proudtobeabuddy Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 We are all Baz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 We are all Baz! Shoot me now! [emoji50][emoji850][emoji12] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 Shoot me now! [emoji50][emoji850][emoji12][emoji41] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, bonzoboys said: I think the outcome is challenging for all parties. No matter how we look at it, all are investing greatly in something that is at the heart of all of us, St Mirren. I sincerely hope that Kibble help to grow the business, because in a few years, we, the fans will own 51% of the club. Many forgot that 51% is ownership, 70% was just a bigger number All this chat of GLS being a Simsa member and not allowed to sell his personal shares to benefit himself, having ensured that the fans have 51% is just pettiness. So he offloaded 8% so what! i am part of the minority’s of private shareholders. I bought some years ago just to be a part of the club. It was an ambition since boyhood. Remember those days you trawled the PDS looking for a small add selling st mirren shares. I then invested further when we had to get an all seater stadium. I would remind those sanctimonious members out there who think about fan ownership, most of the past share offerings were not taken up by grass root fans and had to be underwritten by people like Gordon, Stewart, George,. The final seats to make old love street an approved all seater stadium were bought by Jim Purvis. I doubt I will ever get the opportunity to sell those shares like GLS so what. It was a from the heart investment. GSL has a far higher value and I have no issue with him being able to offload them. the veto has taken on mammoth proportions but I would question its actual worth. The issues you can veto go to the fundamentals of the club. Day to day business is unlikely to be vetoed. If there is something that Kibble actually want to veto, as a fan shareholder I would have serious questions about what was going on that makes them take such a stand my only question, and it is something that has annoyed me for many years. In the bad time, 3 games postponed in winter, no income and the old shareholders had to give loans to aid cash flow, I have always worried how fan ownership handled that. Recently I have heard talk of a contingency fund. Is it only the major shareholder that needs to have that or will kibble equally have some cash to help us through tough cash flow times.. let us look at the German model 50%+1 is fan ownership and you run the club that is where we will be shortly As I type I think of brexit at end of it, all need to pull together in reading the pros and cons over past few weeks, I have seen some personal axes to grind, but at the end of the day we are all fans and want the best for our coub juat think what COYS means to each of us that is what is in our hearts This must be the best post of this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 59 minutes ago, St.Ricky said: Time to move on and hopefully see the fruits of the deal over the coming months and years. Good also to see a large response and large majority. I agree, we've had our debate and the votes have been cast, counted & verified and we have a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 In all seriousness I think this is great for our club. We are in a good place right now IMO . Good manager, Premier league football, the partnership with Kibble and QF of cup... not too Chabbi... see what I did there...[emoji16] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: Same, I’m not blindly following (although granted you know better than me my thought process) note the brackets were a caveat, the brackets were a joke... A funnier one than yours. Are you sure? Bazil bollocks! of course it was, of course it was, hmm! all in that order Caveat? you could claim you were talking about chocolate teapots since you're now proclaiming caveats. show us your evidence of the financials? Then i'll think about believing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, proudtobeabuddy said: In all seriousness I think this is great for our club. We are in a good place right now IMO . Good manager, Premier league football, the partnership with Kibble and QF of cup... not too Chabbi... see what I did there... Made yourself look stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanb Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 Roll up Roll up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 21, 2020 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 It would be great if everyone in SMiSA continued as per the original commitment and we then build a contingency fund that is “ring fenced” for emergency situations on the basis that the money is repaid once the cash flow resumes. A bit like an agreed overdraft facility. It is important that this slush fund is kept topped up and not just seen as a way of increasing the players budget. There are going to be times when we will hit problems and we will be thankful that we put aside an emergency fund to cater for the unexpected. That could be undersoil heating failures or stadium damage.Ring fenced.... classic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said: Shoot me now! And me. Is it too late to join you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st jock Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 I voted no as I was unsure. Will take it on the chin and back the kibble now. All in this together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maboza Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) I think now that the outcome is settled we need to get behind it. However, we