Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, alanb said:

Is it not the case that however you shape the deal, all money paid for GLS shareholding goes to GLS and not the club.

GLS currently selling 42% to SMISA no later than 2026 but could be done  by 2023 but no cash reserve

New deal GLS selling now 50% (keeping 0.05% for old times sake) split between Kibble and SMISA where SMSIA also has money left over in bank (Start of rainy day fund).

 

 

Nothing to stop Kibble buying GLS extra 8% now though with current deal unchanged

Allowing GLS to shed all his shares as now seems to be his desire

No its not SMISA are buying Gordon's shares in 2021 in this deal with no cash in reserve,  There is also the possibility membership could fall after the deal is concluded,  better the bird in the hand than 2 in the bush,,  Plus what about the Asteroid hitting GHR in 2022 don't forget that scenario 

the good dinosaur halloween GIF by Disney Pixar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

No its not SMISA are buying Gordon's shares in 2021 in this deal with no cash in reserve,  There is also the possibility membership could fall after the deal is concluded,  better the bird in the hand than 2 in the bush,,  Plus what about the Asteroid hitting GHR in 2022 don't forget that scenario 

the good dinosaur halloween GIF by Disney Pixar

"SMISA would only need £331,000 to buy Gordon’s remaining shares and get to 51%. We expect to have that, and a cash reserve, by the second half of next year, which is why we can be majority owners of SMFC by the end of 2021. These figures have been calculated on the basis of us maintaining membership numbers, so we need your continued support."

This extract from the Kibble Q&A on the SMISA website seems to suggest that ther will be a cash reserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

No its not SMISA are buying Gordon's shares in 2021 in this deal with no cash in reserve,  There is also the possibility membership could fall after the deal is concluded,  better the bird in the hand than 2 in the bush,,  Plus what about the Asteroid hitting GHR in 2022 don't forget that scenario 

the good dinosaur halloween GIF by Disney Pixar

You suggested SMISA sell the Kibble 27% then carry on as normal and buy shares from GLS 

Currently SMISA have 28.3% so would be left with 1.3%, so later adding 50% totals 51.3% (0.3% gain on proposal)

If you prefer eventually the status quo of gaining 71% as some do and no Kibble involvement 

cant see the point of your proposed version of deal makes a difference but retaining original timeline for less shares.

So Plan A or Plan B 

Share this post


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

You suggested SMISA sell the Kibble 27% then carry on as normal and buy shares from GLS 

Currently SMISA have 28.3% so would be left with 1.3%, so later adding 50% totals 51.3% (0.3% gain on proposal)

If you prefer eventually the status quo of gaining 71% as some do and no Kibble involvement 

cant see the point of your proposed version of deal makes a difference but retaining original timeline for less shares.

So Plan A or Plan B 

You don't see any point or difference ?  300k into the SMISA bank account next month... really :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, portmahomack saint said:

You don't see any point or difference ?  300k into the SMISA bank account next month... really :huh:

Wont have it for very long though when buying shares from GLS

Share this post


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

Why aren't smisa didn't smisa come to the membership early doors and ask if the membership wanted to buy this 27.5% now, instead of the club being broken up with an outside body set to run the show?

I was told by a source close to the committee that it was done to annoy you. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was told by a source close to the committee that it was done to annoy you. Don’t shoot the messenger.
If so they've overshot their target. Its annoyed more than 50% of those voting on it!
Did you pick up on the PANIC addition of Goody being dragged into on Thursday night?
They know their on a hiding to nothing.
Maybe that annoys you? Lol

Share this post


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

If so they've overshot their target. Its annoyed more than 50% of those voting on it!
Did you pick up on the PANIC addition of Goody being dragged into on Thursday night?
They know their on a hiding to nothing.
Maybe that annoys you? Lol

I think bringing Tony along to waffle about the corners being filled in with 12000 seats being full of saints supporters was more funny.

Guessing he must have been in Harrys bar prior to the meeting   :cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think bringing Tony along to waffle about the corners being filled in with 12000 seats being full of saints supporters was more funny.
Guessing he must have been in Harrys bar prior to the meeting   :cheers
That reminds me of when there was talk of rebuilding the stadium at Seedhill, and some worrying that a 20,000 capacity stadium would be too wee.

Share this post


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

If so they've overshot their target. Its annoyed more than 50% of those voting on it!
Did you pick up on the PANIC addition of Goody being dragged into on Thursday night?
They know their on a hiding to nothing.
Maybe that annoys you? Lol

I also would be questioning the reason for Goody to be at the top table. If he contributes to SMISA he 

should only have been in the body of the hall.

At the AGM the same mistake is made with the current Manager at the top table from the beginning of the meeting.

He should only, as was done in the past, be invited when the business end has been completed.

He is only an employee of the Company just like e.g. The Groundsman.

