Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts






Since you don't say which company, I have no way of knowing if you are correct or not but, assuming you are, how was this paid? In a dividend, by chance? Or did they just take the money from that one deal and share it out in brown envelopes?


Yeh, they effectively took the money from that deal and shared it out in brown envelopes
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm not in the habit of providing supporting evidence for other people's claims, that's their job. 

"It wasn't" what?

 

I didn’t make a claim. I stated a fact.

 

And I have no obligation to provide you with any evidence. I neither know nor care whether you believe it [emoji12]

 

And I think he is saying that the return of capital wasn’t made in the form of a dividend

 

It was made in the form of, er, a return of capital.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 

1. When was the last time Saints were part owned by a third party organisation?

 

2. I give in. Quote me the relevant sections about dividends as you obviously know

 

3. One of the main drivers of share prices is the dividend.

 

 

The main driver of share price is demand for the share and THAT is driven by the share being undervalued by the market. At least that is how sane people decide whether or not to buy shares. Buying because of dividend payouts is f**king lunacy because it tells you nothing about the underlying stability of the company. The world is full of people who lost everything because of the sort of stupid decision making you refer to. What you are describing amounts to nothing more than speculative gambling.

I think we can safely ignore your other comments about dividends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

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 ?

If everyone agrees, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dickson said:

You claim to be a businessman Oaksoft. Would you sign away control of your business without covering as many bases as possible in a water tight legal agreement? Would you think it was sensible to think through as many scenarios as possible and to protect yourself from them, or would you think that was an illness and sign your life away regardless? 

In this specific case gullible is exactly the right word. Look at the facts. 

  • The SMISA committee believe they aren't competent enough to grow the football club themselves
  • They recommend a proposal that sees a third party come in to attempt to grow the football club for them
  • Around 91% of the SMISA membership hear the committee members they elected to represent them tell them they aren't competent. 
  • And they then vote in favour of the third party coming in without any sight of the legal agreement and without answers to many of the pertinent questions being raised.

Yet you think I'm the one who has the illness. 

None of that first paragraph is relevant because that's not the point I was raising.

You think everyone is stupid except you.

You think everyone is incompetent except you.

You believe both of these things are true across multiple disciplines.

Classic narcissism.

Yes I think you have an illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

In response to you making similar points. If someone asks me what colour the grass is, I’m not going to change from saying it’s green 😂

People don#t have an issue with you saying the grass is green FFS.

Sigh!

People have a problem with you saying that it's green 500 times over 9 months though.

That's the point.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main driver of share price is demand for the share and THAT is driven by the share being undervalued by the market. At least that is how sane people decide whether or not to buy shares. Buying because of dividend payouts is f**king lunacy because it tells you nothing about the underlying stability of the company. The world is full of people who lost everything because of the sort of stupid decision making you refer to. What you are describing amounts to nothing more than speculative gambling. I think we can safely ignore your other comments about dividends.

 

 

Oh dear. What do you think drives that demand? [emoji23]

 

Deary me.

 

I like your use of the word “we” in the final sentence

 

This has to be one of biggest fails yet

 

I think “we” can safely ignore all your comments in all your posts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Sorry Oaksoft, but there are many examples of investors who specially choose dividend yield stocks as a strategy. One notable “extraordinary” example is Warren Buffett. But many “ordinary” people also choose this strategy of “buy and hold” with stocks that yield quality dividends. Some will reinvest the dividends, others live off the dividends as a form of passive income.

Warren Buffet does a hell of a lot more than look at dividend prices.

He specifically targets companies for very long term investments so he analyses the underlying strength of the business.

With respect, many ordinary share buyers have no idea what they are doing and couldn't tell a solid business from a weak one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Oaksoft. That's not true. There's many strategies which traders follow in order to get the best return on investment. Buying shares for a stable and reasonably guaranteed dividend return is one of the most traditional ones - and one of the safer ones. It's why so many pension funds hold such large stakes in "Blue Chip" companies. 

I didn't say that consideration of dividends didn't happen and I didn't say that you shouldn't do it at all.

I am saying that it's lunacy to rely on dividends alone.

