Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts


Voted No

I signed up to this for full fan ownership, not to reduce the holding and bring in an outside third party.

They should have told us of their intentions when they first decided they were pursuing an alternative to the original plan.

To suggest we now need a third party for the greater good seems odd, could no-one see that at the start and if not why not ?

 

Edited by woiiftm
spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

You may have missed this to what you signed up to. emoji106.png

10. Membership is open to any individual, unincorporated body, firm, partnership or corporate body who or which:

10.1 is a supporter of the Club; or

10.2 has an interest in the game of football in the Area and is in sympathy with the objects of the Society; and

10.3 agrees to take an active interest in the operation and development of the Society and its business;

10.4 agrees to respect commercial confidentiality in relation to business decisions of the Society; and

10.5 agrees to be bound by these Rules and by Rules 3 and 7 in particular.

He probably missed it because it’s completely irrelevant 😂😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He probably missed it because it’s completely irrelevant

And it doesn't state "the body" are going to gazump you and grab 27.5% of the shares you were told were being sold to you.

 

Feck me why are some so blind?

Kibbke aren't becoming member of Smisa, they are buying shares in the club that were promised to smisa members. I.e. taking over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some people on here who really need arithmetic lessons and some instruction on how percentages work. "Kibble are getting 27% and taking over". Clearly, far from being a recent problem, numeracy standards have been falling for many years in Scotland.

Share this post


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

There's some people on here who really need arithmetic lessons and some instruction on how percentages work. "Kibble are getting 27% and taking over". Clearly, far from being a recent problem, numeracy standards have been falling for many years in Scotland.

100% Troll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

You may have missed this to what you signed up to. emoji106.png

10. Membership is open to any individual, unincorporated body, firm, partnership or corporate body who or which:

10.1 is a supporter of the Club; or

10.2 has an interest in the game of football in the Area
and is in sympathy with the objects of the Society; and

10.3 agrees to take an active interest in the operation and development of the Society and its business;

10.4 agrees to respect commercial confidentiality in relation to business decisions of the Society; and

10.5 agrees to be bound by these Rules and by Rules 3 and 7 in particular.

Does Kibble fit the criteria.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let’s not forget that Kibble are also saving SMiSA members £300K, an average of £250 a head.

We probably also shouldn’t overlook the fact that as 51% shareholders, SMiSA will have the majority shareholding of the football club, and thus the football club will be, by definition, “fan owned”. By the end of next year.

And its maybe worthwhile remembering that we get the benefit of the expertise and infrastructure of a 140 year old organisation who have a turnover 10 times the size of the club, working with us.

And we get all of this, with a partner who is not driven by profit, but rather one that exists to help young people develop and prosper.

Blind? Blinded by a personal grudge with the chairman I’d say.

 

Certainly wrong with your last line, childish accusation.

The bottom line regarding the rest of your post is the fact that yet again the smisa membership are made what they believe to be a cast iron promise, only to see that walked back because the club or committee fancy something else!

The smisa committee and club didn't tell the potential members during BtB that they didn't have it in them to see the proposal that THEY stood by, through to successful conclusion.

All the talk of the things Kibble can do better, really means that the current incumbents...

A. Never had it in them

B. Just plain lazy

C. There was always a plan to water fan ownership down...?

Because they told the membership time and again of the dangers to the club of an outside body taking control.

So forget what Kibble are good at for one moment, and ask what is failing, and why there is a need to prop the club up immediately?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let’s not forget that Kibble are also saving SMiSA members £300K, an average of £250 a head.
We probably also shouldn’t overlook the fact that as 51% shareholders, SMiSA will have the majority shareholding of the football club, and thus the football club will be, by definition, “fan owned”. By the end of next year.
And its maybe worthwhile remembering that we get the benefit of the expertise and infrastructure of a 140 year old organisation who have a turnover 10 times the size of the club, working with us.
And we get all of this, with a partner who is not driven by profit, but rather one that exists to help young people develop and prosper.
Blind? Blinded by a personal grudge with the chairman I’d say.
 

Should we forget that months of planning went into this without a murmur ?

Ask first to see if we wish them to explore this option ?

Div your bias is similar to BBC & SKY over Brexit loading the argument from one side only

Our 3 votes cast as NO

Share this post


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

Certainly wrong with your last line, childish accusation.

The bottom line regarding the rest of your post is the fact that yet again the smisa membership are made what they believe to be a cast iron promise, only to see that walked back because the club or committee fancy something else!

The smisa committee and club didn't tell the potential members during BtB that they didn't have it in them to see the proposal that THEY stood by, through to successful conclusion.

All the talk of the things Kibble can do better, really means that the current incumbents...

A. Never had it in them

B. Just plain lazy

C. There was always a plan to water fan ownership down...?

Because they told the membership time and again of the dangers to the club of an outside body taking control.

So forget what Kibble are good at for one moment, and ask what is failing, and why there is a need to prop the club up immediately?

 

 

Yeah, sorry, I’m not sure where I got the idea that you didn’t like Gordon Scott from. I’ll take that back 😂

As far as I can see the SMiSA committee are asking the members to decide on the proposal. If the members don’t back it, then it doesn’t happen.

I think this is called democracy.

The committee believe this proposal enhances BTB. It’s up to the members to decide if they agree or not. 

That’s how this is supposed to work.

 

 

Share this post


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


Should we forget that months of planning went into this without a murmur ?

Ask first to see if we wish them to explore this option ?

Div your bias is similar to BBC & SKY over Brexit loading the argument from one side only

Our 3 votes cast as NO

Respect your opinion mate. As a fellow SMiSA member you’ve taken the time to weigh up the proposal and have decided it’s not for you.

I dont really mind either way if it goes through or not. We will be fan owned with or without Kibble. If it takes a few more years then so be it.

I won’t be losing any sleep over it either way!

Share this post


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


Should we forget that months of planning went into this without a murmur?

It does beg the question why there appear to be no SMiSA committee meeting minutes on the website.  Or am I not looking in the right place?

If there are privacy issues then there should be a members area to login and view these minutes.

Share this post


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

Saving £300? Where? Not according to Colin Orr who said at the meeting subscriptions would continue 

The BTB purchase price will reduce by £300K if the Kibble proposal passes.

That is shares that SMiSA no longer need to purchase.

1200 members will thus save themselves £250 a head.

SMiSA will always have a membership subscription even after BTB concludes. It always has since the day it was founded.

It won’t be at the same level as it is now, because we won’t be saving up to buy a majority shareholding.

Share this post


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

Kibble aren't applying to be members of SMISA with their one member, one vote rule. They are going to be minority shareholders with a privilege not afforded to anyone else. They will have a veto. 

So will SMiSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, sorry, I’m not sure where I got the idea that you didn’t like Gordon Scott from. I’ll take that back

As far as I can see the SMiSA committee are asking the members to decide on the proposal. If the members don’t back it, then it doesn’t happen.

I think this is called democracy.

The committee believe this proposal enhances BTB. It’s up to the members to decide if they agree or not. 

That’s how this is supposed to work.

 

 

Well.. no really. It should require 75% approval to pass.

Remember that's what they imposed on Kombibuddie and his proposal was only to (and the smisa committee encourage everyone to put forward proposals) simply add an option to the quarterly £2 vote!

Funny that lending the club £15k for the USH wasnt even put to members, or the Raid on their ringfenced funds for £50k to fund a placcy pitch didn't require a 75% pass.

And now going back on the agreement that would see the membership lose out on over a quarter of the club doesn't seem to justify a 75% majority to back either.

I mean wouldn't that have been the 'Democratic' way to go?

Or as more like they are shit scared they'll get nowhere near that 75%.

Democracy my ass!

 

Share this post


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

Saving £300? Where? Not according to Colin Orr who said at the meeting subscriptions would continue 

This is a fair point. Personally I would like to see members given the option to continue monthly subs but hope it was made clear it is not a requirement to keep the club going (I Very much doubt it would be) 

Would be happy to continue paying my monthly subs for the full 10 years and beyond. Sure others will feel the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As yet I am undecided. 

Earlier in this thread I voiced my concerns over the veto. That still concerns me.

HOWEVER

 I signed up for btb to save the club but was never sure how it was going to work. There is still no proposal for the end game if we get 71% of the club and that's daunting. "How we going to work it. I don't know" to paraphrase a well known song. The idea of some of the people on this forum getting any control over the club and everyone else fighting over their choice is mind boggling.  

The positive is in this deal, we get a hand and have a structure for the future that could work well, Someone who has been in business for 140 years and will prove useful. They will save money on some ongoing initiatives and generate cash in the future. They have certain values and if we are to maintain the high ground and claim to be a family rum club then shunning gambling, drinking or unethical sponsors shouldn't be an issue. Installing a plastic pitch would be though so I get the danger. Its a risk but at least we have more clarity on the future.

Do we have the expertise to do this ourselves, Not sure. Can we trust kibble to deliver on their statement.  "It's in our interest for ST Mirren to do well on the park."

I'd like to think we can but I'm not sure. It's a tough Decision.

Share this post


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

Who says? 

Colin Orr said they hadn't decided yet but you're wrapping this up as a saving for every member and your calculating it in a way that assumes everyone will stop contributing. 

The only financial beneficiary is Gordon Scott. 

He's also the biggest individual loss leader throughout the whole BTB process. His personal hit is far more than any other SMISA member. Fair play to him for his pivotal role in delivering fan ownership, one way or t'other. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...