Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

[stlucifer]

Just now, St.Ricky said:

So... Come on.. Let's have even one positive idea. Shouting at me online does nothing to support your position. Are you just an attack dog or do you have more in you than that? 

Sorry.

SEVEN posts with the same sh!te.

Do you actually have an original thought worthy of note?

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Sorry.

SEVEN posts with the same sh!te.

Do you actually have an original thought worthy of note?

Plenty but I'm still waiting for just one from you. I have a feeling that I have a long wait 

[BuddieinEK]

The financial target was based on having 1,000 members paying £12 a month. The evidence is in initial comms 
Breaking news! it’s possible to calculate how much 1,000 people paying £12 a month is [emoji23]

You can't answer him, can you?
Well... Not accurately anyway.

He's got you over a barrel and you know it.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

Sorry.

SEVEN posts with the same sh!te.

Do you actually have an original thought worthy of note?

Its not just on this forum.

No idea how whydowebother found his linkedin profile but I had a wee look at an article he wrote describing some venture he had setup and was advertising. It was paragraphs of vague pish from start to finish which didn't explicitly state what his venture actually did. If I recall he said something like he was going to setup a centre offering core competencies with far reaching solutions which would benefit the community.

Hilariously he got at least one person to comment that he was excited to get involved.

 

[bazil85]

27 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

You can't answer him, can you?
Well... Not accurately anyway.

He's got you over a barrel and you know it.

Yes I can, very, very easily... you know exactly like I did in the post you quoted. Let me try make it even simpler for you (not for the first time I’ve had to do this) 

BTB was originally penned as we need 1,000 members paying the equivalent of £12 a month. That means... the financial target for BTB to be a goer was £12,000 a month worth of contributors. 
 

the current membership numbers and equivalent monthly contributions are over 120% of that target. Do you genuinely 1. Not understand that or 2. Think that’s incorrect? 

[Kombibuddie]

The financial target was based on having 1,000 members paying £12 a month. The evidence is in initial comms 
Breaking news! it’s possible to calculate how much 1,000 people paying £12 a month is [emoji23]

With that abacus, you're f**ked in calculating it [emoji1787].

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

What have your days got to do with anything? Do you think your days are different from anybody else's? Are yours longer? Shorter? Warmer? Colder? Your days definitely have nothing to do with the point.

good one. 

Or are you admitting to having a breakdown on "your days"? Sorry to hear that but don't worry, there's lots of help available these days. Maybe the Kibble have a program that can help you.

hmm can’t decide if you’re being pedantic here or just a continuation of how upset you get at me easily pointing out when you’re wrong (so many times now). It’s difficult to tell given your nature. 

There's definitely no breakdown on my part. You haven't even attempted to answer anything. What's wrong? Just realised that you have no command of the English language?

I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt a few time’s on a really simple point. Slow but sure it’s became clear you completely lack the ability to understand. My response to BEK is genuinely as simple as I can make it I’m afraid  

Come on LPM, I mean Baz, give it a go.

good one again, what a classic that has become... its like you and LPM’s wee thing isn’t it? So cute.

Why were you having to clarify something that you claim was perfectly clear in the first place?

it’s a very good question, it genuinely shocked me that people didn’t understand it. 

Where was the mention of finances in your "additional point"?

where was the mention of member numbers in my additional point? Back to my previous note, I was genuinely shocked that some people can’t understand BTB completion has a financial target. Crazy right? 

 

[bazil85]

Just now, Kombibuddie said:

 

 

With that abacus, you're f**ked in calculating it .
 

 

Have a wee try at estimating it yourself and see if the current members raise the equivalent of more than 120% of said original target... oh and I know we don’t have exact figures on £25/ £2,500 members but surely no one is pedantic enough to suggest they total less than 14

[FTOF]

13 minutes ago, Dickson said:

You can see my problem with this though jaybee, can't you? 