I can assure you that pension companies do not look at dividends in isolation. They are risk averse and want to identify stable companies. You can't tell that from dividend payments alone.

OK I've said my piece on this and I've nothing to add.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The main driver of share price is demand for the share and THAT is driven by the share being undervalued by the market. At least that is how sane people decide whether or not to buy shares. Buying because of dividend payouts is f**king lunacy because it tells you nothing about the underlying stability of the company. The world is full of people who lost everything because of the sort of stupid decision making you refer to. What you are describing amounts to nothing more than speculative gambling.

I think we can safely ignore your other comments about dividends.

Pension companies buy into companies for dividends ie. income to pay their clients.  How many pension companies have gone burst?  The pension industry is immense and for those who buy shares solely on the share price are speculators who buy and sell shares as the market fluctuates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 

Oh dear. What do you think drives that demand? emoji23.png

 

Deary me.

 

I like your use of the word “we” in the final sentence

 

This has to be one of biggest fails yet

 

I think “we” can safely ignore all your comments in all your posts.

 

Sorry but I am not about to carry on arguing against the wall of stupidity you are presenting to me. 

Invest your money as you wish.

I'll leave you to talk to others about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickson said:

Oh right! 

Well I better sack my stock broker. After all who wants to be tax efficient when I could listen to Oaksofts crash and burn guide to share buying. 

If you believe considering the underlying stability of the company before buying shares is "crash and burn" then that's your funeral.

It is of absolutely no surprise that you consider yourself superior to everyone else in this area. :lol:

Seriously. Narcissism. Check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

Pension companies buy into companies for dividends ie. income to pay their clients.  How many pension companies have gone burst?  The pension industry is immense and for those who buy shares solely on the share price are speculators who buy and sell shares as the market fluctuates.

Some but not many.

And that is because they spend a lot of time analysing the underlying strength of the business instead of solely relying on the dividend payouts.

f**k me, you guys are winding me up today aren't you? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dickson said:
3 hours ago, jaybee said:

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.  😎

As I've repeatedly pointed out in the UK the legal status of a 25% +1 share shareholder is absolutely clear. 

Quote

25% of the company’s shares +1 share

To pass a special resolution, 75% of shareholders must vote in favour of it. Therefore, a special resolution cannot be passed if a minority shareholder owning 25% +1 voting shares in the company opposes the resolution. Special resolutions are required to be passed (amongst other things) to implement the following:

  • alteration of articles of association; 
  • offer to issue shares in the company to existing shareholders other than on a pro-rata basis by disapplying pre-emption rights; 
  • reduction of share capital (also subject to confirmation by the court); 
  • to give, revoke, renew or vary the authority for the company to purchase shares in itself; 
  • change of name; 
  • re-registration of private company to public company; 
  • to redeem or purchase own shares out of capital; and
  • voluntary liquidation.

SMISA and Gordon Scott have enhanced those rights by putting into the agreement that Kibble's shareholding gives them enhanced rights allowing them to veto - in the words used to date - "any major decisions at the club". SMISA can't just bluster through any resolution they want. If it doesn't have Kibbles support they will be able to block absolutely anything they want. That is what the SMISA committee and membership have given away and the supporters only recourse now in this "fan ownership" model is to hope that Kibble play nice, and to how that the break clause is cast iron in the legal agreement including the maximum price per share SMISA would have to pay to get Kibbles shares back off them. 

I'll take the claims that I'm bitter or angry or whatever - not because I am but I know it will look that way. I'm just not at the point yet where I shrug my shoulders and say "ah well, its' the St Mirren way. Had it all wrapped up and f**ked it". 

