Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, whydowebother said:

Doesn’t change the fact, it’s not what we signed up for

Our 3 votes are NO

Up to you mate, and I respect your opinion.

Fan ownership was why I signed up to BTB, and fan ownership is very much being delivered with or without Kibble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, div said:

Up to you mate, and I respect your opinion.

Fan ownership was why I signed up to BTB, and fan ownership is very much being delivered with or without Kibble.

I get your point but we all signed up for 100% fan ownership (including minority shareholders) and are now being offered part fan  ownership 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Aye, way too generous. 

So, just a majority required to pass this momentous proposal?

Everything in the proposers favour IMO. 

I'm not a member. I added two comments earlier in this debate. This included the suggestion that whether or not there was a legal requirement to do so, an EGM and 75% level in favour would mirror best practice and aid transparency. I also suggested that if the proposers were confident in the merits of their  case then they too should welcome this. Additionally, I flagged up that GLS getting his money back was a red herring. Over to members. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest I was sceptical about this deal but the guys from the kibble came across well IMO. The more I think about it, it will be better to have a partner like them than to get control of the club then realise we don't have the resources and expertise to do it, a bit like the Dundee supporters, and end up selling to someone we don't really want running our club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buddymarvellous said:

I get your point but we all signed up for 100% fan ownership (including minority shareholders) and are now being offered part fan  ownership 

Owning 51% of the shares is fan ownership.

If it’s good enough for every club in Germany, it’s good enough for us IMO.

Bringing fan ownership in 5 years ahead of schedule, saving the fans £300K in the process, and getting to benefit from the infrastructure and expertise of a £30m turnover partner and all the while giving a hand to young people in need sounds like a big win to me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Aye OK, so benefits yada yada. Fine I get that. 

But what are St Mirren giving away? What are Kibble getting for their £300k? They are getting something because if they weren't the trustees of their charity would be in a lot of trouble. So what is St Mirren giving away to Kibble so that Gordon Scott gets his money early? 

Surely someone asked? 

If the deal goes through Kibble are getting a degree of control over the club that they plan to use as a base for implementing some of their projects while offering the club economies on various fronts in return, the carrot for SMiSA members is getting control of the club for less money (Is 51% ownership sufficient?) and for GLS it's getting his outlay back 5 years earlier.

The key question is whether the part-time SMiSA board members will be able to effectively scrutinise the activities of a larger organisation who despite being minor partners (27.5% compared to SMiSAs 51%) will be on-site on a daily basis and whose representatives on Saints board may likewise have more time to spend at GHR and be better informed and better placed to steer the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, in essence, office space and facilities that are St Mirren FC Ltd assets have been sold off to get Gordon Scott his money back a bit earlier? The kind of thing that SMISA accused Richard Atkinson of trying to do back in the 10000hours days. Will St Mirren fans be represented at SFA and SPFL meetings by - for example - a Rangers or Celtic supporting Kibble trustee? 
Kibble could have gotten a similar degree of control by buying a couple of SMISA subscriptions and putting a couple of trustees up as candidates. The apathy amongst SMISA members means that even people the SMISA membership rejected in an election get positions on the SMISA and Club boards. 
I get the benefits. I can understand why it might seem attractive to guys who still have day jobs to go to and who have families to take care of to just hand over control to someone else. I'll watch out for the video - hopefully it will be available for all to watch and not just SMISA members. Expertise and capability were definitely needed to prop up an apparent lack of talent and competence on the SMISA committee. I'm just not convinced that selling off parts of the club operations to get Gordon Scott some money early was the best way to go about it. 
 
 

I see it as a win-win deal where both parties get benefits. We are not selling off St Mirren assets (office space or facilities) but working together to maximise and improve their use. The benefit to SMFC is the extra revenue will be made available for the manager to strengthen the team, for Kibble the get the benefit of having access to employment opportunities for their young people thus giving them wider exposure to real working environments. By financial investment they are demonstrating that they are committed to making the partnership work, in return have minority voice on the board. This is all explained in the video which I’m sure will answer all the questions people have.

You are correct in that “expertise and talent” that the likes of Kibble can provide are and will be required when full fan ownership is reached particularly to take us to the next level. This has always been a slight concern to me about fan ownership; once complete did the fans have the correct people with the right skills, experience and time to take the club forward? Who would I like to see provide that? A sugar daddy businessman who would want profit share/payback on any investment? A foreign partner with no particular local attachment to Paisley or St Mirren? Or a long standing, local charity with commercial know how (turnover £32M), large resources in terms of staff and facilities, with a sound ethical and moral values. If you were to hand pick a partner then you couldn’t to my mind chose a more appropriate one.

