Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts


9 hours ago, Dickson said:

Erm, actually it doesn't. 

Many moons ago I pointed out that SMISA could have set up a coffee shop for free - including the training and recruitment of staff. I think LPM highlighted similar. If they so wished they wouldn't even have needed to pay for the coffee machine and the mugs. 

It’s a naive man that thinks they can present an off the cuff business proposal and it will be completely fool proof for ever more. A long term shareholding relationship with the Kibble could very realistically lower supplier and other related costs in several initiatives. You’re on record saying that you agree with many parts of this deal on the benefit they could bring. Have you went 180 on that as well? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

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.

 

And a loss of jobs for the people working there at present ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 


Someone else’s job somewhere has to be displaced somewhere in order to train someone.

Surely better those jobs are displaced at St Mirren than some other company?

 

  Warning....not to be taken seriously.  Some may believe you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
54 minutes ago, Iamhammer said:
And a loss of jobs for the people working there at present ?

Regarding employees, they expressly said that it would be in addition to not instead of.

Doesn't work that way I'm afraid, I worked in the training industry for  11 years including an enjoyable spell with the Kibble.  I can assure most of the companies are a charity but have to make a profit.  It also costs jobs.  There is no other feasible way to save the placement company money.

Edited by Iamhammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Iamhammer said:

Doesn't work that way I'm afraid, I worked in the training industry for  11 years including an enjoyable spell with the Kibble.  I can assure most of the companies are a charity but have to make a profit.  It also costs jobs.  There is no other feasible wat to save the placement company money.

Aye.... I know of two BIG National charities (operating in the same charity field) about to announce a merger.

major budgetary reason is to move all staff under the same SINGLE London office ceiling... (and give up an expensive HQ)

... with the bonus, but lesser benefit, of “rationalisation” of office staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't work that way I'm afraid, I worked in the training industry for  11 years including an enjoyable spell with the Kibble.  I can assure most of the companies are a charity but have to make a profit.  It also costs jobs.  There is no other feasible way to save the placement company money.


These jobs will be cost somewhere else if not at St Mirren though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I think you’re either over simplifying the potential for such proposals or not understanding. 
There you go bazil, you've summed up the problem.
IF I am either not understanding the proposals or over simplifying them (both these options are pretty much poles apart) does that not make you think that maybe this deal hasn't been communicated and explained adequately?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
It's one outside contractor replacing another afaik, same as would happen when any outside contract gets renewed.
Yes that's my understanding. No "jobs" at smfc affected.
Obviously they are replacing folk earning a wage with trainees though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yflab said:

Has this been answered yet?

Nope. It doesn’t seem to have been. 

I also asked some relevant questions (i.e. what’s to stop Kibble sponsoring the Kibble Arena at a discounted rate) but these questions also went ignored. 

Unfortunately the people defending the deal are only really operating with vague statements and a complete lack of detail. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand perfectly, it's you that doesn't.  I said "If SMFC pay for it and have a guaranteed tenant", to which your replied "Kibble will be taking any profit from these ventures as they fitted it out".
 
What bit don't you understand?  I can explain it to you in baby talk if that's what you require.
So smfc pay to.kit it out, and Kibble keep the takings.
Feck me I think I'll chuck a rival tender in asap and gazump the Kibble..!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, you're just being a twat, you've already quoted and responded (badly) to that part.
You insist Smfc are paying for it, and Kibble run and keep the takings... short of throwing in a sexual favour of their choice... the club couldn't bend over any further, and kibble must be creaming themselves in anticipation of getting this deal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

There you go bazil, you've summed up the problem.
IF I am either not understanding the proposals or over simplifying them (both these options are pretty much poles apart) does that not make you think that maybe this deal hasn't been communicated and explained adequately?

Nope, I think it’s been very reasonably explained. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never insisted anything.  I hypothesised about it in reply to what someone else had posted.  It was a simple, logical (yes, i know, you have problems with that) explanation of how things could work to the benefit of both SMFC and Kibble.
 
You're not very good at this trolling lark, are you?
So let me get this straight.. so you're not now saying what you said?
You do know people are reading and watching this squirm-a-thon you're in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

It's one outside contractor replacing another afaik, same as would happen when any outside contract gets renewed.

TUPE. You can still have the same workers, working for different contractor.   Done it 3 times, 4th company,  over the last 18 years. Still in the same building. 

Edited by pod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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