Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

If Kibble were only to buy 15% instead of the 27.5%, with smisa buying the rest, would that make any different to those that don't like the deal on offer since that would give smisa more than 60% of the club ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
21 minutes ago, Stegman said:

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

A charity that get paid for what they do. How else would they exist, and gave £300k to chuck at a football club?

You clearly are at it no one is that thick that they don't realise how charities work. Of course they get paid for the services they provide, that money is then fully reinvested as you well know.

Share this post


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

Doubt it.  They've joined an organisation where they know that they will probably not agree with everything that is voted on.

Having said that, i don't know how the original agreement was worded.  Did it say 71%, a controlling interest, or something else?

I don’t know either, just my opinion that there’s a decent chance of that being upheld. I can’t think of a like for like example to compare against. Again though I hope there's consideration about the potential impact from any member considering it. 

Share this post


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

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. emoji16.png
 

Yes I know, for the third time I understand and think you'd likely have a case. 

Yet again, I am talking about the emotional side of things regarding the impact it could have on SMFC if this was done in mass. As I have said as well, I highly doubt it would be. 

Share this post


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

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.

Enlighten me on FPTP and majorities. Tell me if I am wrong but if there are 1300 members and 300 decide to vote and of that 300 only 151 vote in favour then that will win the day no ?

Fair enough membership is closed forgot that but you have had years to join (or not resign as I think the case was) so as I said you don't have a pot to piss in when it comes to your view. 

Share this post


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

That's nonsense. 

Kibble aren't becoming SMISA members. They are going to be shareholders. What REA said about the rights of the minority shareholder would only apply to other shareholders - not to SMISA members. 

Plenty SMISA members will be shareholders - I don't get your point.  There must be hundreds of "minority" shareholders out there (god even Shull boasts about his often enough) that won't get the perks you are suggesting. Are you saying a level of shareholding has been established that will get you these freebies ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enlighten me on FPTP and majorities. Tell me if I am wrong but if there are 1300 members and 300 decide to vote and of that 300 only 151 vote in favour then that will win the day no ?
Fair enough membership is closed forgot that but you have had years to join (or not resign as I think the case was) so as I said you don't have a pot to piss in when it comes to your view. 
So saints fans paying into the club for decades should in your opinion, have no say who owns the club?
Hmmm

Share this post


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

Oh dear! 

I suggest you do a bit of light reading. Look for something along the lines of "Legal Responsibilities of a Charity's Trustees." 

Everything penny the sanction being spent has to further the aims of their charity. They legally aren't allowed to give away £300k worth of charitable donations to a property developer in an Aston Martin for some worthless beans. 

Law Stud lolololol

Share this post


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

Yes I know, for the third time I understand and think you'd likely have a case. 

Yet again, I am talking about the emotional side of things regarding the impact it could have on SMFC if this was done in mass. As I have said as well, I highly doubt it would be. 

And there it is again Baz despite your protestations!!……..you are suggesting that despite fundamentally disagreeing with what some people consider a flawed business decision they should continue to financially support the business decision from an emotional standpoint in-case it damages the business that made the decision. SMiSA as an organisation along with St Mirren have made a proposal to change the business strategy and initial agreement, if it is voted through then they have to deal with any ramifications and fall-out, emotional pull shouldn't come into it.

This again is why I don't think it should just be about a 50/50 majority of voters as opposed to members and that is coming from someone who will potentially vote for the new proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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?

 

Honk Honk.. ing  :whistle

Edited by pod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear! 
I suggest you do a bit of light reading. Look for something along the lines of "Legal Responsibilities of a Charity's Trustees." 
Everything penny the sanction being spent has to further the aims of their charity. They legally aren't allowed to give away £300k worth of charitable donations to a property developer in an Aston Martin for some worthless beans. 

They don’t “benefit financially” in terms of making a profit, all money made is reinvested back into the charity. Of course you knew that and would have been more clued up if you had bothered turning up last night to the present......oh you’re not in SMISA well in that case your opinion doesn’t bother me. Bye

Share this post


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

OK. Think about it logically. Does every shareholder of St Mirren FC get free access to the Directors Lounge and the Directors box on match days? They don't do they? You need to be a club director to have that privilege. Kibble will have two club directors, able to bring as many guests as there are spaces available. Won't they? 

The proposal also says that Kibble will be able to veto any other service provider coming into the business. So, for example, when the catering contracts are up for renewal and SMISA are looking to get a bit of cash in by flogging the franchise, they can't unless Kibble approve - and if Kibble have got their eye on that part of the business how do you think those discussions are likely to go? 

