Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts


6 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Monthly subs would be a requirement to maintain their membership and a say in how the club is run. Colin Orr said at the meeting that they hadn't decided on the level of contribution after the take over but the costs of running SMISA still need to be covered, and he suggested that more money could be put into the pot for the discretionary spend. 

I've no problem with any of that, just that Div's statement is incorrect. Unless members are going to cancel their membership there is no guarantee that members would be saving any money at all. 

I would say his comment was pretty clear regarding the saving on buying the club. After the club is purchased as you have noted there would be the different option to contribute to maintain your SMISA membership but that existed before BTB as well.

The deal goes through, we all save on buying a football club, we all choose if we want to remain a member. If it's a no, there isn't a choice to cancel your membership if individuals still wish to fulfil their BTB pledge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Monthly subs would be a requirement to maintain their membership and a say in how the club is run. Colin Orr said at the meeting that they hadn't decided on the level of contribution after the take over but the costs of running SMISA still need to be covered, and he suggested that more money could be put into the pot for the discretionary spend. 
I've no problem with any of that, just that Div's statement is incorrect. Unless members are going to cancel their membership there is no guarantee that members would be saving any money at all. 

There is certainly no saving for members who chose the single lump sum option.

Share this post


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

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. 

That's one way to look at it, another was that if there was no BTB, and the club was sold to another owner, then GLS was left with a load of near worthless shares.  BTB was the only way, short of buying out the consortium that he had any chance of making money from the share he already had.  That said fair play to him for getting involved with the fans in assuring the fans would be able to purchase the club, and have a board of Saints fans.  Shame that's changed lets hope the people the Kibble put forward are the Glasgow Rugby team supporters and not the many Rangers season ticket holders they have in senior positions and on the board.  I'd feel a bit miffed if BTB and this proposal gave us boardroom **** with Veto rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 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. 

It's pretty simple arithmetic here Stuart. SMiSA are paying £300K less than they were originally going to. They are now buying 51% instead of 71%.

Surely you agree with that?

SMiSA membership fees will continue, that is true, but I can guarantee you that they won't be at the same level as they are now.

There will be no need for SMiSA to take in £20K a month after the shareholding purchase is complete. It's really not rocket science.

Membership fees will reduce, thus each SMiSA member will personally make a saving.

 

Share this post


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

That's one way to look at it, another was that if there was no BTB, and the club was sold to another owner, then GLS was left with a load of near worthless shares.  BTB was the only way, short of buying out the consortium that he had any chance of making money from the share he already had.  That said fair play to him for getting involved with the fans in assuring the fans would be able to purchase the club, and have a board of Saints fans.  Shame that's changed lets hope the people the Kibble put forward are the Glasgow Rugby team supporters and not the many Rangers season ticket holders they have in senior positions and on the board.  I'd feel a bit miffed if BTB and this proposal gave us boardroom **** with Veto rights.

I would imagine GLS could have used the money he stumped up for BTB in a much more productive manner to recoup any losses for his existing St Mirren shares. I would be massively surprised if he came out with more money than he could have made as a very successful business man. My understanding is he sold off significant business ventures and had the cash in the bank, instead of further investing that money he put it to BTB. He’ll not make a penny off that money and get the selling price for most of his existing shares. Surely he could have easily made more than the selling price from that lump sum… Just silly to suggest otherwise given his history IMO.

The other points have been addressed many times on this chat, I think the veto is a bit of a red herring, it’s nothing more than you would expect for someone with the percentage shares the Kibble have and it’s not likely they will veto something that will turn out to hinder a football club they’ve invested in. By all accounts they seem very well run so that would be a massive own goal. As for the Rangers points, I don’t see the relevance at all, business is business, it sounds a bit tinfoil hat.

Edited by bazil85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's pretty simple arithmetic here Stuart. SMiSA are paying £300K less than they were originally going to. They are now buying 51% instead of 71%.
Surely you agree with that?
SMiSA membership fees will continue, that is true, but I can guarantee you that they won't be at the same level as they are now.
There will be no need for SMiSA to take in £20K a month after the shareholding purchase is complete. It's really not rocket science.
Membership fees will reduce, thus each SMiSA member will personally make a saving.
 
It's not £300k less for smisa members. That equates to 27.5% reduction in their shareholding, when in fact the proposal is for a 20% reduction.
Its splitting hairs to suggest smisa members are saving money they haven't yet spent.
And the point made earlier regarding initial lump sum payments....
If theres savings being dished out then surely these people are entitled to their pro rata refund?

Not so clean and simple is it? But hey Gordon gets his money back! And stays on as chairman so wheres the problem? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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?

 

 

Have you never given it thought that in the time of building a business, you see room for improvement or alternative ways of generating additional income in that period of time? There is always room for change for the better.

Buy the buds is 4 years in and within that time, like any business I am sure there have been may learning curves, just like GS when he took the chairmans role has learned a far deal greater than he did before about the running of a football club.

The club will STILL be fan owned regardless if the Kibble proposal is approved or not. Kibble are not here to take over, they are here to help generate extra revenue whilst boosting their own profile. As you are very aware, SMISA itself is run by many volunteers who already have full-time jobs elsewhere and dedicate a large chunk of their time to the association. Something I think that at times, these people get very little credit for. 

I know I am explaining points that you already know and will result in a negative reply, as you have nothing positive to say about either SMISA, Kibble, GS or St. Mirren Football Club in general. 

Share this post


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

It's not £300k less for smisa members. That equates to 27.5% reduction in their shareholding, when in fact the proposal is for a 20% reduction.
Its splitting hairs to suggest smisa members are saving money they haven't yet spent.
And the point made earlier regarding initial lump sum payments....
If theres savings being dished out then surely these people are entitled to their pro rata refund?

Not so clean and simple is it? But hey Gordon gets his money back! And stays on as chairman so wheres the problem? Lol

If you think that's splitting hairs surely this is the same? He'd be getting his money back regardless and the additional will be nowhere near what he could have earned should he not have entertained BTB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you never given it thought that in the time of building a business, you see room for improvement or alternative ways of generating additional income in that period of time? There is always room for change for the better.

Buy the buds is 4 years in and within that time, like any business I am sure there have been may learning curves, just like GS when he took the chairmans role has learned a far deal greater than he did before about the running of a football club.

The club will STILL be fan owned regardless if the Kibble proposal is approved or not. Kibble are not here to take over, they are here to help generate extra revenue whilst boosting their own profile. As you are very aware, SMISA itself is run by many volunteers who already have full-time jobs elsewhere and dedicate a large chunk of their time to the association. Something I think that at times, these people get very little credit for. 

I know I am explaining points that you already know and will result in a negative reply, as you have nothing positive to say about either SMISA, Kibble, GS or St. Mirren Football Club in general. 

Au contraire! Mange tout, mange tout..

If it's looking at ways to better the existing deal then why, oh why have Smiswa not sought this partnership with Kibble and let them pay £300k to smisa to access the facilities, and opportunities they see at the club?

Then smisa would be in a position to take its majority shareholding in jig time..?

Now that's what I call fan ownership, partnering with an organisation to each other's benefit, and that of the community.

Gordon would still get paid off sooner, but lose his grip on the club as a small shareholder.

Edit... the above is all possible with the existing Smisa/Scott agreement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone "involved" please answer a (perhaps foolish) question for me ?

Is the original Smisa / fan ownership project intended to give ownership of 100% of the club's shares to the fans or was it to achieve ownership of 100% of the chairman's majority stake in the club. I have no idea what % of St Mirren shares GLS has control of and what % are still owned by other supporters (and perhaps non-supporters), can someone tell me ?

And are Kibble hoping to purchase 27.5% of the club or of the shares that GLS controls ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone "involved" please answer a (perhaps foolish) question for me ?
Is the original Smisa / fan ownership project intended to give ownership of 100% of the club's shares to the fans or was it to achieve ownership of 100% of the chairman's majority stake in the club. I have no idea what % of St Mirren shares GLS has control of and what % are still owned by other supporters (and perhaps non-supporters), can someone tell me ?
And are Kibble hoping to purchase 27.5% of the club or of the shares that GLS controls ?
 
At present smisa own just short of 30%. Scott was/is due to sell them the shares he acquired from the selling consortium taking smisa shareholding up to 71%.
That leaves Scott with the 8% he previously owned, and the rest in the hands of small shareholders, many in smisa, fans or inherited from a fan.
You can look at it if the original agreement remains then the club will be 100% fan owned at completion. All be it smisa have 71% of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, East Lothian Saint said:

 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.

 

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Can someone "involved" please answer a (perhaps foolish) question for me ?

Is the original Smisa / fan ownership project intended to give ownership of 100% of the club's shares to the fans or was it to achieve ownership of 100% of the chairman's majority stake in the club. I have no idea what % of St Mirren shares GLS has control of and what % are still owned by other supporters (and perhaps non-supporters), can someone tell me ?

And are Kibble hoping to purchase 27.5% of the club or of the shares that GLS controls ?

 

Gordon owns 50.1% of the shares in the club today.
SMiSA owns 28.3% of the shares in the club today.

Under original proposal SMiSA was buying 42% from Gordon, taking them up to 71% and leaving Gordon with the original 8% he had before he bought the additional shares from SG & Co.

Under new proposal SMiSA will instead buy 22.7% from Gordon leaving them with 51% in total.
Gordon would sell the rest (27%) to Kibble leaving himself with a fraction of a percent.

To be clear the stake Kibble are proposed to buy is 27% of the club. It's over half of Gordon's current shareholding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, div said:

Gordon owns 50.1% of the shares in the club today.
SMiSA owns 28.3% of the shares in the club today.

Under original proposal SMiSA was buying 42% from Gordon, taking them up to 71% and leaving Gordon with the original 8% he had before he bought the additional shares from SG & Co.

Under new proposal SMiSA will instead buy 22.7% from Gordon leaving them with 51% in total.
Gordon would sell the rest (27%) to Kibble leaving himself with a fraction of a percent.

To be clear the stake Kibble are proposed to buy is 27% of the club. It's over half of Gordon's current shareholding.

So is SMiSA happy for Gordon to remain as Chairman or is it a condition of Kibble's proposition.  Who gets to install chairman.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pod said:

So is SMiSA happy for Gordon to remain as Chairman or is it a condition of Kibble's proposition.  Who gets to install chairman.    

GLS will remain the chairman until at least the rest of the deal is closed out (thought to be end of 2021). At that point imagine there will be some kind of nominee and vote process for a new chairman and the SMISA related BOD members. 

Share this post


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

So is SMiSA happy for Gordon to remain as Chairman or is it a condition of Kibble's proposition.  Who gets to install chairman.    

"Gordon’s intention was always to hand the ownership of St Mirren over to the fans by 2026 – but he believes Kibble can bring major benefits to the club and he is willing to give up the powers he has as owner earlier than planned to let that happen. As per the legal agreement, Gordon will continue as chairman during the transition. He is a hands-on owner with a key role in club operations, so his knowledge will remain crucial.

As discussed above, we may ask the board in place at takeover to continue, meaning Gordon – assuming he wanted to – would continue as chair. If so, his role would have a different dynamic than at present – he wouldn’t be the owner and would no longer be party to the shareholders agreement. Gordon is aware the power to decide who is on the board beyond 2021 lies with SMISA and Kibble."

Taken from the SMiSA website Kibble Q&A (2.5).

 

Share this post


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

It's pretty simple arithmetic here Stuart. SMiSA are paying £300K less than they were originally going to. They are now buying 51% instead of 71%.

Surely you agree with that?

SMiSA membership fees will continue, that is true, but I can guarantee you that they won't be at the same level as they are now.

There will be no need for SMiSA to take in £20K a month after the shareholding purchase is complete. It's really not rocket science.

Membership fees will reduce, thus each SMiSA member will personally make a saving.

 

Surely that would be a decision for the SMISA membership, therefor not something that you can personally guarantee?

Unless you know something that the rank and file SMISA membershio don't

Share this post


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

I would imagine GLS could have used the money he stumped up for BTB in a much more productive manner to recoup any losses for his existing St Mirren shares. I would be massively surprised if he came out with more money than he could have made as a very successful business man. My understanding is he sold off significant business ventures and had the cash in the bank, instead of further investing that money he put it to BTB. He’ll not make a penny off that money and get the selling price for most of his existing shares. Surely he could have easily made more than the selling price from that lump sum… Just silly to suggest otherwise given his history IMO.

The other points have been addressed many times on this chat, I think the veto is a bit of a red herring, it’s nothing more than you would expect for someone with the percentage shares the Kibble have and it’s not likely they will veto something that will turn out to hinder a football club they’ve invested in. By all accounts they seem very well run so that would be a massive own goal. As for the Rangers points, I don’t see the relevance at all, business is business, it sounds a bit tinfoil hat.

Gonna give it a rest bazil my fingers are sore playing this violin every time you mention Gordon and his losses,  You seem to forget this baby was Gordon's idea mate, he was getting to fulfil his life long dream of becoming chairman,  And am sure it has it's benefits as well as the interest he is losing out on, 

The highlighted bit.... Your having a laugh aren't you :lol: wit ye like baz,  Could maybe even bring John Brown in as chairman 

As for this proposal it's the same spiel that was given at the BTB meetings,  next level, more revenue etc etc,  The kibble will open the floodgates to untold riches aye so they will, 

SMISA and GLS are giving me the impression they have hit a brick wall taking the club forward,  That's probably because there's a limit to what a club of our size and fan base can achieve,  Were going in the right direction baby steps, and there's no need to change it, not yet anyway, 

The bottom line for me is why can't the kibble do what they say without these shares, they have nothing to fear from us,  It's a no for me 

 

Share this post


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

Gonna give it a rest bazil my fingers are sore playing this violin every time you mention Gordon and his losses,  You seem to forget this baby was Gordon's idea mate, he was getting to fulfil his life long dream of becoming chairman,  And am sure it has it's benefits as well as the interest he is losing out on, 

The highlighted bit.... Your having a laugh aren't you :lol: wit ye like baz,  Could maybe even bring John Brown in as chairman 

As for this proposal it's the same spiel that was given at the BTB meetings,  next level, more revenue etc etc,  The kibble will open the floodgates to untold riches aye so they will, 

SMISA and GLS are giving me the impression they have hit a brick wall taking the club forward,  That's probably because there's a limit to what a club of our size and fan base can achieve,  Were going in the right direction baby steps, and there's no need to change it, not yet anyway, 

The bottom line for me is why can't the kibble do what they say without these shares, they have nothing to fear from us,  It's a no for me 

 

I think it’s fair for someone to mention the actual nature of GLS in this deal given the contributors that come out multiple times (certainly far more than I have noted the reality) with spun comments regarding him “profiting” These people have shown many times in the past they hold personal grudges against the man and these narrow comments going unchecked isn’t right IMO. GLS has done (and continues to do) a great thing for our football club, why do a small minority see it as a negative acknowledging that? I don’t forget that at all, This isn’t something I would be mentioning at all if not for the previously mentioned contributors. My posts are purely in response to their view on him “profiting” I’m also sure it does have its benefits.

The team people support is not an issue in this deal or any deal. The issue would be if they were using SMFC as a way to benefit another team at the detriment of our club or if that support would impact their decision making. As said, that’s tinfoil hat stuff to me, I see no evidence that’ll be an issue.

Personally and seemingly others see benefit in this team, including people much closer to it than you and me. I choose to trust their take and that’s why I was a yes. Others can choose not to, that’s their choice. I think there’s enough information now to see this is the best interest of the club.

They’ve hit a brick wall? We have progressed as a club on and off the park every season since they’ve taken over and we have done so while continuing to record a profit. That might be your opinion but I would be interested to know what you possibly could base it on, given where we are right now compared to where we were. I think there’s plenty of manoeuvre for further growth, I’m not seeing signs of slowing down but… Does that really impact the Kibble deal? I guess addressing your point, can you see the Kibble as maybe helping against this “brick wall” you see?

That’s fine, I think it’s been answered but it’s your vote. We’ll stick with your brick wall lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:


As you wrote a shareholder may have inherited a share from a fan, then surely you cannot categorical guarantee they are fans. So the wording with 100% figure is misleading for the intent it was posted.

 

 

 

 

Awright it’s no exact but not gonnae mislead anybody - there are about 500 minority shareholders with about 20% in total - I think it’s fair to assume that most are Saints supporters - a few either way’s no goantae mislead anybody - stop muddying the waters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon gets all his money back and stays as chairman. Meanwhile, as things stand Smisa members get none of their money back, indeed many will feel deceived having subscribed to a proposal to buy 71% of the club, to now find over a quarter of the club will belong to a third party!

The only individual or group losing out on what was proposed, agreed and backed in numbers is the Smisa membership!
Think of the I interest the Smisa membership could have earned if they'd kept their money In the bank. Lol

Share this post


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

I think it’s fair for someone to mention the actual nature of GLS in this deal given the contributors that come out multiple times (certainly far more than I have noted the reality) with spun comments regarding him “profiting” These people have shown many times in the past they hold personal grudges against the man and these narrow comments going unchecked isn’t right IMO. GLS has done (and continues to do) a great thing for our football club, why do a small minority see it as a negative acknowledging that? I don’t forget that at all, This isn’t something I would be mentioning at all if not for the previously mentioned contributors. My posts are purely in response to their view on him “profiting” I’m also sure it does have its benefits.

The team people support is not an issue in this deal or any deal. The issue would be if they were using SMFC as a way to benefit another team at the detriment of our club or if that support would impact their decision making. As said, that’s tinfoil hat stuff to me, I see no evidence that’ll be an issue.

Personally and seemingly others see benefit in this team, including people much closer to it than you and me. I choose to trust their take and that’s why I was a yes. Others can choose not to, that’s their choice. I think there’s enough information now to see this is the best interest of the club.

They’ve hit a brick wall? We have progressed as a club on and off the park every season since they’ve taken over and we have done so while continuing to record a profit. That might be your opinion but I would be interested to know what you possibly could base it on, given where we are right now compared to where we were. I think there’s plenty of manoeuvre for further growth, I’m not seeing signs of slowing down but… Does that really impact the Kibble deal? I guess addressing your point, can you see the Kibble as maybe helping against this “brick wall” you see?

That’s fine, I think it’s been answered but it’s your vote. We’ll stick with your brick wall lol.

That's not what am saying am saying,  With this deal they're giving that impression,,  Am with happy the way things are read it again 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...