Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Dickson said:

You are struggling to follow this aren't you? 

I haven't said Kibble would be stripping any assets. I am saying that Gordon Scott is doing the asset stripping by selling off access to facilities and services at St Mirren FC Ltd to Kibble in return for them purchasing his "practically worthless" shares for £300k. Kibble's Trustees are legally bound to ensure that the money they spend furthers the aims of their charity. They aren't buying into St Mirren FC Ltd because they are benevolent. They are doing it because they see a return on the money they are paying out. I suspect this is in terms of facilities and in terms of potential service contracts but it could be far more than that. One thing for sure though is that whatever it is it will be worth more than £300k to Kibble. 

I absolutely appreciate why a partnership with could be appealing. It's exactly the sort of community partnership I have been arguing for, and been ridiculed for, since the 10000Hours proposal was first mooted. I just wouldn't have done it in this way. But SMISA members should be voting with their eyes open. To go from being completely fan owned and fan run, to having a boardroom that is potentially 40% non St Mirren is a big turnaround for many on here, especially when that 40% are the ones most likely to have the time and the ability to attend important SFA and SPFL meetings. 

Yet you still somehow manage to make it a negative and use expressions like "asset stripping" It's almost like you have a personal vendetta against SMISA and GLS. To the extent that even a deal that is "exactly" what you are looking for comes up, you will still talk down about it. 

Exactly the sort of community partnership but not the way you would do it... What "exactly" do you mean by that? Is this again you taking issue with GLS getting his own money back at not a penny profit? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the deal goes through the director/s appointed by Kibble will represent Kibble first and foremost.  It is not unimaginable to foresee divisions taking place on that basis.  Given the finite resources of SMFC, what 'excess capacity' will Kibble utilise or, where or what facilities will be shared or changed which could lead to a sacrifice of the present set-up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of questions being asked. If folk are so concerned about the Club's future why did they not join SMiSA and ask questions last night instead of asking on here where contributers are not in a position to answer?

This thread is a waste of time looking for answers. Last night was the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TPAFKATS
Someone else who thinks Kibble are an Employment Agency or an Catering business. All directors of every football club will be able to invite guests on match day. What difference does that make to directors currently inviting guests. It will just be different guests !!!

If these are all that people can come up with as negatives then there seems little to worry about.

What assets do you see Kibble stripping ???

 

They don't need to be either an employment agency or catering business. It's a stated intention that kibble will take over the catering at the training complex in Ralston. This will save smfc paying an outside company to provide the service. It'll be staff by their employees and youths that they are training.

What's to stop them also doing hospitality and pie stalls?

 

Share this post


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

I spoke to an old friend who works for them earlier today.
The quote back was "I wouldn't let kibble run a bath"

It's only one person though and sometimes emoyee aren't the best judge of any organisation whether good views or bad.

One of the reasons I asked the organisation that is in this area, who run a similar establishment, are the same, incompetent managers who have no real skills and they appoint similar incompetent people throughout the organisation.

My daughter worked in the one here and despite loving the challenges left after being let down umpteen times by management.

MY experience with "charitable" organisations has been that they are overwhelmingly badly managed.

On outrageous salaries and flounce about playing at the job.

I'm not convinced they, the Kibble, will bring much of note to the party, time will tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dickson said:

2090622305_Annotation2020-02-07153032.png.4f98d81bfc71ddf6053ee7f2d93bf6cb.png

It has been reported by people who went to the meeting that Kibble will gain the use of facilities at the stadium from the deal. Selling off facilities that the club used to be able to charge for so that the Chairman can get £300k paid to himself is indeed asset stripping. He's sold something that doesn't belong to him for personal gain. The fact that Kibble even went so far as to say they may even gift the shares to SMISA in the future proves that it's not the shares Kibble values! 

You and others have your opinions of me. I'm not going to change that no matter what happens. I know that from what has been reported I am right though. If SMISA members are happy to vote this through then fair enough. At least I've made sure a few aren't doing it blindly. 

 

You have said this is "exactly" the kind of deal you would be after yet you are still using a term like asset stripping which is absolutely not what is happening. You surely understand the negative connotations that go along with such an expression as well?

Your bitterness has went nowhere over the years Stuart and it seems like you'll yet again just have to accept that you have no control over this situation and your continued negative rants will have no real impact on the direction BTB is going in. Oh to be so miserable about a team you "support". I personally take great comfort in the progress we've made since GLS came in and I am very happy that many people much closer to the deal than you think it's a good one.

