Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, garzo said:

taking your analogy...

You've ordered a new car - , you've paid a deposit up front, about £20, It'll cost you £71 eventually, but you are aware you don't get delivery of it yet for at least another 6 years sir? and you are aware there are a few aspects of the car we're still trying to work out how to operate, like the brakes and headlights, steering wheel seems ok though. It'll be alright though when we deliver it to you - we're sure of that, of that you can be guaranteed 🙂

A while later...

Sir, you know that car you've ordered, not due for another few years - we know you really like it. Well there's an opportunity for us to deliver it to you sooner. We've found a solution for the brakes and headlights and actually the steering is much better than before and you'll not believe this - it will cost you a lot less, only £51, Sir.

How does that sound?

Of course you are entitled to cancel your order, but I'm afraid sir you won't be entitled to your deposit back!

I'd tell them to do one.

Funnily enough, I was offered an alternative, cheaper deal but it wasn't what I was buying into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interim phase

The following will apply during the interim phase:

- the current SMFC board will remain in place, with Gordon Scott as chair. SMISA and Kibble will each have two places on the SMFC board.

- a number of matters will require the mutual approval of all three major shareholders (SMISA, Kibble, Gordon). These will include:

  • appointments or removals of a director of the club
  • the sale of the stadium, changes to the club’s name, colour or badge, changing the club’s grass pitch to astroturf, and the appointment of major sponsors;
  • any major borrowings, major contracts outwith the normal course of business, and approval of the club’s business plan;
  • any major structural changes to St Mirren as a company, such as any reorganisation of its share capital, or changes to the club’s articles of association.

- Kibble will provide support services to SMFC and assist the club to grow it operations and community reach. Kibble will have access to SMFC facilities to provide training, employment and recreational activities for Kibble young people.

- all concerned will work together on a smooth transition to majority fan ownership;

Majority fan-owned phase

Once SMISA owns the majority stake in SMFC, the following will apply:

- The matters defined above as requiring mutual shareholder approval will continue to do so (applying to SMISA and Kibble only);

- The SMFC board will be responsible for the operation of the club. Football decisions will be made by the club’s football department;

- SMISA will be able to appoint the majority of the SMFC board. Appointments will be made on the basis of the skills and expertise required by the club. New appointments will be selected by the SMISA committee after an interview process and put to the members for approval;

- Kibble will be able to appoint at least two members of the club board. Kibble’s role will continue to be as outlined above;

- SMISA will ensure the views and priorities of its members are known to the SMFC board and staff. The SMFC board will be expected to consider those views but will ultimately be required to make decisions they believe are in SMFC’s best interests, as will be their legal responsibility.

- SMFC may choose to refer other matters to SMISA for the members to vote on – but this will be at the SMFC board’s discretion.

- SMISA and Kibble will be able to make representations should they feel the SMFC board is not acting in the best interests of the club.

- The SMISA committee and board/management of Kibble will be able to scrutinise SMFC’s operation, but will be bound by any requirement for legal, commercial, employee or other confidentiality as it applies to SMFC;

- SMISA affairs will be run as at present – the SMISA committee will run SMISA affairs. Members will elect the committee and have the chance to vote on how SMISA funds are spent.

- if SMISA or Kibble wish to sell any or all their shares in SMFC, the other will have first refusal

 

Effectively this is what kibble get

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
16 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
I'm not sure, hopefully up soon. I couldn't make it last night after all so really want to see it. base don the feedback I'm 99% sure I'll be a yes now but want to rubber stamp that. 

So you couldnt make the meeting, and are on here during games. Lol

What’s your point? Maybe just your bitterness coming out yet again...

Edited by bazil85

Share this post


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

So why come on here yesterday with your best Bazil impersonation and state that I hate smfc?

You've got a weird way of demonstrating free speech.

See me, I haven't slated one poster who had argued the case for the proposal, or if they'll vote for it. I might not agree, but I respect their choices.

That's the truth, not all this big bad saints hating LPM guff.

Are you Bazil?

P.s... where have I slated Kibble? The truth is quite the opposite.

 

Yep it's definitely bitterness lol. 

Share this post


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

You aren't selling off St Mirren assets, Gordon Scott is! He has taken in £300k in return for unfettered access to facilities that Kibble would normally rent from the club. 

Its the very definition of asset stripping and I'm pretty shocked that everyone who was there was so mesmorised they haven't thought to challenge it. Its obvious that a charity has to get something back for its outlay. Their trustees are legally bound to ensure the money spent furthers their goals. The cash isn't about commitment, its an expansion of their facilities at what they must believe is a fair price. 