need real strength of leadership from Smisa going into the new model. We need people with a wealth of experience to lead the club and to not allow SMFC to be dominated by Kibble. I’ve concerns that Smisa could have been overly influenced to date by GLS. Some may agree or disagree with that. I think we have a challenge to try and ensure that doesn’t happen with Kibble as a minority shareholder. I’m all for Kibble bringing business expertise to the table. In fact, one of my main concerns with fan ownership was that we may not have the people, skills and experience to operate effectively. If Kibble can help with that then great - but it’s supposed to be a fan owned club so Kibble can’t be allowed to dominate proceedings. If we have a fans rep acting as a bystander, in awe of £30m turnover partner who has a big voice, then what’s the point? We’d have been been better just allowing the club to be sold into private hands in that instance. A challenge for all involved. I hope it all goes well - and mostly to the benefit of SMFC. Edited February 21, 2020 by Maboza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said: That's a lot of your problem, though. You type something that isn't what you mean then when it gets mentioned to you, you make out it is the other person that just doesn't understand and call that "clarifying". All you had to do, this time and previous times, was admit that you phrased it wrong and type what you actually meant. Everybody else seems to manage it, why can't you? I don't really want you to answer, just think about it. You would have thought so, but you didn't. BTB is currently over 120% ahead of original plan. That is complete fact. If anyone wants to interpret that different fine, it isn’t my issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapsalmon Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, bazil85 said: BTB is currently over 120% ahead of original plan. That is complete fact. If anyone wants to interpret that different fine, it isn’t my issue. No its not. Its 20% over the original plan of 1000 members at 12 per month(possibly} , not 120%. The membership numbers as you originally stated are however not 20% over the original plan, never mind 120%. Either way your post that I've quoted is factually wrong. That, my friend. Is complete fact. Edited February 21, 2020 by slapsalmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Kombibuddie said: Are you sure? Bazil bollocks! of course it was, of course it was, hmm! all in that order Caveat? you could claim you were talking about chocolate teapots since you're now proclaiming caveats. show us your evidence of the financials? Then i'll think about believing you. The quote quantifies to financials. That’s my evidence, I don’t need you to believe it. As usual, a wee coping mechanism to deal with defeat from some. 🎻 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 Made yourself look stupid?My name is no St Lucifer.. so nah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, slapsalmon said: No its not. Its 20% over the original plan of 1000 members at 12 per month(possibly} , not 120%. The membership numbers as you originally stated are however not 20% over the original plan. Either way your post that I've quoted is factually wrong. That, my friend. Is complete fact. my original point was BTB is over 120% of financial plan. I clarified this in the second point. People don’t need to believe it but that’s simply true. Do you genuinely think I don’t know 1,100 odd is less than 120% of a 1,000 target? It’s basic maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proudtobeabuddy Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 And me. Is it too late to join you?Join whit ? Are you in a bowling club committee? Fire in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, bazil85 said: my original point was BTB is over 120% of financial plan. I clarified this in the second point. People don’t need to believe it but that’s simply true. Do you genuinely think I don’t know 1,100 odd is less than 120% of a 1,000 target? It’s basic maths. It’s not, it’s arithmetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 It’s not, it’s arithmetic.[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]A lasting legacy from Tom Hendrie? [emoji23][emoji12] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapsalmon Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, bazil85 said: my original point was BTB is over 120% of financial plan. I clarified this in the second point. People don’t need to believe it but that’s simply true. Do you genuinely think I don’t know 1,100 odd is less than 120% of a 1,000 target? It’s basic maths. Now your twisting and saying 1100 is less than 120% of the plan. What you originally said was it was 120% AHEAD of the plan Which would be 2200. As I said, you meant 20% ahead. Your post that I quoted was factually wrong however you twist it. Again. That is a fact. Edited February 21, 2020 by slapsalmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, Ice-tears said: U got blown out water ya tit, why u even trying to justify it... Because I’m right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, slapsalmon said: Now your twisting and saying 1100 is less than 120% of the plan. What you originally said was it was 120% AHEAD of the plan Which would be 2200. As I said, you meant 20% ahead. Your post that I quoted was factually wrong however you twist it. Again. That is a fact. Yep fair enough, 120%+ of plan is the point I’m making. Not 120% ahead of plan. Unlike others, I’m happy to admit when I have been inaccurate/ not clear. Edited February 21, 2020 by bazil85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts