apart from getting his cash early (and I have no real issue with that) he also gains by selling more shares

 

mmmm Wrong.

GLS could sell those shares at anytime. He wasn't obliged to keep them so he gains nothing from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickson said:

Aye but the minority shareholding is worthless. So he does gain from this. 

I doubt there are many people out there who are looking to buy an 7.999% shareholding in a fan run football club. Even Jim Gillespie at Kibble says he could be quite willing to gift away their 27% shareholding once the deal is done. 

That depends who wanted them. No one can say definitively that they were worthless. They're worth as much as anyone would be willing to pay. IF SMISA did end up with 71% there is nothing to say A.N. Other wouldn't pay to get the other 7-8% to get past 25% to allow some influence. You might think that unlikely but it doesn't mean it couldn't be the case. I'm not for the Kibble agreement but I'm not playing prophet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there isn't for "total" fan ownership?
Every scenario has that potential.
Of course there is...
But under the original proposal, we, the fans, would have more control over who makes the decisions.

Note... Not over the decisions... but over who is elected to make them.

Fan management is suicidal... Fan ownership is not.

We could still come to agreement with the Kibble and other charities or community groups...

Without seriously reducing our shareholding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Of course there is...
 1.....But under the original proposal, we, the fans, would have more control over who makes the decisions.

 2....Note... Not over the decisions... but over who is elected to make them.

 3...Fan management is suicidal... Fan ownership is not.

We could still come to agreement with the Kibble and other charities or community groups...

Without seriously reducing our shareholding.

1... Worrying  aspect.

2... Glad you clarified that.

3...True.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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