That doesn't mean members shouldn't vote in favour BTW. Kibble aren't the bad guys. But they should be aware there is a cost to the club. 

 

Unfortunately the people with the knowledge to challenge and ask the right questions weren't at the meeting,  

Share this post


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

Im not trolling at all. I'm simply highlighting what has been given away. Did anyone ask for assurances that only a St Mirren supporting board member would attend and vote at SPFL and SFA meetings? 

If only you hadn't thrown your toys out the pram and walked away you'd have been able to ask that yourself.

Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only clearly in your head. I was there and listened to what they said. Troll on. Don't let me stop you. You're a sad little man who's being doing it for 20 years because you get bored at work. You admitted as much a long time ago to someone I know. I really don't get you at all. It's very sad

Its not crap. I thought I'd given examples but if they want to run a training course in hospitality they'll do it for free. If they want to entertain some donors on a matchday they'll now be able to take them into the directors box for free. Tickets for home matches - free. Use of Ralston - free. Want to show off to stakeholders - free. Use of the car park - free. Hell they could even use the 1877 club as a staff canteen for free. Theres loads more. Its clearly why they are doing this. 
And all because they paid Gordon Scott for some worthless shares. 
Im not trolling at all. I'm simply highlighting what has been given away. Did anyone ask for assurances that only a St Mirren supporting board member would attend and vote at SPFL and SFA meetings? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Basil,

I accept your argument regarding democratic vote on the £2 pot spend. It's well documented that there's a few votes where i'd rather have seen the money saved instead of being spent on things I believed The Club should be paying for. Not the fans

Your little stab at emotional blackmail (highlighted in red) is absolute horseshite.

If there's enough of a drop off in membership of SMISA, because of this and endangers BTB,as you suggest there could be , then that is your evidence that the new proposal was not the right deal. "Consequences of multiple refund requests" Seriously!

This change in the deal would be a fundamental change in what was sold to us & therefore, I believe, those who have not sanctioned the deal are entitled to be refunded what they've paid in minus their £2 contributions to the £2 Pot Spend votes as that money has already been "invested. 

It was purely something I hope anyone thinking of doing similar considers. We are all St Mirren fans at the end of the day so I don’t see why that isn’t a fair point. You can call it emotional blackmail but it’s simply emotion, that’s what we all have for this team… We’ll I’d hope anyway.

I don’t suggest there could be, I was making a point based on your comment. I personally don’t think that will happen (in great numbers anyway) for a few reasons but one of the main ones is, St Mirren fans don’t need me to tell them it isn’t a good thing to financially hamper the club because you don’t agree with a new BTB direction.

Although talking about “emotional blackmail” discussing action members could take if the vote doesn’t go their way? It’s basically saying “if you all vote this through, I and others will ask for £440/£1,012 back from our contributions. Pot, kettle, black for sure.

I agreed with you that they would very likely have a winnable case, if they were to say perform direct debit indemnities on this. My point is peoples rights is one thing, acting on them in a way that would knowingly hurt the team they support is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TPAFKATS
Its not crap. I thought I'd given examples but if they want to run a training course in hospitality they'll do it for free. If they want to entertain some donors on a matchday they'll now be able to take them into the directors box for free. Tickets for home matches - free. Use of Ralston - free. Want to show off to stakeholders - free. Use of the car park - free. Hell they could even use the 1877 club as a staff canteen for free. Theres loads more. Its clearly why they are doing this. 
And all because they paid Gordon Scott for some worthless shares. 
Im not trolling at all. I'm simply highlighting what has been given away. Did anyone ask for assurances that only a St Mirren supporting board member would attend and vote at SPFL and SFA meetings? 
I don't think all of these examples are true. It does however highlight that we really need to have detail on this.
Where's the video of last night's meeting!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It was purely something I hope anyone thinking of doing similar considers. We are all St Mirren fans at the end of the day so I don’t see why that isn’t a fair point. You can call it emotional blackmail but it’s simply emotion, that’s what we all have for this team… We’ll I’d hope anyway.

I don’t suggest there could be, I was making a point based on your comment. I personally don’t think that will happen (in great numbers anyway) for a few reasons but one of the main ones is, St Mirren fans don’t need me to tell them it isn’t a good thing to financially hamper the club because you don’t agree with a new BTB direction.

Although talking about “emotional blackmail” discussing action members could take if the vote doesn’t go their way? It’s basically saying “if you all vote this through, I and others will ask for £440/£1,012 back from our contributions. Pot, kettle, black for sure.