Well you weren't right on BTB with your original view, why do you think you're right now? Same as LPM I wouldn't be surprised if you had pushed more in the opposite direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's kind of the way it works, yeah. Same as you don't get any say on who owns ASDA just because you do your shopping there every week
 
f**k me, some of this stuff is absolutely hilarious!
Well if the fans aren't involved why bother?
We'll just evolve into St Kibble Fc 2020. Or Youngs Boys Kibble. Lol
Thanks for confirming the official line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TPAFKATS
One of the reasons I asked the organisation that is in this area, who run a similar establishment, are the same, incompetent managers who have no real skills and they appoint similar incompetent people throughout the organisation.
My daughter worked in the one here and despite loving the challenges left after being let down umpteen times by management.
MY experience with "charitable" organisations has been that they are overwhelmingly badly managed.
On outrageous salaries and flounce about playing at the job.
I'm not convinced they, the Kibble, will bring much of note to the party, time will tell. 
The video from last nights meeting will explain all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's kind of the way it works, yeah. Same as you don't get any say on who owns ASDA just because you do your shopping there every week
 
f**k me, some of this stuff is absolutely hilarious!




The shares Kibble are buying belong to Gordon Scott. In what way is that a "budgeted asset"


 
f**k me, some of this stuff is absolutely hilarious!


When I bought into BtB I was given a detailed plan... A vision.

Pay so much money for a predetermined time and then SMISA will own an agreed number of shares.

Now... When we give the money over... We get shares in return.

Will those shares be assets of SMISA?

Under the new proposal, will we have approximately £300,000 less in shares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Get first Dibs" - as in the members would need to vote to sell them to Kibble?
Yeah, a massive concern.
A concern right up there with a big meteor hitting St.Mirren Park.
Sorry isnt that exactly what the members are being asked to do now?
And just over a week ago the members probably did put it up there with a big meteor hitting St Mirren park.
Useful analogy. Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


When I bought into BtB I was given a detailed plan... A vision.

Pay so much money for a predetermined time and then SMISA will own an agreed number of shares.

Now... When we give the money over... We get shares in return.

Will those shares be assets of SMISA?

Under the new proposal, will we have approximately £300,000 less in shares?
Dont you know you're not supposed to hold Scott or Smisa to any agreement or promise they made?
You hate St mirren dont you.. go on admit it hater. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be clear, SMISA aren't asset stripping. It's Gordon Scott who is doing that. He is the only one getting a financial advantage from the packaging of facilities that don't belong to him. Gordon Scott would have got his money back anyway, he didn't need to sell off access to facilities and services to get it. 

I've outlined the kind of community involvement that I wanted to see happen many times over. Just look back at my posts over the last 10 years. I would have been working with community partners to establish mutual benefits that would see the expansion of the clubs facilities, and an increase in revenue over time. Community partnerships are a good thing. As LPM previously stated the Foundation of Light at Sunderland is a great example that St Mirren could follow. They work with community partners to provide services that they frankly don't have the skills to provide. What they do have though is the facilities to host them and they allow community partners to work with them to deliver their goals. And just so you know none of Sunderlands community partners holds a shareholding in the club. 

Now dont you start making useful suggestions, or examples of how it should be built!

Kibble have got "Big Expertise" you know... ok it's in rehabilitation of young people who have serious issues, and not a football club, but its BIG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dickson said:

To be clear, SMISA aren't asset stripping. It's Gordon Scott who is doing that. He is the only one getting a financial advantage from the packaging of facilities that don't belong to him. Gordon Scott would have got his money back anyway, he didn't need to sell off access to facilities and services to get it. 

I've outlined the kind of community involvement that I wanted to see happen many times over. Just look back at my posts over the last 10 years. I would have been working with community partners to establish mutual benefits that would see the expansion of the clubs facilities, and an increase in revenue over time. Community partnerships are a good thing. As LPM previously stated the Foundation of Light at Sunderland is a great example that St Mirren could follow. They work with community partners to provide services that they frankly don't have the skills to provide. What they do have though is the facilities to host them and they allow community partners to work with them to deliver their goals. And just so you know none of Sunderlands community partners holds a shareholding in the club. 

It's simply not true. A new arrangement has been proposed by someone that wants to buy out GLS early. That arrangement has went through discussions and presented to members, the fact his money is returned after five years instead of 10 is irrelevant in a claim of asset stripping. You have a deal on the table "exactly" as you'd want yet you spin the negative. You clearly do not care about the community over hammering GLS/ SMISA. 

I would wager any deal you have ever spoke about, if it resulted in GLS getting money back early you would still create a new profile to come on here and moan. 

Share this post


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

Anyone concerned if the proposal is voted through then by agreement Kibble get first dibs on Smisa's shares?

I think Kibble buying 27% of the club is the beginning of the erosion of fan ownership.

Once the BTB deal is complete & SMISA owns 51% of The Club. How many of the 1300 (or so) are going to continue paying on the never never to remain SMISA members?

Only time will tell..

That's the time that I'd expect there to be the significant drop off and if that money isn't coming in monthly & that rainy day fund doesn't grow as the SMISA committee think it'll grow and/or Kibble are getting more out of the deal than St Mirren, then SMISA will be in a very precarious position and fan ownership could be at risk.

Here's a bit of blurb from SMISA' BTB campaign.