I look forward to seeing the video - perhaps everything I've raised will be answered in it. If it isn't, then I'd suggest that SMISA members could be voting for a pup on the basis of having far too little information. I certainly find it deeply concerning that the future of the club rests in the hands of some football fans who can't spot someone stripping the club of assets right in front of their eyes. 

 

I'm genuinely interested in what you mean here...

Share this post


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

Haud on Bazil. Neither St Mirren nor SMISA are selling those shares. It's Gordon Scott who is doing the selling. What he is getting from the sale is obvious. It's £300k.

The important question is what has Gordon Scott given Kibble in return? 

Well that appears to have been answered. It's facilities, services and business opportunities all of which were owned and controlled by St Mirren FC Ltd, which will no longer be in the future. 

Everyone knows that Stuart it isn’t what I’m saying, it doesn’t mean there aren’t mutual benefits to this deal. Up front financial gain is not the only thing to be made in such deals. GLS getting his money back is something none of us can grudge (IMO), the nature of him doing what he did with no financial gain on his investment is very commendable.

You seem to be completely missing a point that there being benefit for the Kibble isn’t a bad thing and it doesn’t mean that will stop growth of SMFC, that would be very poor long-term business from a company after buying a significant shareholding. Does anyone ever enter a business agreement without some form of benefit? The point of focus should be on, is their benefit worth the mutual benefit to SMFC or is it a hindrance? For me it doesn’t seem at all like the latter.

Are you saying all facilities and business opportunities of SMFC will now be fully owned and controlled by the Kibble? I must have missed that was it from last night?

I think the nature of your return to this website is a continuation of needing everything to be viewed in the negative. Same as LPM, your goalposts have shifted from the supposed community benefit concerns we seen in the early days of BTB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dickson and LPM actually raise a few concerns that worry me.

I haven't seen the video and I wasn't at the meeting but in everything I have read I don't see any safeguards being offered for St Mirren Values only what this gives to Kibble.

Make no bones about it Kibble will gain a big say in how the club is run. As a minority share holder they will have a big 50% veto should they chose to use it.

If Kibble are entering this with the right intentions i,e support St Mirren, then that shouldn't be an issue.

If their intention is to USE St Mirren we could be in Deep Do. Do.

Simple things like the St Mirren Colours are up for grabs here. Never mind control of the board.

Its a bit far fetched but what if kibble affiliated people took out 1301 SMISA memberships and controlled SMISA votes. They could just take the club off us.

I don't know if this is a good or a bad deal but lets not rush into it without getting appropriate answers and safeguards.

Share this post


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

And there it is again Baz despite your protestations!!……..you are suggesting that despite fundamentally disagreeing with what some people consider a flawed business decision they should continue to financially support the business decision from an emotional standpoint in-case it damages the business that made the decision. SMiSA as an organisation along with St Mirren have made a proposal to change the business strategy and initial agreement, if it is voted through then they have to deal with any ramifications and fall-out, emotional pull shouldn't come into it.

This again is why I don't think it should just be about a 50/50 majority of voters as opposed to members and that is coming from someone who will potentially vote for the new proposal.

No I really am not! Are you genuinely not getting this? Let me make it abundantly clear to you. If people fundamentally disagree and think it is right to try and get back all of their money, go for it. If people disagree, don’t want all their money back but don’t want to continue, cancel your direct debit. My ONLY point on this is I hope they consider the potential harm it could do to their football club if mass numbers ask for refunds on already paid monies comes in. Again I don’t think it would happen but it could end up a cut your nose off to spite your face if SMFC end up in an even worse situation than the one people don’t agree with. You saying emotions shouldn’t come into it, completely correct… However they are in it from the very nature of a fans love for his football club. That won’t change.

I can see the arguments for different voting structures but for me a majority is fine. A majority carries who runs our country and memberships to different unions. It’s good enough for a fan buyout proposal.

Share this post


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

Are you stupid? Serious question! 

The fact that Kibble do good work is a given. They are a charity too, that's great. They are local, fantastic. However if you seriously think they are gifting money, services and expertise to a company for free then you truly are more than a bit silly. 

Kibble don't make a profit, but they do charge for the work they do. They charge companies like St Mirren for services that they provide. The money they get from those activities is then reinvested into the charity work that they do. In voting this through you are voting to give away a part of the St Mirren Ltd business in return for Gordon Scott getting £300k. You are voting in favour of a deal that strips out control of some of the clubs assets that can be rented out to raise revenue within the business, and you are doing so to facilitate the personal profit of Gordon Scott. 

Now you and the rest of the SMISA members might well be happy with that. But please be fully aware of what you are agreeing to, and stop making these silly ill informed posts. 