I agreed with you that they would very likely have a winnable case, if they were to say perform direct debit indemnities on this. My point is peoples rights is one thing, acting on them in a way that would knowingly hurt the team they support is another.

Even by your standards Baz the bit in bold is just Batshit Crazy, I ponied my contribution upfront and don't want any of it back but that's my choice irrespective of how the vote goes.

However, you are suggesting that people who have entered into a business transaction where against their wishes the conditions have changed and they now believe the conditions to be flawed should just keep on paying anyway in case it damages a purchase they no longer believe in, that's bonkers.

I still think that there are benefits to the new proposition and once better informed will make my decision but I will wholly respect anyone who chooses to vote against it and who decide to stop paying in if they no longer believe in SMiSA's aims......that truly is democracy!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was purely something I hope anyone thinking of doing similar considers. We are all St Mirren fans at the end of the day so I don’t see why that isn’t a fair point. You can call it emotional blackmail but it’s simply emotion, that’s what we all have for this team… We’ll I’d hope anyway.
I don’t suggest there could be, I was making a point based on your comment. I personally don’t think that will happen (in great numbers anyway) for a few reasons but one of the main ones is, St Mirren fans don’t need me to tell them it isn’t a good thing to financially hamper the club because you don’t agree with a new BTB direction.
Although talking about “emotional blackmail” discussing action members could take if the vote doesn’t go their way? It’s basically saying “if you all vote this through, I and others will ask for £440/£1,012 back from our contributions. Pot, kettle, black for sure.
I agreed with you that they would very likely have a winnable case, if they were to say perform direct debit indemnities on this. My point is peoples rights is one thing, acting on them in a way that would knowingly hurt the team they support is another.
So selling £300,000 of budgeted assets is fine and won't harm the team... but someone asking for a refund of a few hundred will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, div said:

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.

 

 

I accept I’m pissing against the wind on this but we did sign up for 100% - same as Hearts Motherwell and Kilmarnock.

By the way it came out last night we are 5 years ahead as you say but we would be going early anyway in 2023 with the positive subs so a wee bit of spin saying 5 when it is it fact 3 - maybe no that that big a point but why no mention anywhere in the proposal 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True. In this case it's cost them £300k. It's just St Mirren didn't see a penny of it. 
Did anyone at the meeting last night ask them for the rates they would be paying St Mirren for the use of these facilities? Or were the SMISA membership so mesmerised by Kim Goodwin that they weren't paying attention?  
That the gaffer's sister?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I might be misinterpreting this but it seems you are happy to change the original model because kibble will bring expertise in running the club that the fans can't?

I know this is part of their selling point but to me it's not a positive. Are we really saying, let's give kibble this large chunk of shares and pass over the day to day running of the company (not playing side) as its a lot of hard work and the fans consortium won't be any good at either doing it or finding an individual who can?

Im still intrigued as to how all of this expertise kibble will be supplying SMFC will be financed as well.

Yes you’ve interpreted it correctly that the attraction for me is they’ll bring expertise to the party.......as well as resources, business acumen, sustainable business model, contacts that the club will be able to benefit from, fresh ideas, energy and also be a partner that we can I hope all agree on are morally and socially responsible. Oh and SMISA will still be the majority shareholder and in the unlikely event that Kibble decide ever to part ways with the club then are legally bound to offer SMISA first dibs on buying their shares back, or even gifting them to SMISA for free. Kibble won’t charge the club for services they provide and are not in for profit as they are a charity.

I could be missing something but I can’t see a downside despite looking long and hard for one. I understand there will be some who don’t share my view and then they should vote against the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The funniest, but most sinister element in a this is the PR job that suggests Kibble (who are spending £300k on virtually worthless shares in a football club) are only doing this for the community!
Surely sinking £300k into a few community enterprises would be more appropriate if you aren't seeking to benefit financially? Lol

Kibble are a charity, they don’t benefit financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was purely something I hope anyone thinking of doing similar considers. We are all St Mirren fans at the end of the day so I don’t see why that isn’t a fair point. You can call it emotional blackmail but it’s simply emotion, that’s what we all have for this team… We’ll I’d hope anyway.
I don’t suggest there could be, I was making a point based on your comment. I personally don’t think that will happen (in great numbers anyway) for a few reasons but one of the main ones is, St Mirren fans don’t need me to tell them it isn’t a good thing to financially hamper the club because you don’t agree with a new BTB direction.
Although talking about “emotional blackmail” discussing action members could take if the vote doesn’t go their way? It’s basically saying “if you all vote this through, I and others will ask for £440/£1,012 back from our contributions. Pot, kettle, black for sure.
I agreed with you that they would very likely have a winnable case, if they were to say perform direct debit indemnities on this. My point is peoples rights is one thing, acting on them in a way that would knowingly hurt the team they support is another.
Bazil,
It's to do with what folk bought into not about how a vote goes.
It's really that simple.

If it was about vote results, i'd have packed it in a long time ago.
Not like you to add a wee bit of spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Then why the hell did Smisa, Scott etc insist that the only way to secure the club's future was to back their deal to take on 71% of the club?
I dont know if they've considered, or even care of the inevitable consequence, should this sham be voted through of the majority of those voting against, then deciding to end their membership of Smisa as its changed materially from the fan ownership they were sold?
Mind you they are probably quite sanguine about that.

Think you forget that there will be % 72.5 of shares still owned by St mirren fans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

I guess?
Potentially less than a tenth of the home support could sell the club?

Everyone had the option to sign up. That only 1300 or so chose to do so or continue to do so is just the way it is.  It's pretty much how FPTP is reflected at elections. If you feel so strongly then why not join to register your vote. A bit like those who don't vote in a GE then moan about the outcome you don't really have a leg to stand on. Those that choose to pay will get to make the decision and that is 100% the way it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Even by your standards Baz the bit in bold is just Batshit Crazy, I ponied my contribution upfront and don't want any of it back but that's my choice irrespective of how the vote goes.

However, you are suggesting that people who have entered into a business transaction where against their wishes the conditions have changed and they now believe the conditions to be flawed should just keep on paying anyway in case it damages a purchase they no longer believe in, that's bonkers.

I still think that there are benefits to the new proposition and once better informed will make my decision but I will wholly respect anyone who chooses to vote against it and who decide to stop paying in if they no longer believe in SMiSA's aims......that truly is democracy!! 

Not what I am saying at all, people can make their own choice I'm not here to make it for them. Just hoping it's a consideration on their mind. 

Share this post


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

Its not crap. I thought I'd given examples but if they want to run a training course in hospitality they'll do it for free. If they want to entertain some donors on a matchday they'll now be able to take them into the directors box for free. Tickets for home matches - free. Use of Ralston - free. Want to show off to stakeholders - free. Use of the car park - free. Hell they could even use the 1877 club as a staff canteen for free. Theres loads more. Its clearly why they are doing this. 

And all because they paid Gordon Scott for some worthless shares. 

Im not trolling at all. I'm simply highlighting what has been given away. Did anyone ask for assurances that only a St Mirren supporting board member would attend and vote at SPFL and SFA meetings? 

Going by that reasoning every SMISA member would get all those perks too . Utter nonsense why would those services be free to one share holder and not others especially when SMISA members will hold the majority share holding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone had the option to sign up. That only 1300 or so chose to do so or continue to do so is just the way it is.  It's pretty much how FPTP is reflected at elections. If you feel so strongly then why not join to register your vote. A bit like those who don't vote in a GE then moan about the outcome you don't really have a leg to stand on. Those that choose to pay will get to make the decision and that is 100% the way it should be.
You may need to read up on govt majorities.
Not that I wish to, but you cant join to vote on this.
And the 100% line is a doozie...
Other than that, top post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
It was purely something I hope anyone thinking of doing similar considers. We are all St Mirren fans at the end of the day so I don’t see why that isn’t a fair point. You can call it emotional blackmail but it’s simply emotion, that’s what we all have for this team… We’ll I’d hope anyway.
I don’t suggest there could be, I was making a point based on your comment. I personally don’t think that will happen (in great numbers anyway) for a few reasons but one of the main ones is, St Mirren fans don’t need me to tell them it isn’t a good thing to financially hamper the club because you don’t agree with a new BTB direction.
Although talking about “emotional blackmail” discussing action members could take if the vote doesn’t go their way? It’s basically saying “if you all vote this through, I and others will ask for £440/£1,012 back from our contributions. Pot, kettle, black for sure.
I agreed with you that they would very likely have a winnable case, if they were to say perform direct debit indemnities on this. My point is peoples rights is one thing, acting on them in a way that would knowingly hurt the team they support is another.

So selling £300,000 of budgeted assets is fine and won't harm the team... but someone asking for a refund of a few hundred will?

Nice bit of spin yet again. 

1. The question is around what we get for selling those shares. The areas of mutual benefit and growth

2. Only if it was in significant numbers which I have already said I don't think will happen. My point on this is only that I hope it's a consideration for anyone thinking of doing this. They're well within their right to request the money back but that isn't my point. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...