Quote

Remember, the fans owning the club and the fans running the club are not the same thing. For example Barcelona is owned by the fans but they elect a president, who then appoints a board to make the decisions.

Our expectation is that a fan-owned St Mirren will see SMISA appoint a board of people qualified to run the club, and - through our majority shareholding - retain the power to change them if we weren’t happy.

But the beauty of this model is we have years to work out the detailed structure and make a smooth transition to fan ownership, which Gordon will help us do. In that time we will have a fan on the board and can gain experience of how the club is run – so that when the time comes we as a support will be ready to be owners

see that wee bit in red? Will SMISA, with 51% have the clout to change the Kibble reps if we weren't happy with them? I don't think so.

SMISA & St Mirren can work very successfully with Kibble without Kibble buying shares in the club and by doing so, will ensure the safeguarding of this fan ownership model.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TPAFKATS
see that wee bit in red? Will SMISA, with 51% have the clout to change the Kibble reps if we weren't happy with them? I don't think so.
SMISA & St Mirren can work very successfully with Kibble without Kibble buying shares in the club and by doing so, will ensure the safeguarding of this fan ownership model.
 
No. Kibble will have 2 reps and they will appoint them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quickie

If the vote is in favour & Kibble buy these shares from GLS.

What is the purchase price? Is it the same price that SMISA was going to pay for them or is it more or less. If it is more? Why? If it is less, Why?

I don't expect it to be less as SMISA was buying at the purchase price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
see that wee bit in red? Will SMISA, with 51% have the clout to change the Kibble reps if we weren't happy with them? I don't think so.
SMISA & St Mirren can work very successfully with Kibble without Kibble buying shares in the club and by doing so, will ensure the safeguarding of this fan ownership model.
 
Lying through their teeth springs to mind.
They're probably mystified at all the hoo ha over this thinking "f**k me, did they actually think we were ever going to let that happen"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a quickie
If the vote is in favour & Kibble buy these shares from GLS.
What is the purchase price? Is it the same price that SMISA was going to pay for them or is it more or less. If it is more? Why? If it is less, Why?
I don't expect it to be less as SMISA was buying at the purchase price.
Same price iirc

Share this post


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

It's simply not true. A new arrangement has been proposed by someone that wants to buy out GLS early. That arrangement has went through discussions and presented to members, the fact his money is returned after five years instead of 10 is irrelevant in a claim of asset stripping. You have a deal on the table "exactly" as you'd want yet you spin the negative. You clearly do not care about the community over hammering GLS/ SMISA. 

I would wager any deal you have ever spoke about, if it resulted in GLS getting money back early you would still create a new profile to come on here and moan. 

True to form, resorts to default setting with every discussion/argument/debate of anti GLS &/or Anti SMISA accusations.

Yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way some folk are going on you'd think kibble are some spectre like organisation, about to execute their evil plan to take st mirren for every penny and ultimately close us down.

 

The fact that the people getting hysterical are either trolls, people who werent there last night or have an agenda against smisa GLS or kibble is very telling. Why not watch the video when it comes out? Contact smisa? Do something other than constantly soiling your knickers over every doomsday scenario

 

Tldr: calm the f**k down and go for a walk

 

 

Share this post


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

True to form, resorts to default setting with every discussion/argument/debate of anti GLS &/or Anti SMISA accusations.

Yawn.

It's true though, multiple examples of these contributors attacking the man. Poor show after all that he's done for the club. IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's true though, multiple examples of these contributors attacking the man. Poor show after all that he's done for the club. IMO. 
In fairness, your head up his backside must cause him more discomfort!

Oh dear... That must make me anti GLS, anti SMISA and anti SMFC as opposed to simply someone who believes that you are an antagonistic attention seeking tosser!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

In fairness, your head up his backside must cause him more discomfort!

Oh dear... That must make me anti GLS, anti SMISA and anti SMFC as opposed to simply someone who believes that you are an antagonistic attention seeking tosser! emoji41.png

Typical of a response. Just because someone supports the chairman and appreciates what he’s done, this is the view. 
 

Aw still bitter? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still uncertain how to vote and although I like the noises about what the partnership can do for each party I still have some reservations. I'm not sure why Kibble need the shares, I don't know why the beneficial relationship can't be achieved on a customer/provider basis for both sides. But my biggest worry is the make up of the board. If the SMISA reps are appointed on the basis of the skills required by the club after interview what is to stop members of Kibble's board/management or indeed workforce becoming members of SMISA and then the board and using their affiliation to favour one partner over the one they ostensibly represent? As I write it seems to me to be a bit tin foil hatty but it is a worry that exists, I would hope SMISA have retained the ability to endure their reps are representing their interest. I really want a succesxful partnership to be achieved, I'm just not sure this is the correct vehicle. I hope the video of the meeting will clarify things but I'm not certain it will. I also wonder what the hurry is to get it done so quickly?

 

ps, didn't think I was going to ramble on as much so apologies for the lack of paragraphs.

 

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...