And there it is! The mask has slipped. Mr Dickson ladies and gents, only concern being a vendetta against GLS.... He's not alone. 

What personal profit is GLS making exactly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stegman said:


They don’t “benefit financially” in terms of making a profit, all money made is reinvested back into the charity. Of course you knew that and would have been more clued up if you had bothered turning up last night to the present......oh you’re not in SMISA well in that case your opinion doesn’t bother me. Bye emoji112.png

It certainly bothers me 

Share this post


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

Nonsense. Look Bazil I keep saying it - check back if you've struggled to read it - Kibble aren't the bad guys and I fully accept what they bring to the table. I'm hardly being negative. All I am doing is highlighting what is being given away in return. Kibble view St Mirren FC Ltd as a business, and they will use the clubs facilities and charge the club for services provided as they would any other business. That is how their business model works. They provide services to businesses, and the money the charge for it goes into their charity to pay for the services they provide. 

Where I take issue in all of this is where people - like you - are waving through this deal without realising first what it is. Gordon Scott is selling off St Mirren FC Ltd assets for £300k cash, which he deposits in his own bank account. .He was due to get his money back anyway, but now he's raiding St Mirren assets to get his money early. You say no-one can grudge him this? Well I would dispute that. 

As I have said your mask has slipped and your reason for returning is to continue a so far failed vendetta against GLS. You can tell it sticks in your throat with comments like “Gordon Scott is selling off St Mirren FC Ltd assets for £300k cash, which he deposits in his own bank account” it’s a completely negative and spun way to look at the deal. Everything else is just bluster and that is evident by the fact you can list the likely benefits to our club. The deal on paper looks a good one for both parties, that’s in itself good business. GLS getting his money back is irrelevant in the matter, after what he did for the club, it’s the least he deserves.

Share this post


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

No I really am not! Are you genuinely not getting this? Let me make it abundantly clear to you. If people fundamentally disagree and think it is right to try and get back all of their money, go for it. If people disagree, don’t want all their money back but don’t want to continue, cancel your direct debit. My ONLY point on this is I hope they consider the potential harm it could do to their football club if mass numbers ask for refunds on already paid monies comes in. Again I don’t think it would happen but it could end up a cut your nose off to spite your face if SMFC end up in an even worse situation than the one people don’t agree with. You saying emotions shouldn’t come into it, completely correct… However they are in it from the very nature of a fans love for his football club. That won’t change.

I can see the arguments for different voting structures but for me a majority is fine. A majority carries who runs our country and memberships to different unions. It’s good enough for a fan buyout proposal.

What they contributed to and what they are getting, to some, are completely at odds and they believe the potential of this decision is potentially causing harm to THEIR football club and they are perfectly within their rights to do what they want (on that you now seem to agree). To ask them to consider "emotionally" not to harm THEIR club by asking for refunds when THEIR funds are, in their eyes, being used to harm THEIR club is baffling. Business decisions and emotional decisions are rarely happy bedfellows and should never be confused.

Edited by WeeBud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TPAFKATS
OK. Think about it logically. Does every shareholder of St Mirren FC get free access to the Directors Lounge and the Directors box on match days? They don't do they? You need to be a club director to have that privilege. Kibble will have two club directors, able to bring as many guests as there are spaces available. Won't they? 
The proposal also says that Kibble will be able to veto any other service provider coming into the business. So, for example, when the catering contracts are up for renewal and SMISA are looking to get a bit of cash in by flogging the franchise, they can't unless Kibble approve - and if Kibble have got their eye on that part of the business how do you think those discussions are likely to go? 
I look forward to seeing the video - perhaps everything I've raised will be answered in it. If it isn't, then I'd suggest that SMISA members could be voting for a pup on the basis of having far too little information. I certainly find it deeply concerning that the future of the club rests in the hands of some football fans who can't spot someone stripping the club of assets right in front of their eyes. 
 
The catering at training complex at least isnt a great example as according to the info coming out, SMFC will make savings by having kibble provide this service.
No idea of what this currently costs per year though.

Share this post


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

What they contributed to and what they are getting, to some, are completely at odds and they believe the potential of this decision is potentially causing harm to THEIR football club and they are perfectly within their rights to do what they want (on that you now seem to agree). To ask them to consider "emotionally" not to harm THEIR club by asking for refunds when THEIR funds are, in their eyes, are being used to harm THEIR club is baffling. Business decisions and emotional decisions are rarely happy bedfellows and should never be confused.

Look, I feel I have made my view very clear. If you're still not getting that it is ONLY a point I hope they consider, fine. I am making no comment on what their outcome of that consideration will be. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...