I attended last night and was 80% decided that the deal was right for the club. I now am totally convinced that it is and will vote that it is accepted. I cannot think of any downside only positives and hope that most people will see the same. Congratulations must go to all those involved at SMISA for the effort to date and to the board for the obvious work done to bring a well thought through proposal to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can only agree with this. Everyone should watch the video and read the Q&A and come to an informed decision on how they want to vote. They convinced me last night so I'll vote for it


I see it as a win-win deal where both parties get benefits. We are not selling off St Mirren assets (office space or facilities) but working together to maximise and improve their use. The benefit to SMFC is the extra revenue will be made available for the manager to strengthen the team, for Kibble the get the benefit of having access to employment opportunities for their young people thus giving them wider exposure to real working environments. By financial investment they are demonstrating that they are committed to making the partnership work, in return have minority voice on the board. This is all explained in the video which I’m sure will answer all the questions people have.

You are correct in that “expertise and talent” that the likes of Kibble can provide are and will be required when full fan ownership is reached particularly to take us to the next level. This has always been a slight concern to me about fan ownership; once complete did the fans have the correct people with the right skills, experience and time to take the club forward? Who would I like to see provide that? A sugar daddy businessman who would want profit share/payback on any investment? A foreign partner with no particular local attachment to Paisley or St Mirren? Or a long standing, local charity with commercial know how (turnover £32M), large resources in terms of staff and facilities, with a sound ethical and moral values. If you were to hand pick a partner then you couldn’t to my mind chose a more appropriate one.

I attended last night and was 80% decided that the deal was right for the club. I now am totally convinced that it is and will vote that it is accepted. I cannot think of any downside only positives and hope that most people will see the same. Congratulations must go to all those involved at SMISA for the effort to date and to the board for the obvious work done to bring a well thought through proposal to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and the point about selling off our operations. That's crap. Kibble will continue to pay for use. If someone wants use the facilities and is paying more. The people paying more will get preference. They used an example coming up where the police are using the dome instead of them because they are paying more.

But carry on the trolling. You know who you are. You've shown a level of commitment to it that would make Katie Hopkins teary eyed. I just don't understand what you get from it but whatever floats your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the presentation went very well last night going be reaction I’ve read. Look forward to the video being published for everyone to see.

I’d love to think that the proposal, if it goes through, actually convinces more fans to join SMiSA.

I’d also hope that whatever way the vote goes, that the existing 1200 members stay committed and part of a project that has already done so much good for the club and in the local community.

The £2 spend on its own has been an absolutely brilliant initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So selling 27.5% of the club to an outside body is not as we were all warned against and persuaded to BtB... is apparently NOT selling the club off to an outside body.
Glad that's been cleared up for us fans who, we were told are the best people to secure the club's future... only to be told, we are in fact the Worse people to be let near the club.

Apparently the only people who are capable of running the club are Scott, and a UK charity.

Now that's been cleared up, can us, not to be trusted people, all have our money back please?

If you never needed us in the first place, presumably you never needed our cash either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

So selling 27.5% of the club to an outside body is not as we were all warned against and persuaded to BtB... is apparently NOT selling the club off to an outside body.
Glad that's been cleared up for us fans who, we were told are the best people to secure the club's future... only to be told, we are in fact the Worse people to be let near the club.

Apparently the only people who are capable of running the club are Scott, and a UK charity.

Now that's been cleared up, can us, not to be trusted people, all have our money back please?

If you never needed us in the first place, presumably you never needed our cash either?

did you attend the meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Not a smisa member bud.
Although it's more than concerning that a vote by potentially as few as 700 people will decide if over a quarter of the club is sold off to an outside body.

thats business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Not a smisa member bud.
Although it's more than concerning that a vote by potentially as few as 700 people will decide if over a quarter of the club is sold off to an outside body.

Surely that's democracy?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Not a smisa member bud.
Although it's more than concerning that a vote by potentially as few as 700 people will decide if over a quarter of the club is sold off to an outside body.

I’m hoping that we will get in the region of 1000 voters in this election.

It would be great if everyone that has a vote uses it one way of the other but that is unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...