Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

[oaksoft]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

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. 

f**king hell Baz. This is an illness you have.

Nobody f**king cares. Just move on.

[oaksoft]

54 minutes ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

Join whit ? Are you in a bowling club committee? Fire in...

The "shoot me now" club.

It's me and BinEK at the moment.

If it's bowling you're after we may not be able to help.

Edited February 21, 2020 by oaksoft

[BuddieinEK]

The "shoot me now" club.
It's me and BinEK at the moment.
If it's bowling you're after we may not be able to help.

Bowling is more for Baz.

Full of bias...
Back and forward but getting nowhere...
As interesting as a papercut!

[delpierro]

I voted No, ya cunts [emoji35]

[beyond our ken]

7 hours ago, div said:

And fair play to you for that.

The only thing that surely binds all of us is a desire to see the club be the best it can be on and off the park.

A thanks for that 

B if you believe that then you’ll believe anything 

[antrin]

7 hours ago, antrin said:

Fuxake.

 

English, but not as we know it, Spock.

 

7 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Nonsense. 

Fairy Nuff.

Nonsense, but not as we know it, Spock.

[saint in exile]

4 hours ago, st jock said:

I voted no as I was unsure. Will take it on the chin and back the kibble now. All in this together.

Ditto, but I'm still wary of the veto.

[BuddieinEK]

Ditto, but I'm still wary of the veto.

Double ditto.

[aldo_j]

4 hours ago, Maboza said:

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. 

 

 

This.

I’ll definitely be paying far more attention to the SMISA representatives in the future.

It’s been Gordon’s baw, so I’ve not really bothered too much so far...but now is the time for them to prove what they can do. It’s no longer good enough being part of it just because they’re a great fan.

[BuddieinEK]

This.
I’ll definitely be paying far more attention to the SMISA representatives in the future.
It’s been Gordon’s baw, so I’ve not really bothered too much so far...but now is the time for them to prove what they can do. It’s no longer good enough being part of it just because they’re a great fan.

Maybe we could start by requesting minutes from meetings are kept and made available?

Good practice and accountability.

[bazil85]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

f**king hell Baz. This is an illness you have.

Nobody f**king cares. Just move on.

Really? 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, antrin said:

 

Fairy Nuff.

Nonsense, but not as we know it, Spock.

True dat. The minority furies going full pelt 😂

[Maboza]

1 hour ago, Dickson said:

Well, being honest, I'm disappointed and concerned. There were far too many questions left unanswered and yet still a huge majority of the SMISA membership voted in favour of it anyway. It might be sour grapes but the only thought I have for those who voted in favour is the word "gullible". 

Now the legal agreements will be signed, and the share transfer will happen all the power and control that a 71% share ownership could have delivered has been eroded to nothing. St Mirren fans have to hope that Kibble are true to their word, and that they want a successful and rich football club just as much as the fans do. Fans will have to hope that Kibble directors never feel the need to use their veto. They'll need to hope that the legal agreement is watertight too in terms of what SMISA might have to pay to buy out Kibble if the whole deal goes sour, and that there isn't a situation where Kibble mark up the price of the shares with the threat of them selling a 27% minority shareholding with enhanced veto rights to a more threatening buyer. 

I expect what we will see is Kibble exploiting a number of opportunities around the club that the club, the fans council and SMISA all lacked the vision to target. If that is the case we'll need to hope that Kibble will at least put some of the profits from the venture back into the club.  If that isn't what Kibble are going to be doing I'd be very surprised. I imagine there will also be a sense of frustration amongst elements of the support when they start to see the kind of numbers that are involved from relatively low hanging fruit - still at least it's a charity that is benefiting.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for the club. I hope that it all works out. Maybe it'll be the new dawn where SMISA will have their eye's opened for them, by Kibble, to the potential of properly working with the community and of tapping into the talents and skills that exist out there. It's sad though, cause from now on keeping your fingers crossed is pretty much all the control you have of your club once again. Fan ownership was never meant to look like this. 

 

 

Absolutely. The response at the Q&A was that Smisa would have first refusal on the shares at what was paid. No mention of adjustment for inflation or anything - which I thought was strange - so will be important for this to be nailed down to mitigate the risk of sale to a 3rd party. 

Also raises the question of how do Smisa finance in that scenario? I.e. Kibble say you have 1st refusal but you have 3 months to buy or we go elsewhere. Suddenly Smisa need to carry a much bigger ‘rainy day fund’ otherwise they can’t purchase in that scenario and Kibble can go off to the highest bidder. 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Maboza

[bazil85]

7 hours ago, Dickson said:

Well, being honest, I'm disappointed and concerned. There were far too many questions left unanswered and yet still a huge majority of the SMISA membership voted in favour of it anyway. It might be sour grapes but the only thought I have for those who voted in favour is the word "gullible". 