If sure he had more things to worry about on Thursday night after the dreadful team selection the night before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think bringing Tony along to waffle about the corners being filled in with 12000 seats being full of saints supporters was more funny.
Guessing he must have been in Harrys bar prior to the meeting   :cheers
The same lovable laddy that envisioned our stadium full of home fans before endorsing giving a huge chunk of it to the OF without actually TRYING to make the vision a reality?

Fergie would have been furious at him for that!

Share this post


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

I'm all for Kibble's involvement and i think it will be voted through. I watched the video on you tube and was encouraged by what i heard.

So am I

But I don't see why we need to be selling off 27% of the the club to have it,  Why can't the board arrange this partnership with the Kibble without selling this shareholding,

Kibble said at the meeting a partnership can easily be broken, That's true when the interest of both parties clash, And that is the problem in this deal is, 

For instance what if a Business like say BET365 with a turnover of 2.86 billion wanted to have their names on our shirts, and advertising all over the stadium, Representing their company a fan owed football club in Scotland etc etc ( and why wouldn't they I give them plenty every year) the kibble could scupper the deal if it went against their morals and beliefs, Some charities won't even accept lottery funding because they see it as gambling and immoral,  This is just one example where we could have a disagreement,  Our hands will tied in this deal, We could lose out on some serious sponsorship,   

I don't think the Kibble should have a major say in the direction the football club should or shouldn't take, No one knows what's around the corner, Major decisions should be left to the people that matter most,  And ST MIRREN FC  should always come first 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing as much as we do now, this is still a terrible idea.

In principle, sounds ‘pretty’ but the future for St Mirren with outside involvement would be really uncertain in many ways.

Could even feel like it’s no longer our infrastructure, we are mere tenants

Our 3 votes are NO

Hell of a lot of pre-planning went into this without so much as a murmur if we’d like them to explore the idea.

Not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ford prefect said:
7 minutes ago, Buddymarvellous said:
Confucius says ....
You only find out there’s a cuckoo in your nest when the chickens come home to roost

Are those conspirators that you spy through your window or is it a mirror reflecting the chattering parasites in your mind?

Just a bit of fun .. no need to get worked up.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, portmahomack saint said:

So am I

But I don't see why we need to be selling off 27% of the the club to have it,  Why can't the board arrange this partnership with the Kibble without selling this shareholding,

Kibble said at the meeting a partnership can easily be broken, That's true when the interest of both parties clash, And that is the problem in this deal is, 

For instance what if a Business like say BET365 with a turnover of 2.86 billion wanted to have their names on our shirts, and advertising all over the stadium, Representing their company a fan owed football club in Scotland etc etc ( and why wouldn't they I give them plenty every year) the kibble could scupper the deal if it went against their morals and beliefs, Some charities won't even accept lottery funding because they see it as gambling and immoral,  This is just one example where we could have a disagreement,  Our hands will tied in this deal, We could lose out on some serious sponsorship,   

I don't think the Kibble should have a major say in the direction the football club should or shouldn't take, No one knows what's around the corner, Major decisions should be left to the people that matter most,  And ST MIRREN FC  should always come first 

 

Surely our board wouldn't sign up to that? It's not the early 20th century. I can't see GS and co. accepting that as a condition to be honest.

Share this post


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

Oh yes they would

1687208633_Annotation2020-02-09231748.thumb.png.8befeee00634275cfbbc6776b2215cbe.png

I've got to be honest - this was always a major worry of mine. The competency of the football fan to do the work involved to stay abreast of the matters in which they are being asked to have an opinion in a club with fan ownership. Many football fans have never bothered to read the "Laws of the Game" and are happy to follow dodgy interpretations of the rules from football commentators and pundits and when it comes to this kind of stuff we have to realise the same applies. Football fans tend to be far happier spending hours on a football forum posting their ill informed opinions than they are reading through proposals and legal agreements. 

I bet you've already cast your vote "proudtobeabuddy" haven't you? 

No i haven't.... and my point was that Kibble can have an opinion but won't control the appointment of major sponsors solely, all parties involved in the running of the club will vote on these issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Your point is wrong

The legal agreement states that it has to have "mutual approval"

https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-vote

Try reading it. It's even written in plain English. 

 

Feel free to share with us why the BOD, including the proposed Kibble involvement, would wish to harm the club in any way or damage the trust of its supporters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feel free to share with us why the BOD, including the proposed Kibble involvement, would wish to harm the club in any way or damage the trust of its supporters?
That's definitely the point. I understand people voting against it because they want 100% fan ownership. Which, if you count the other 20% on top of the 71, you'd be really close. I respect that. However people looking to paint kibble as some malevolent influence seeking to rape and pillage our club are sniffing too much glue, suffering from paranoia or in certain cases on this thread, downright trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No i haven't.... and my point was that Kibble can have an opinion but won't control the appointment of major sponsors solely, all parties involved in the running of the club will vote on these issues.
They have voted and a veto on the board, they can pass or block what they like. Also given the chairman brought them in with them paying him £300k, I am sure they'll have at least one other vote to count on.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...