91.6% of SMiSA members have voted to pass a legal agreement that lets a third party take 27% of the shares with enhanced veto rights allowing this third party to block any major decisions at the football club and they've done so despite not knowing amongst other things -

• any detail at all on how Kibble intend to get a return on investment of £300k beyond them looking to give some kids something to do.
• the wording of the legal agreement
• whether they will be represented at SFA and SPFL meetings by directors they have voted into position, or directors representing Kibble. 
• what price the shares will be set at if either side decide to sell off their shares to the other 
• any detail on whether facilities used by Kibble will have lets paid on them and whether profits made from the ventures will go to Kibble, or to St Mirren FC Ltd.

They've voted this through on the back of a wink and a nod from Colin Orr, assurances from Jim Goodwin that having met Jim Gillespie he likes him, and a story from Tony Fitzpatrick about Reg Brearly.

Can you see why I think they were gullible, or at the very least utterly naive? 

Now, having gifted the power of the veto away, all any of us can do is keep our fingers crossed that Kibble will help grow the clubs revenues, without taking anything out for themselves and that their directors will humbly do as the SMiSA membership wishes at all times cause this deal means no-one has got any recourse to do anything about it. 

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.🥱

 

[bazil85]

19 minutes ago, Dickson said:

You can see my problem with this though jaybee, can't you? 

91.6% of SMiSA members have voted to pass a legal agreement that lets a third party take 27% of the shares with enhanced veto rights allowing this third party to block any major decisions at the football club and they've done so despite not knowing amongst other things -

• any detail at all on how Kibble intend to get a return on investment of £300k beyond them looking to give some kids something to do.
• the wording of the legal agreement
• whether they will be represented at SFA and SPFL meetings by directors they have voted into position, or directors representing Kibble. 
• what price the shares will be set at if either side decide to sell off their shares to the other 
• any detail on whether facilities used by Kibble will have lets paid on them and whether profits made from the ventures will go to Kibble, or to St Mirren FC Ltd.

They've voted this through on the back of a wink and a nod from Colin Orr, assurances from Jim Goodwin that having met Jim Gillespie he likes him, and a story from Tony Fitzpatrick about Reg Brearly.

Can you see why I think they were gullible, or at the very least utterly naive? 

Now, having gifted the power of the veto away, all any of us can do is keep our fingers crossed that Kibble will help grow the clubs revenues, without taking anything out for themselves and that their directors will humbly do as the SMiSA membership wishes at all times cause this deal means no-one has got any recourse to do anything about it. 

Again many of your points have been answered and the rest are a negative view of circumstance that will either not happen or are very unlikely to negatively impact the club. 
 

for years you have been making claims about how gullible everyone else is and how you’re so much better at knowing what’s right in the BOD than the many people closer to projects than you. Regarding BTB you have been categorically wrong to date with practically every view you’ve had.
 

You can keep believing we’re all gullible if you like but will we not at least see an admittance from you that you’ve been wrong on (many) similar points regarding BTB in the past? 

[bazil85]

8 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Answered by whom, and where? 

Different people will require different depths of clarity. You pretty much require an unmatchable level of clarity because of your negative outlook on all things SMFC. I (and apparently an overwhelming majority of others) was happy all questions were answered in communications to the extent the deal should go ahead. That’s not me saying there still isn’t risks attached and outlandish scenarios that could happen once in a blue moon, Some of which you have covered over the last few weeks. All business arrangements have risk. 
 

it also certainly isn’t to say all people that voted yes are gullible and one of the most inaccurate posters in the websites history is right. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

Most of that was you just trying hard, again, to be condescending. I've already told you, you're not intelligent enough to get away with that. 
 

I think it’s pretty clear my ability to challenge you in argument really angers and upsets you. As such you use we unsavoury jabs like this as a way to cope. It’s also clear you have this upset with a few other contributors. The frustration at me not backing down and letting you away with a range of your go to moves. from inaccuracy, lies to pedantic posting is very clear. 

As for the "where was the mention of member numbers in my additional point?", it was right where you said:


additional point here right enough. By my calculations on SMISA membership numbers we have 1,187 BTB members. Wee bit of a dip over the last year (although worth noting, easily still over 120% of initial target) 
Hopefully we see that number grow under the new arrangement. 

Fixed it for you. Again the point in brackets is a caveat that BTB is over initial plan by at least 20% initial plan being a financial goal. No amount of crying from you will change that meaning I’m afraid. 

You then immediately said that it was a "wee bit of a dip" but "still over 120% of initial target".

Clear enough for you?

perfectly, how about you several pages later? 

 

 

[oaksoft]

18 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Different people will require different depths of clarity. You pretty much require an unmatchable level of clarity because of your negative outlook on all things SMFC. I (and apparently an overwhelming majority of others) was happy all questions were answered in communications to the extent the deal should go ahead. That’s not me saying there still isn’t risks attached and outlandish scenarios that could happen once in a blue moon, Some of which you have covered over the last few weeks. All business arrangements have risk. 
 

it also certainly isn’t to say all people that voted yes are gullible and one of the most inaccurate posters in the websites history is right. 

Bingo!

[Kombibuddie]

... oh and I know we don’t have exact figures on £25/ £2,500 members

[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]

That's ok then.

It could be 138% of the intended "financial" target for all you know.

Did you just pluck 120% out of thin air or was it a guestimate on your gut feeling?

[shull]

5 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

So you're now claiming that you were giving an example of something totally different to the Kibble situation? Not much of an "example" then, was it?

You also replied to Dicko that you weren't talking about dividends with your "example" but it clearly did involve dividends, at least in part.

And you claim that I haven't a clue. Priceless.



I spent my Saturday night in the pub, actually. Never looked at the forum until after I got up at about 5ish this morning.

I understand what the Standard Life site said, are you claiming that you know better than them? Feckin clown.



I'm not upset at all (I've told you before that you should be reading all my replies to you in a condescending tone), you are the one trying to defend the indefensible. Looks like you're actually seething. Quite amusing actually.

Here is the first result when you Google "clarify meaning".

clarify

verb

1.

make (a statement or situation) less confused and more comprehensible.

Why would you need to clarify when you say that your post was perfectly clear?



Nobody was calling you a liar, they just said you were wrong. You can be wrong without lying. Now that you're coming up with all your wriggling however ...



Again, I specifically asked Div openly on the forum if it was possible to prevent assholes from the wank tank changing topic titles outside of the wank tank, to correspond with the way that they couldn't post outside of it. Div decided what action to take. If you hadn't been being such a wee twat about things and craving attention (sometimes changing thread titles several times an hour) then there would have been no need for any of it at all.

Just you continue being a c**t, though, you'll end up back in the bin again - at the least.

 

Boo  hoo you fecking riddler  

[shull]

9 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

You know, this really isn't worth my time. It's there in b&w in your post for all to see. The fact that you, not for the first time, can't accept that you made a slight error in what you posted and have spent pages arguing with several people when it is pointed out to you shows your failings, not mine.

 

Imagine the person reading your initial post had no knowledge of any of what was happening. How would they take your post, especially when you said it was an "additional point"? And, yes, that is relative, before you argue otherwise, as your "additional point" represented itself as a stand alone comment, something different.

 

I won't see your answer, however, as I'm pinging you on ignore for a couple of months (at least), along with several other twats on here (like the one below) as you all offer absolutely nothing worthwhile. Not a single thing between you.

 

Claim it as a victory, have the last word, claim that you were right all along - I don't care. This is just me accepting that you are a lost cause who always thinks he is right and can't handle being shown to be wrong.

 

The twat below, well he's just a twat.

 

 

 

[bazil85]

9 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

 

 

That's ok then.

It could be 138% of the intended "financial" target for all you know.

Did you just pluck 120% out of thin air or was it a guestimate on your gut feeling?
 

 

Again, are you joking? I picked over 120% for the reason that we don’t know exact numbers. We know it’s at least 120% though which is why that was picked. This is very simple stuff, have you got someone that can explain it to you? 
 

“OVER 120%” 

[bazil85]

8 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

You know, this really isn't worth my time. It's there in b&w in your post for all to see. The fact that you, not for the first time, can't accept that you made a slight error in what you posted and have spent pages arguing with several people when it is pointed out to you shows your failings, not mine.

Yet from past experience you’ll still give it dozens if not 100s of posts... I’d say that’s inaccurate that it’s nothing worth your time’ it’s also in b&w for anyone with a basic understanding of percentages and our target that it wasn’t a mistake  

Imagine the person reading your initial post had no knowledge of any of what was happening. How would they take your post, especially when you said it was an "additional point"? And, yes, that is relative, before you argue otherwise, as your "additional point" represented itself as a stand alone comment, something different.

It was aimed at Smfc fans who I assumed (yes that’s okay from time to time in a fan forum, shock horror) would have at least a basic understanding Of BTB. If they knew the numeral target was 1,000 paying £12 then anyone with a shred of common sense knows the financial target. As such it only takes maybe p4 level math to work out what I meant. I also assumed (hands up wrong about this) people would have at least that level of mathematics knowledge. 

I won't see your answer, however, as I'm pinging you on ignore for a couple of months (at least), along with several other twats on here (like the one below) as you all offer absolutely nothing worthwhile. Not a single thing between you.

Another post worth a bookmark... let’s start a clock to see if you can last the two months. (I imagine a BEK style engagement where you respond to other people I’m debating with making snide wee remarks) 

Claim it as a victory, have the last word, claim that you were right all along - I don't care. This is just me accepting that you are a lost cause who always thinks he is right and can't handle being shown to be wrong.

The claim I will make is one I’ve made all along, initial post was right, you are wrong. 

The twat below, well he's just a twat.

 

 

 

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, Ice-tears said:

As before “thick as f**k”

Don't be so hard on yourself. 

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, Dickson said:

I see. So asking to read the legal agreement is an "unmatchable level of clarity"? And asking if the share price will be guaranteed to be no higher than what SMiSA would have paid for them in the initial agreement is an "unmatchable level of clarity"? 
 

I don’t for a second think either of those points being complete/ known would have satisfied you in this proposal. They may both be nice to haves but not being defined is far from a red line for me. As I have said before, I’m happy to put some on good faith given the positive reputation people linked to the deal have gained in recent years. People like GLS, GA, etc have earned my trust. 

Bazil, lets face it. What is quite clear is that you don't have the knowledge to tie your own laces never mind any knowledge about this deal - or anything else you claim SMiSA have done or haven't done. You are their "useful idiot". That's fine - it's not your fault - it's just that it seems to have taken quite a few people a rather long time to figure your inability to do anything other than wave some pom-poms for SMiSA around. 
 

You previously mentioned sour grapes and I have mentioned bitterness. This is all that last part is. A bitterness that your view on the initial BTB was wrong and you’ve been completely powerless in the new deal. You lash out at someone that observably has been far more accurate than you over the years of BTB. We all cope in different ways  

 

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, Ice-tears said:

As before “thick as f**k”

And you’re still wrong. 

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, Ice-tears said:

Oh “thick as f**k” has a mate...”thick as pig shit” good pairing!

Your lack of civility knows no bounds. Exceeded only by the paucity of your vocabulary. 

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, Ice-tears said:

And ur still “thick as f**k”.

You realise that response makes no sense right? 

[bababrooks]

As per usual an important topic has turned into a mine is bigger than yours thread .... grow up guys!

[Lord Pityme]

As per usual an important topic has turned into a mine is bigger than yours thread .... grow up guys!

Aye... wee knobs!