Hiram Abiff Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 HmmmThe forum village idiot must have been allowed back on the internetIf you’ve got nothing worthwhile to contribute except trolling why don’t you just fuck off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/ddm.asp Listen, go and invest in whatever you like. It's not my money you are pissing away on this nonsense. Everyone has a scheme. 😄 Edited February 22, 2020 by oaksoft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 hours ago, BuddieinEK said: My god... I know you take abuse... But I never ever thought of you as THAT needy for a pal! Just because he’s not in your wee gang, you raging? 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Just because he’s not in your wee gang, you raging? 😂 Don't kid yourself. Andy will rip you a new one on here when it suits him. 🤣 He's siding with you for now to wind others up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 57 minutes ago, saint in exile said: My decision to vote no had f*ck all to do with anything LPM said. In fact, he might have convinced me to vote yes with some of his rabid outpourings. I simply wasn't happy about the deal, especially the veto. But the majority have spoken, so let's get on with it. Yeah I would be very surprised if many were influenced towards no by LPM or Dicko’s rambling on here. I said very early on I wouldn’t be surprised if they contributed to the yes pile. The vote results suggests that’s a possibility. Edited February 22, 2020 by bazil85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Don't kid yourself. Andy will rip you a new one on here when it suits him. 🤣 He's siding with you for now to wind others up. Seems to be working then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 1 minute ago, bazil85 said: Seems to be working then. Any chance you could learn some better banter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 15 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Any chance you could learn some better banter? Would it stop you getting so upset at my posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 hours ago, oaksoft said: Any chance you could learn some better banter? 2 hours ago, bazil85 said: Would it stop you getting so upset at my posts? Get a room, you two! : Naw, seriously! For all OUR sakes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlet Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 On 2/21/2020 at 1:44 PM, Dickson said: Its the first time since 1998 that St Mirren will have directors at the club who aren't St Mirren supporters. Strangely enough back then the majority of St Mirren shareholders voted to sell a controlling interest in the club to Reg Brearley rejecting the bid from a consortium led by Stewart Gilmour. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12301534.brearley-gains-control-of-saints/ In 2012 also in a room full of passionate St Mirren supporters a vote to help a "Rangers" team stay in the top flight after liquidation passed with a majority of 11-2. St Mirren fans have a history of getting it spectacularly wrong. Lets hope, for the sake of the club that this time round the majority have shown good judgement in gifting away the power to run the club. Please don't tell me Messrs Atkinson, Stewart and Henderson were/are died in the wool supporters. Naughty of you not to complete the story of Reg Brearley. Our white knight Stewart Gilmour won the day. The majority of shareholders did not vote to sell a controlling interest in the club but the Directors with majority shareholding power did. Sounds a bit like what the concern is now!! Do not understand your statement " St Mirren fans have a history of getting it wrong. We have been in existence since 1876, so must have been doing something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally02 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 6 hours ago, Dickson said: Jaybee, I watched the video again - admittedly with a few pints and a couple of drams in my system after a big family dinner - but I don't hear any mention of a guaranteed price. Jim Gillespie talks about how he might gift the shares to SMISA once the deal is concluded but no mention of a guaranteed price. On the SMISA website it says that if either side decides to sell off its shares the other would have first refusal, but again no mention of a price. If you've seen a price guarantee can you point me in the right direction? Price is guaranteed and you leave from Edinburgh at 6.45 in the morning and arrive in Kathmandu 19hr45m later - one way I'm afraid! 👋 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said: Your initial post never mentioned "financial" targets. It should have been interpreted as it was written, not as it was intended to be written, and it was. How, when you make an "additional point", can you be talking about something that you don't mention in your "additional point"? Normal people wouldn't be looking for a pat on the back and claiming that they had done something "admirable" just for admitting they were wrong. It's others that decide if an action is admirable, not the person making the action. As I said, get over yourself. Nobody likes being wrong, but learning to admit when you are is a part of growing up. I admitted I was wrong about Hector Nicol on another thread just yesterday. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. I won't accept that I'm wrong when I'm not. That would just be silly. This is your initial post that is under discussion. Can you show me where you mention finances? Do you want a clue? What you meant to say is totally irrelevant if you didn't actually say it. I'll now sit back and watch you wriggle. My initial post could and should have been taken as BTB being over 120% of initial target which it is, the target equated to a financial one since ultimately we’re paying... money. thought it was perfectly clear given the simplistic nature of the percentages. Someone still failed to understand so I clarified. (Maybe I misjudged certain contributors capability to apply common sense) This will never change no matter how often you bring it up. It was absolutely what I meant & absolutely how it should have been interpreted. You not believing me is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 7 hours ago, Dickson said: Jaybee, I watched the video again - admittedly with a few pints and a couple of drams in my system after a big family dinner - but I don't hear any mention of a guaranteed price. Jim Gillespie talks about how he might gift the shares to SMISA once the deal is concluded but no mention of a guaranteed price. On the SMISA website it says that if either side decides to sell off its shares the other would have first refusal, but again no mention of a price. If you've seen a price guarantee can you point me in the right direction? I didn’t see any price guarantee chat if I’m honest but my feeling is we’re probably yet again getting down to semantics and very unlikely risk events. my interpretation of first refusal is just that, if the shares were to be sold SMISA would be the first option to buy them. (Already chat about reserves and the likes and the number of members that have said they’d willingly continue similar sub after the shares are bought, I imagine it’s pretty likely we’ll build them up) The only risk I can see in this, is if another party