Now the legal agreements will be signed, and the share transfer will happen all the power and control that a 71% share ownership could have delivered has been eroded to nothing. St Mirren fans have to hope that Kibble are true to their word, and that they want a successful and rich football club just as much as the fans do. Fans will have to hope that Kibble directors never feel the need to use their veto. They'll need to hope that the legal agreement is watertight too in terms of what SMISA might have to pay to buy out Kibble if the whole deal goes sour, and that there isn't a situation where Kibble mark up the price of the shares with the threat of them selling a 27% minority shareholding with enhanced veto rights to a more threatening buyer. 

I expect what we will see is Kibble exploiting a number of opportunities around the club that the club, the fans council and SMISA all lacked the vision to target. If that is the case we'll need to hope that Kibble will at least put some of the profits from the venture back into the club.  If that isn't what Kibble are going to be doing I'd be very surprised. I imagine there will also be a sense of frustration amongst elements of the support when they start to see the kind of numbers that are involved from relatively low hanging fruit - still at least it's a charity that is benefiting.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for the club. I hope that it all works out. Maybe it'll be the new dawn where SMISA will have their eye's opened for them, by Kibble, to the potential of properly working with the community and of tapping into the talents and skills that exist out there. It's sad though, cause from now on keeping your fingers crossed is pretty much all the control you have of your club once again. Fan ownership was never meant to look like this. 

 

 

Definitely sour grasses. You’ve made very similar claims before about the original BTB and you were proven wrong time after time. You don’t give people the credit they deserve to make informed decisions (which this very much was)

you go onto list a number of very unlikely risks. as I have said before risks exist in any business proposal, it doesn’t mean don’t do business. You were very vocal about risks in the current proposal, to the point you cancelled your membership. yet you have became one of the biggest supporters of it recently. The mask had slipped a long time ago on why you will always oppose any SMISA/ GLS led proposals. Even one that’s ‘exactly’ what you were looking for. 

The rest of your post is smatterings of bitterness and incorrect claims that we have given away all control. 
 

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by bazil85

[Sonny]

I think it is quite insulting to describe the 91.6% as 'gullible'.

As with all major decisions in life - getting married, getting a new job, having children, buying a house, moving abroad, buying a car or a business arrangement - there are no accompanying 50 pages of cast iron guarantees in your favour covering any perceived eventuality you can dream up.  You are attracted to an idea then you investigate and get as many answers as possible and from the correct sources (not a forum) then you go with your gut instinct and if it feels right you go ahead and try to make it work. Things do not always work out the way you would want however they may turn out better and the best thing you had ever done. Its about trusting in yourself and those that you enter into the agreement with. Because you do not get the 50 pages of guarantees that suit you does not mean you are gullible. It is an informed decision.

[BuddieinEK]

U r a fanny, plain and simple.

Not that simple...
I like fannies!

Otherwise, you make a good point Sir.

[jaybee]

On 2/21/2020 at 3:01 AM, BuddieinEK said:

On 2/21/2020 at 1:22 AM, Dickson said:

The only example we've got that I can see was that Kibble were going to cook for the St Mirren players, but that St Mirren FC Ltd would buy the food. Scott said it currently cost £1000 per week but doing it this way it would cost £500 per week. 
To make a big assumption but if everything else is being done under the same premise then I would imagine that the labour will be provided by Kibble, and the materials would be purchased by SMFC or SMISA or both. 
I said this a while back but I suspect what is behind this Ralston thing is that Kibble will make breakfast and lunch for the players. The players then go home and Kibble continue to run the facilities either to fulfill some catering contract that they have, or more likely to sell food and drink to the young players and their parents who attend the academy of an evening where any profit would go straight to Kibble. 
I also suspect that we would see lots of similar small social enterprises springing up at the stadium where they are driving footfall. I think in some ways this was backed up by something Jim Gillespie said at the meeting where he talked about using facilities like the dome, but being happy to move or cancel their booking for something that was willing to pay the club more to use the same facilities. He talked about the police wanting to use the dome. 
Now just to be clear I wouldn't be against any of that happening - even if Kibble didn't have to pay a rent for the facilities. It would simply be a case of Kibble exploiting a market and facilities that St Mirren didn't want to go after for whatever reason. There might be a few people around St Mirren and SMISA that might kick themselves when they see the opportunities they missed but the advantage to St Mirren would be little improvements to their home at cost price. Where my problem with the whole thing is - why the need for them to become minority shareholders at a cost of £300k rather than using legally binding contracts? And why are SMISA so happy to give away control of the club?
 

Sadly, we won't know the answers to that last paragraph till it is too late to do anything about it.

