Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

[WeeBud]

3 hours ago, turrabuddie said:

Well, I haven’t read all the posts on this thread (that would have killed me), but I have read enough to have got the jist of the major issues and concerns that have been raised.

I have now voted.

Me too Turrabuddie although unfortunately I have read every post!!

Plunge taken and vote made

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Its like an Advent Calendar of smear. Today window opened Lets roll out the “added income to the club”.

If the vote is yes and GLS is gone who is the next target for your malevolence.

Heard a rumour that Kibble are to appoint a Richard A to the board. Now that would be funny

Irrespective of what you think of LPM and his posts it's entirely relevant to ask what tangible added income this deal will bring.

 

To date, as far as I can see, all I can see is GS quoting £500 a week saving on the catering at the training ground. That's about £20k a year as we won't open it 52 weeks a year.

It amounts to a six month deal for a championship player.

 

If that's enough for folk to vote Yes then fine.

 

[FTOF]

9 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Irrespective of what you think of LPM and his posts it's entirely relevant to ask what tangible added in one this deal will bring.

To date, as far as I can see, all I can see is GS quoting £500 a week saving on the catering at the training ground. That's about £20k a year as we won't open it 52 weeks a year.
It amounts to a six month deal for a championship player.

If that's enough for folk to vote Yes then fine.

Is it normal business practice to outline the amount of money to be made from potential savings, before one company invests in another?

I'm asking, because I don't know.

Edited February 20, 2020 by FTOF

[aldo_j]

3 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Is it normal business practice to outline the amount of money to be made from potential savings, before one company invests in another?

I'm asking, because I don't know.

Nah, they’ll normally just say there will be saving made through synergies, etc.

[WeeBud]

8 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Is it normal business practice to outline the amount of money to be made from potential savings, before one company invests in another?

I'm asking, because I don't know.

I would say that the financial benefits would be discussed and assessed generally within and between the boardrooms.....the unique element here is the makeup of one of the stakeholders (SMiSA).

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Nah, they’ll normally just say there will be saving made through synergies, etc.

Wouldn't that be mergers & takeovers?

Have we had savings from synergies mentioned.

[Lord Pityme]

Is it normal business practice to outline the amount of money to be made from potential savings, before one company invests in another?
I'm asking, because I don't know.

Yip

[aldo_j]

15 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Wouldn't that be mergers & takeovers?

Have we had savings from synergies mentioned.

Guess so, but it must be difficult to quantify what exactly they’ll bring at the moment as they don’t have anything to offer. That would be my take anyway, nobody will ever call out an absolute value at this time.

[bazil85]

Plenty of talking on here. some very constructive debate, some much less so. Roll on tomorrow for the outcomes.

Either way it goes I will be more than happy to go with the democratic majority. And I’m sure our club will continue to go from strength to strength, as we have seen in the first few years of BTB. 

[Lord Pityme]

Guess so, but it must be difficult to quantify what exactly they’ll bring at the moment as they don’t have anything to offer. That would be my take anyway, nobody will ever call out an absolute value at this time.

It's common purpose to identify a number of low hanging fruit no brainers.
The odd thing with this proposal is the lack of tangible wins smfc , amiss or Kibble are putting up.

[St.Ricky]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Plenty of talking on here. some very constructive debate, some much less so. Roll on tomorrow for the outcomes.

Either way it goes I will be more than happy to go with the democratic majority. And I’m sure our club will continue to go from strength to strength, as we have seen in the first few years of BTB. 

Well said Bazil. 

Big decision for those involved. 

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, WeeBud said:

I would say that the financial benefits would be discussed and assessed generally within and between the boardrooms.....the unique element here is the makeup of one of the stakeholders (SMiSA).

 

27 minutes ago, aldo_j said:

Guess so, but it must be difficult to quantify what exactly they’ll bring at the moment as they don’t have anything to offer. That would be my take anyway, nobody will ever call out an absolute value at this time.

Two rational posts.

Well I never.

Thank you.

Edited February 20, 2020 by FTOF

[BuddieinEK]

Big decision for those involved. 

They don't trust us to own 71% of the shares and live up to the associated responsibility that goes with it...

but they trust us to do as they wish with this "big decision"!

[St.Ricky]

17 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

 

They don't trust us to own 71% of the shares and live up to the associated responsibility that goes with it...

but they trust us to do as they wish with this "big decision"!

 

BEK. I don't envy yourself and others involved having this decision to make and you and others have clearly looked more closely at the details than I, as a non member, has.  All I can, or should do, is remain neutral. Whichever way it goes, I think the members and fans do need to accept the decision and get behind those who are the Custodians of our great club. 

My only contribution has been to say that the choice was between those who feel control is more important than fast progress. It's not for me to judge. 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by St.Ricky

[BuddieinEK]

We have the opportunity in my opinion to use the talents/staff within The Kibble organisation for the benefit of SMFC to grow more than us the fans can/could on our own, whilst still retaining the majority shareholding. Win win situation for us.