The right to veto  "any major decisions at the club". in my view; and that of many others I would imagine, is a safeguard that precludes knee jerk reactions to potential future events within the club.  I welcome an organisation with a history of surviving and prospering (in difficult times) and whilst I appreciate that Kibble is not here primarily to aid St MIrren; in my opinion it is not here to do it any harm either.  As many have pointed out the Kibble directors have a duty of care to their organisation and it would be ludicrous to imagine they bought their way into a football club simply to sabotage it.  The scenario that they outlined in respect of adding to their training options for their clients through being partners with the club would appear to be win win for both parties, if they can reduce costs and improve output  / quality through their training programmes and bring their expertise in business management to the club, ultimately it should make St Mirren a leaner and meaner business, maximising resources is and has been at the heart of Kibbles operational management for many years.  Will they interfere in 'football business'? why would they?  Would they have issues should the current board wish to mortgage the club / stadium to banks? (hypothetical scenario here, so don't go ballistic).  Yes I rather think they would, and such a scenario is why I think they are a good partner.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that consideration of dividends didn't happen and I didn't say that you shouldn't do it at all.

I am saying that it's lunacy to rely on dividends alone.

I can assure you that pension companies do not look at dividends in isolation. They are risk averse and want to identify stable companies. You can't tell that from dividend payments alone.

OK I've said my piece on this and I've nothing to add.

 

Instead of doubling down on your stupidity oaksoft, take the advice you gave baz and just hold your hands up and admit you’re wrong

 

It’s fine you know. Everyone already knew that you didn’t know what you were talking about

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I am not about to carry on arguing against the wall of stupidity you are presenting to me. 
Invest your money as you wish.
I'll leave you to talk to others about this.


Do you have the same illness as baz?

Instead of doubling down on your stupidity, just hold your hands up and admit you don’t know what you’re talking about
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some but not many.
And that is because they spend a lot of time analysing the underlying strength of the business instead of solely relying on the dividend payouts.
f**k me, you guys are winding me up today aren't you? :lol:


The ONLY person here who has mentioned the word “solely” is you

And the only idiot here who has stated that dividends are only a “nice” to have is you

I already knew you were an idiot

You’ve just gone above and beyond the call of duty proving it on this thread

As did slarti and TPAFKATS [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Here’s laughing at all 3 of you
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let’s leave aside oaksoft s complete lack of understanding how business operates, there remains the issue that when St Mirren get their hands on a large windfall of cash again, do folk really think kibble aren’t going to want their 25%

 

Maybe slarti can provide them with the brown envelopes [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

default_1eye.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, jaybee said:

The right to veto  "any major decisions at the club". in my view; and that of many others I would imagine, is a safeguard that precludes knee jerk reactions to potential future events within the club.  I welcome an organisation with a history of surviving and prospering (in difficult times) and whilst I appreciate that Kibble is not here primarily to aid St MIrren; in my opinion it is not here to do it any harm either.  As many have pointed out the Kibble directors have a duty of care to their organisation and it would be ludicrous to imagine they bought their way into a football club simply to sabotage it.  The scenario that they outlined in respect of adding to their training options for their clients through being partners with the club would appear to be win win for both parties, if they can reduce costs and improve output  / quality through their training programmes and bring their expertise in business management to the club, ultimately it should make St Mirren a leaner and meaner business, maximising resources is and has been at the heart of Kibbles operational management for many years.  Will they interfere in 'football business'? why would they?  Would they have issues should the current board wish to mortgage the club / stadium to banks? (hypothetical scenario here, so don't go ballistic).  Yes I rather think they would, and such a scenario is why I think they are a good partner.  

At last - a post full of common sense and reasonable logic.  👏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMISA and Gordon Scott have enhanced those rights by putting into the agreement that Kibble's shareholding gives them enhanced rights allowing them to veto - in the words used to date - "any major decisions at the club". SMISA can't just bluster through any resolution they want. If it doesn't have Kibbles support they will be able to block absolutely anything they want. That is what the SMISA committee and membership have given away and the supporters only recourse now in this "fan ownership" model is to hope that Kibble play nice, and to how that the break clause is cast iron in the legal agreement including the maximum price per share SMISA would have to pay to get Kibbles shares back off them. 
I'll take the claims that I'm bitter or angry or whatever - not because I am but I know it will look that way. I'm just not at the point yet where I shrug my shoulders and say "ah well, its' the St Mirren way. Had it all wrapped up and f**ked it". 
Thanks Stuart...
Saves me stating the obvious to Thicko!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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