I'm going to be polite here and simply refer to you two as dumb and dumber, primarily because in your little world 27% outvotes 51%............................however HERE in the REAL world it DON'T.  😎

[stlucifer]

13 hours ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

My name is no St Lucifer.. so nah...

Don't put yourself down. It's not in the name.

And my name isn't St Lucifer either so snap.

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

Suppose at the end of the financial year St Mirren return a healthy profit maybe after the selling of a player worth 1 or 2 million £ ( not impossible) Kibble would be entitled to take their share of the profits and invest it outside the club in some other Kibble project as I would expect them to do.  Money lost to the club.

[guinness]

9 minutes ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

Suppose at the end of the financial year St Mirren return a healthy profit maybe after the selling of a player worth 1 or 2 million £ ( not impossible) Kibble would be entitled to take their share of the profits and invest it outside the club in some other Kibble project as I would expect them to do.  Money lost to the club.

I voted no but will accept the majority as long as basil stops going on and on and on and on

[Lord Pityme]

Suppose at the end of the financial year St Mirren return a healthy profit maybe after the selling of a player worth 1 or 2 million £ ( not impossible) Kibble would be entitled to take their share of the profits and invest it outside the club in some other Kibble project as I would expect them to do.  Money lost to the club.

Dont bringing real life, factual examples to the debate!

[Ayrshire Saints]

Explain exactly how that comes about. The profit will be SMFCs not Kibbles so how could money belonging to SMFC be spent on Kibble projects when they will only have 25% representation. Do you think having a % share entitles them to take that % of the company's profit to spend as they wish ?

Suppose at the end of the financial year St Mirren return a healthy profit maybe after the selling of a player worth 1 or 2 million £ ( not impossible) Kibble would be entitled to take their share of the profits and invest it outside the club in some other Kibble project as I would expect them to do.  Money lost to the club.

[oaksoft]

10 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Really? 

Yes it really is an illness.

What is wrong with you?

[oaksoft]

10 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Maybe we could start by requesting minutes from meetings are kept and made available?

Good practice and accountability.

I would imagine this might be a problem if any commercially sensitive information was discussed.

Otherwise it's a good idea.

[oaksoft]

9 hours ago, Dickson said:

Well, being honest, I'm disappointed and concerned. There were far too many questions left unanswered and yet still a huge majority of the SMISA membership voted in favour of it anyway. It might be sour grapes but the only thought I have for those who voted in favour is the word "gullible". 

Now the legal agreements will be signed, and the share transfer will happen all the power and control that a 71% share ownership could have delivered has been eroded to nothing. St Mirren fans have to hope that Kibble are true to their word, and that they want a successful and rich football club just as much as the fans do. Fans will have to hope that Kibble directors never feel the need to use their veto. They'll need to hope that the legal agreement is watertight too in terms of what SMISA might have to pay to buy out Kibble if the whole deal goes sour, and that there isn't a situation where Kibble mark up the price of the shares with the threat of them selling a 27% minority shareholding with enhanced veto rights to a more threatening buyer. 

I expect what we will see is Kibble exploiting a number of opportunities around the club that the club, the fans council and SMISA all lacked the vision to target. If that is the case we'll need to hope that Kibble will at least put some of the profits from the venture back into the club.  If that isn't what Kibble are going to be doing I'd be very surprised. I imagine there will also be a sense of frustration amongst elements of the support when they start to see the kind of numbers that are involved from relatively low hanging fruit - still at least it's a charity that is benefiting.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for the club. I hope that it all works out. Maybe it'll be the new dawn where SMISA will have their eye's opened for them, by Kibble, to the potential of properly working with the community and of tapping into the talents and skills that exist out there. It's sad though, cause from now on keeping your fingers crossed is pretty much all the control you have of your club once again. Fan ownership was never meant to look like this. 

 

 

Baz has some kind of illness where he can't seem to stop responding to every single poster.

This is your illness right here in bold. Everyone else is an idiot but you. Anyone who votes against your view is gullible.

You have been doing this for more years than I can remember.

Have you ever thought that maybe it's you who is the problem? That maybe you are over-thinking and over-simplifying everything? That maybe not everything is a conspiracy? It's one thing to have concerns but people like you and LPM are in a whole other league of obsessive. And not in a good way.

For example, you bang on about kibble having a veto and simply being able to swan around the club doing what they like. You neatly forget that SMISA can block anything and everything which is not in the club's interest. That veto works both ways. You casually or deliberately forget to mention that. Why is that? Is it because you are trying to manipulate people you think are too stupid to know better? Or because you are too stupid to know better? Or something else? What is it? Why bang on about one veto but not the other? Why the lack of balance in your argument?

Just a thought.

Edited February 22, 2020 by oaksoft