What talents/staff do The Kibble have in running a football club?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Guess so, but it must be difficult to quantify what exactly they’ll bring at the moment as they don’t have anything to offer. That would be my take anyway, nobody will ever call out an absolute value at this time.

I'm not expecting absolute values just an idea of areas where they will grow our business.
So far though they say they will also save us money on our catering. There is a maybe to also save us money on our vehicle and building maintenance. Not sure how many vehicles we actually "own". Most will be leased or free as part of a sponsorship deal.

So far we won't even make enough for one players wages per season.

Generally I'd expect more detail on how they can increase our turnover.
Again so far it amounts to they can do it because they are much bigger than us with a much bigger turnover. However its in a completely different field.

It's still never been explained what's in it for them other than access to our facilities and what a charity gets for investing 300k in a much smaller company that isn't going to turn a profit or dividend on the worthless shares they are buying.

I still expect this to be voted through and it might be the best thing that's ever happened to the club. I'd just have preferred a different approach to this process.

[turrabuddie]

We have the opportunity in my opinion to use the talents/staff within The Kibble organisation for the benefit of SMFC to grow more than us the fans can/could on our own, whilst still retaining the majority shareholding. Win win situation for us.

I did some digging on Kibble.
And, after digging, quite deep, am happy to say I found no negative press anywhere.
It was all positive.

[pod]

4 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

 

They require work placement opportunities for them in their care. ie maintenance of buildings. So if they were to become part of SMFC then they could use the the training opportunities this provides. That's my thoughts of part of the proposal.

 

 

 

All very well, so long as it's not putting someone else's job on the line.

[BuddieinEK]

The ones that i was writing about are detailed on the SMISA website and referred to at the meeting.

Remember there will still be a club structure working with the board that will be running the football side.

Those are general business skills... Not skills in running a football club.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

They require work placement opportunities for them in their care. ie maintenance of buildings. So if they were to become part of SMFC then they could use the the training opportunities this provides. That's my thoughts of part of the proposal.

They need to buy 27% of SMFC shares and put two of their trustees or emoyee on the board, along with giving us free (?) HR support in order to do this?
Couldn't we just enter into an agreement and offer them placements which would also improve our community undertakings?

[bazil85]

13 minutes ago, Dickson said:

On a 50% majority vote cause this isn't a Special Resolution or anything important or nothing. 

The constitutional terms that need a bigger majority are very clear, this ain't one. It doesn't mean it's not an important decision. 

11 minutes ago, Dickson said:

A win / win indeed, unless you factor in the loss of complete fan control of the club, the power to elect or deselect members of the board by SMISA membership vote, and the ability to run a business plan without having to get the approval of a third party. 

 

Do you think it's at all likely they would ever not allow an elected board member or reject our business plan? You're focusing on absolute minimal risks as a way to paddle a negative agenda. Not that it's surprising or anything. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Do you think it's at all likely they would ever not allow an elected board member or reject our business plan? You're focusing on absolute minimal risks as a way to paddle a negative agenda. Not that it's surprising or anything. 

If it's so unlikely, why is it written into the agreement?

[BuddieinEK]

I did some digging on Kibble.
And, after digging, quite deep, am happy to say I found no negative press anywhere.
It was all positive.

You didn't dig very deeply!

Accusations of dodgy dealing...

https://paisleyindependent.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/labour-refuse-to-answer-kibble-questions/

[bazil85]

43 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I'm not expecting absolute values just an idea of areas where they will grow our business.
So far though they say they will also save us money on our catering. There is a maybe to also save us money on our vehicle and building maintenance. Not sure how many vehicles we actually "own". Most will be leased or free as part of a sponsorship deal.

So far we won't even make enough for one players wages per season.

Generally I'd expect more detail on how they can increase our turnover.
Again so far it amounts to they can do it because they are much bigger than us with a much bigger turnover. However its in a completely different field.

It's still never been explained what's in it for them other than access to our facilities and what a charity gets for investing 300k in a much smaller company that isn't going to turn a profit or dividend on the worthless shares they are buying.

I still expect this to be voted through and it might be the best thing that's ever happened to the club. I'd just have preferred a different approach to this process.

The proposal details the aim to have the stadium open and in use seven days a week.Lots of options that have previously been discussed would be under consideration but this time with the backing of a very reputable charity. 

Also been documented the company aren't there to turn profits, a link up with SMFC will allow them to grow as well and support the young people in their care, that's what's in it for them. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Do you think it's at all likely they would ever not allow an elected board member or reject our business plan? You're focusing on absolute minimal risks as a way to paddle a negative agenda. Not that it's surprising or anything. 

If it's so unlikely, why is it written into the agreement?

Similar reason we take out life assurance, contents cover, critical illness cover. It's to protect their investment. They gave extreme examples like for example a wonga sponsorship. Not likely to be an issue but if it was they would have the power to protect their brand.