comes in with an offer higher than we could raise. It isn’t very likely at all someone will bid way over value for shares in a company like St Mirren to become a minority shareholder at the determinant of the club and the backing of kibble. We can discuss low risk events until the cow comes home, you could also do it with any company on the planet. You’ll never get any model where zero risk exists, including the original BTB proposal that you spent countless hours of your life referencing risks that never materialised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: And there she wriggles. How your post "could" have been taken is totally irrelevant (I seem to have to use that word a lot when replying to you). Someone "could" have taken your post as meaning that you like to stick light bulbs up your arse. Why "should" it have been taken that way? You said it was an "additional point", then mentioned members, didn't mention finance and then stuck in the 120% claim. I really don't understand why you just can't admit that you should have put the word "financial" before "target". All it needed was for you to say, "OK, I should have said "financial target" to be clearer". But no, you paint yourself into a corner, dig a hole and proceed to howl at the moon. I know you have issue with being corrected but as I have said, This will never change. That was the point I was making, I clarified it and the wording of the original post (And the facts BTB targets relate to financial goal) backs it up. You don’t need to believe me but you’ll need to accept this won’t change. Edited February 23, 2020 by bazil85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Abiff Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 Listen, go and invest in whatever you like. It's not my money you are pissing away on this nonsense. Everyone has a scheme. [emoji1] If you’ve got money invested in pensions then it is your money Dividends are a major indicator of the profitability of a company. This isn’t up for discussion, it’s a fact. It’s not the sole driver of share prices. Only you have mentioned that. But to think that dividends play no part in the demand for shares or are only a “nice” to have highlights that you don’t know what you’re talking about. I suggest you take up your issue with the market [emoji3] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Abiff Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 Whether or not it is a fact, it is still a claim. I agree, you have no obligation to provide any evidence. Evidence does, however, support a claim and tends to only to be withheld by those who are either being untruthful, guessing or just repeating something they heard. I wouldn't suppose that a "return of capital" would be done as a "dividend" as they are two entirely different things. A return of capital is a B share scheme and is not, according to the company itself, what happened in the example you cite. A return of capital did happen at a later date in relation to another sale but it also involved a share consolidation which meant that each new standard share plus the cash payout equaled the value of the old standard share, so essentially no profit was made. That doesn't sound like a good way for Kibble to "get their share" of a transfer fee, even if they could get it board approval. It also shows why you didn't want to provide any evidence to back up your "fact". [emoji38] Deary me Your frantic googling obviously hasn’t helped your understanding Obviously there was no profit made. I didn’t suggest there was a profit made. The Standard Life example wasn’t an example of profit being made. It was purely an example of a company returning capital to shareholders. The sale of the Canadian subsidiary wasn’t a cash windfall. They had an asset and they sold it for cash. The value of the company stayed the same. They decided to give the cash to shareholders and so the value of the company would have dropped by a corresponding amount. They therefore did a share consolidation in order to keep the share price the same. They didn’t really need to do this but share price drops aren’t a good look. So they reduced the number of shares in circulation. In the Kibble scenario I’ve highlighted, a large transfer fee is a cash windfall. It inflates the value of the company, it’s a profit. This profit could be taken out the company as a return of capital. You really haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about here, do you? You’re are clueless as oaksoft! [emoji23] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Abiff Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 The funny thing here is that slarti has obviously spent his Saturday night reading up on the Standard Life return of capital, failed to understand how it relates to a Kibble transfer windfall scenario and then made a very lengthy irrelevant postQuality [emoji23] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally02 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 16 minutes ago, St.Ricky said: So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? Apples, bananas and oranges in the catering kiosks instead of greasy pies and E12345 Hot Dogs on Match Days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 27 minutes ago, St.Ricky said: So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? Hopefully the closing of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 29 minutes ago, St.Ricky said: So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? I would suggest that's a total unknown as nobody has actually set in stone what "major decisions" actually encompass. It could well be poison fruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said: Wriggle, wriggle. I have absolutely no issue with being corrected, don't be so ridiculous. Aye many examples of this lol. You never "clarified it", you claimed that others were mistaken and incorrectly interpreting your post. Even so, if you had clarified it, then it would be an admission that the original post wasn't clear but you continue to say that it was. Make your mind up. I’m not sure why you’re getting so upset about this. 😂 my claim was correct, I clarified what I meant. That’s not going to change no matter how many times you bang your keyboard in utter rage at still not being able to get one over on me 😁 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 I’m not sure why you’re getting so upset about this. [emoji23] my claim was correct, I clarified what I meant. That’s not going to change no matter how many times you bang your keyboard in utter rage at still not being able to get one over on me [emoji16][emoji1787][emoji1787]At least you knew what you meant.1 is better than none.[emoji1787][emoji1787]Have a good day bud [emoji16] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 1 hour ago, St.Ricky said: So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? For me I hope we’ll see a bump in BTB members with the tie up with such a reputable charity. That will be fruitful in the £2 quarter let spend for starters. I think other benefits will be a bit further down the line as the deal gets completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said: At least you knew what you meant. 1 is better than none. Have a good day bud Yep I completely get you couldn’t understand it. Happy to clarify 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts