Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

Not on religious grounds, but given the forms of addiction some of their clients will have been unfortunate to be trapped in, it would be difficult, if nigh on impossible for them to align their brand with betting, lending, pawning, alcohol etc...

Ironically That just about covers 71% of main sponsors in [email protected]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Not on religious grounds, but given the forms of addiction some of their clients will have been unfortunate to be trapped in, it would be difficult, if nigh on impossible for them to align their brand with betting, lending, pawning, alcohol etc...
Ironically That just about covers 71% of main sponsors in [email protected]
 
 
I'm quite happy for us not to be sponsored by any of these types of companies.
I'm not so happy about a minority shareholder having a veto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could only speculate, however the fact is that Portamahock is 100% correct. It is right there in the legal agreement you are being asked to sanction. Kibble WOULD be able to block a major sponsor if they didn't like it. Yet despite it being there in the legal agreement you want to defend your initial stupidity by casting aspersions on those who are pointing out this fact to you.
Tell me, you didn't happen to offer your wisdom to Hamilton Accies when they signed away their fortunes did you? After all why would a rich Nigerian Prince have his eyes on a relatively small sum of money in a Scottish Football club bank account. 
In the video they already reference that Kibble would have blocked St Mirren having "Wonga" as a shirt sponsor so the exact scenario has already been stated. If you can't grasp why a religious charity might block a rich bookie from sponsoring St Mirren you are even more stupid that I gave you credit for and that is before you factor in the undisputed fact that the Kibble representatives on the football board do not have to be St Mirren fans - infact they are highly unlikely to be St Mirren fans. 
Personally, I am relatively comfortable with the deal but one thing is painfully obvious. The new deal that SMISA want their membership to sign up to gives the members less control over their football club than was initially the aim. Despite still having a majority shareholding, Kibble would hold a veto against any major decisions the fans make. 
 

Calling me stupid Is like me calling you a fat twat... childish and boring. But then I’m not the troll here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Having watched the video I’m sure these people are sane reasonable people who want what is best for Kibble and also St Mirren.. just because all the trolls on here think differently is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not on religious grounds, but given the forms of addiction some of their clients will have been unfortunate to be trapped in, it would be difficult, if nigh on impossible for them to align their brand with betting, lending, pawning, alcohol etc...
Ironically That just about covers 71% of main sponsors in [email protected]
 
 

Eh that leaves 29% lets go with them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TPAFKATS

Having watched the video I’m sure these people are sane reasonable people who want what is best for Kibble and also St Mirren.. just because all the trolls on here think differently is irrelevant.
Yeah, everyone is sane and reasonable so long as you agree with them. Once they decide something you don't agree with, outrage is probably all you will have as you glibly voted through their power as they were sane and reasonable.

Share this post


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

I could only speculate, however the fact is that Portamahock is 100% correct. It is right there in the legal agreement you are being asked to sanction. Kibble WOULD be able to block a major sponsor if they didn't like it. Yet despite it being there in the legal agreement you want to defend your initial stupidity by casting aspersions on those who are pointing out this fact to you.

Tell me, you didn't happen to offer your wisdom to Hamilton Accies when they signed away their fortunes did you? After all why would a rich Nigerian Prince have his eyes on a relatively small sum of money in a Scottish Football club bank account. 

In the video they already reference that Kibble would have blocked St Mirren having "Wonga" as a shirt sponsor so the exact scenario has already been stated. If you can't grasp why a religious charity might block a rich bookie from sponsoring St Mirren you are even more stupid that I gave you credit for and that is before you factor in the undisputed fact that the Kibble representatives on the football board do not have to be St Mirren fans - infact they are highly unlikely to be St Mirren fans. 

Personally, I am relatively comfortable with the deal but one thing is painfully obvious. The new deal that SMISA want their membership to sign up to gives the members less control over their football club than was initially the aim. Despite still having a majority shareholding, Kibble would hold a veto against any major decisions the fans make. 

 

Can you tell us where you got the idea the idea that Kibble is a religious charity/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having watched the video I’m sure these people are sane reasonable people who want what is best for Kibble and also St Mirren.. just because all the trolls on here think differently is irrelevant.
So its trolling to point out how any future boardroom issue could pan out?
These be some of the same reasonable people who promised fans would be consulted before any decision to accommodate extra sectarianism/bigotry/racism for cash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought Jimmy (Gillespie) Calderwood covered most of the questions quite well in the video. Personally the most important factor for myself was 1) The financial stability of the club and 2) The financial stability of Smisa now and going forward. I don't think dropping the current contributions to BTB is a great idea and would prefer continuing along the same lines to create a bigger emergency pot if push came to shove. I would have liked to have seen a vote on contributions before this deal is voted upon to provide some reassurance on SMISA's potential financial position in the future. Can't see a big betting firm or the likes sponsoring us now or in the future and don't really want to see Mecca Bingo on our shirts. It is most likely to be local firms as it has been in the past.

jc.jpeg

JG.jpg

Share this post


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

Motherwell are sponsored by Paddy Power. It is the biggest sponsorship deal they have ever had in their clubs history and they haven't got their logo on their shirts. 

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the possibility of major sponsors in the future. I didn't think that a club like St Mirren would attract interest from a major sponsor like JD Sports yet the club did. 

Fair point. Fair play to PP though who also agreed to not having their name on the shirt. With the Ladbrokes Scottish Cup and previous history of betting and alcohol firms in football in general it would be nice to see a move from these type of businesses but the SFA should lead the way. Money talks but responsible sponsorship should also be a key factor for a club going forward. “We know our place, and it’s not on your shirt.” PP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ford prefect said:
10 hours ago, proudtobeabuddy said:
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.

As yet I have been undecided as to the pro's and con's of Kibble-Gate, but I am now beginning to believe the paranoid over the rationalists (didn't someone say just because you believe they are out to get you........doesn't mean they aren't..................or something similar) I think I am now favouring the people who wish the fans to retain enough votes so as to not be held to ransom over a vote.  Do I think Kibble want to harm St Mirren? No I don't.  Do I believe that Kibble wish to have power to influence policy?  Yes I do.  Kibble are not (nor would they be allowed to)  spending 300K of a Charity's reserves without a business plan to back up that investment (because that is what it is), so that 300k give them the power of VETO, I would suggest that SMISA VETO that proposal. They are NOT spending 300K because they support St Mirtren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder sometime about the ability of SMISA since they keep sending me emails about this deal and how to register to vote.

Fed up telling them I stopped being a member 3 years ago.

Worrying that they are unable to take me off their mailing list but want to run a football club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a big decision to accept a gambling, alcohol or pawnbroker sponsor, or not?
I would rather not have have a gambling site anywhere near the club.
However it becomes a huge decision when the offer up to half you annual playing budget, each year of a 3 year deal!
Does The Bet Fred arena sound any worse than the SDA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a fat twat, so I take it you are admitting you are stupid....
I read the legal agreement - I would hope that SMISA members would too. This change to BTB is extremely significant. If "fans" of the club can't treat this with the serious consideration it deserves then fan ownership really is a f**ked model. Stop posting shite on the forum and use your spare time to get clued up on one of the biggest decisions St Mirren fans have been asked to make about the club in decades. 
 

No I’m not stupid but thanks for clarifying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So its trolling to point out how any future boardroom issue could pan out?
These be some of the same reasonable people who promised fans would be consulted before any decision to accommodate extra sectarianism/bigotry/racism for cash?

I’m against the home stand being used and always have been.

Share this post


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

I could only speculate, however the fact is that Portamahock is 100% correct. It is right there in the legal agreement you are being asked to sanction. Kibble WOULD be able to block a major sponsor if they didn't like it. Yet despite it being there in the legal agreement you want to defend your initial stupidity by casting aspersions on those who are pointing out this fact to you.

Tell me, you didn't happen to offer your wisdom to Hamilton Accies when they signed away their fortunes did you? After all why would a rich Nigerian Prince have his eyes on a relatively small sum of money in a Scottish Football club bank account. 

In the video they already reference that Kibble would have blocked St Mirren having "Wonga" as a shirt sponsor so the exact scenario has already been stated. If you can't grasp why a religious charity might block a rich bookie from sponsoring St Mirren you are even more stupid that I gave you credit for and that is before you factor in the undisputed fact that the Kibble representatives on the football board do not have to be St Mirren fans - infact they are highly unlikely to be St Mirren fans. 

Personally, I am relatively comfortable with the deal but one thing is painfully obvious. The new deal that SMISA want their membership to sign up to gives the members less control over their football club than was initially the aim. Despite still having a majority shareholding, Kibble would hold a veto against any major decisions the fans make. 

 

The 2 kibble fellas at the meeting are not St Mirren fans,   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the posters suggesting paranoia is being spread are doing themselves and debate an injustice.

In all mergers & acquisitions it's the primary function of all sides to talk up the deal they are proposing.

That said they will not say the things you dont like the sound of until the ink is dry on the agreement.

I dont for one minute think Kibble harbour a load of ill intent for smfc, it wouldn't be in their general interest to do so.

But I do know a charity based organisation (as others have pointed out) isnt chucking £300k away on virtually worthless shares in a less than fashionable football club for nothing.

This is a big deal for them, uncharted territory, they will have to show a good, timely and continual ROI to keep their trustees on side.

That will mean they will have to get a firm grip in all areas of the club. Which will cause factions, splits and disharmony, especially to current club employees who will at best be sidelined, or indeed replaced.

 

 

Share this post


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

I could only speculate, however the fact is that Portamahock is 100% correct. It is right there in the legal agreement you are being asked to sanction. Kibble WOULD be able to block a major sponsor if they didn't like it. Yet despite it being there in the legal agreement you want to defend your initial stupidity by casting aspersions on those who are pointing out this fact to you.

Tell me, you didn't happen to offer your wisdom to Hamilton Accies when they signed away their fortunes did you? After all why would a rich Nigerian Prince have his eyes on a relatively small sum of money in a Scottish Football club bank account. 

In the video they already reference that Kibble would have blocked St Mirren having "Wonga" as a shirt sponsor so the exact scenario has already been stated. If you can't grasp why a religious charity might block a rich bookie from sponsoring St Mirren you are even more stupid that I gave you credit for and that is before you factor in the undisputed fact that the Kibble representatives on the football board do not have to be St Mirren fans - infact they are highly unlikely to be St Mirren fans. 

Personally, I am relatively comfortable with the deal but one thing is painfully obvious. The new deal that SMISA want their membership to sign up to gives the members less control over their football club than was initially the aim. Despite still having a majority shareholding, Kibble would hold a veto against any major decisions the fans make. 

 

I'd think a lot of fans would also like to block any sponsorship deal with the likes of Wonga !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cast my vote this morning, made up my mind over the weekend after reviewing all the information to hand.

Comfortable with my own decision but if the majority vote the other way I won't lose too much sleep over it.

 

Share this post


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

It's a big decision to accept a gambling, alcohol or pawnbroker sponsor, or not?
I would rather not have have a gambling site anywhere near the club.
However it becomes a huge decision when the offer up to half you annual playing budget, each year of a 3 year deal!
Does The Bet Fred arena sound any worse than the SDA?

Suppose this also goes for the board advertising around the pitch as well? Any ideas on income from that?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...