Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, portmahomack saint said:

Too many people on here are far to quick to disregard everything he says,  As The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  One day that's going to bite you in the arse 

Yes you may well have a point , I found most of the early part of the original post reasonable; until it became about GS raking in the profits, LPM seems to forget that SMFC is HIS club, he owns it and is entitled to do any deal HE thinks is OK. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dickson said:

It's where you make the point about Scott putting in £hundreds of thousands. Who cares? Why should Scott be given greater consideration in getting his money back than the thousand or so fans who dug deep and who will never see a penny of their cash back even if the deal was mis-sold? Why should Scott be unquestioned on the deals he does to get his money back out? How many parts of the club should he be able to sell off in order to recover his money? Why even make the point where there are ordinary football fans out there who don't drive Aston Martins who stretched themselves to pay in £2500 up front, or £12 per month without ever getting the level of access to the club and to Scottish Football that Scott bought for himself. 

The deal warrants close scrutiny. Not platitudes and compliments. 

Nice to see you back, Stu D. Glad to see your views haven't changed1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
20 minutes ago, jaybee said:
Just to be nit picky weeeeeeeeee man, if your daughter  who  worked there for a whole 3 months, said the youths are mainly from other areas, then possibly some of the not mainly from other areas ones,  might just be local, (I am maybe stretching a point here in assuming 'not from other areas' means probably local) and if one assumes some (at least) of the employed staff are also local, then you owe cockles an apology............................don't hold your breath cockles.  emoji41.png

The point is Kibble are not a Community Benefit Society like SMISA. Therefore they are not Obliged to benefit their local community. Ad Smisa are.
That said... they deliver a number of services that give help and hope to young people across the UK

They are a Charity which is very similar and in some ways far stricter, however whilst they are not specifically targeting locals; nevertheless their aims and objectives will follow similar guidelines and surely you would not like it if SMISA was viewed as just a little too parochial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Point one, as I don't know the break down on employing local people I'll leave that to a side.

Point two, these youths, and my daughter worked there for 3 months, are mainly from other areas, how is that helping the local community?

I know you're falling over yourself to disprove EVERYTHING he says but there's many parts of his posts that are true and many that throw up interesting scenarios.

 

I think you are adopting a very narrow definition of community. If a young person from another part of the country moves to Kibble, don't they then become part of the local community? If they stay there for five years and get a flat in Paisley, do they become part of the local community at that point, or will they still be viewed as an outsider? If Kibble adopted that same narrow approach, I'd have real doubts about their values and ethos.

Personally, I think helping young people who've suffered sometimes massive trauma to rebuild their lives is something which is of real benefit to the community, and the origin of the young person is entirely irrelevant. There is a wider debate about whether it's always good practice to move young people a considerable distance away from home - often it's not - but there are other times it's unavoidable. We should not discriminate against young people simply because of where they come from. An unfortunate parochialism has crept into this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes you may well have a point , I found most of the early part of the original post reasonable; until it became about GS raking in the profits, LPM seems to forget that SMFC is HIS club, he owns it and is entitled to do any deal HE thinks is OK. 
 
 
No smfc belongs to the fans.. at least that what the chairman says.
And can you please show where I said the chairman was raking in profit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:
4 minutes ago, smcc said:
Nice to see you back, Stu D. Glad to see your views haven't changed1

It is indeed nice to see him back and he makes a good point.

No he doesn't, WHO owns the most shares?  They are the clubs owner. That person or persons can do as THEY wish. and as someone else pointed out nobody else came up with cash to make sure asset strippers never had a chance to do their dirty deeds. smacks of jealousy to  me.

Share this post


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

I think you are adopting a very narrow definition of community. If a young person from another part of the country moves to Kibble, don't they then become part of the local community? If they stay there for five years and get a flat in Paisley, do they become part of the local community at that point, or will they still be viewed as an outsider? If Kibble adopted that same narrow approach, I'd have real doubts about their values and ethos.

Personally, I think helping young people who've suffered sometimes massive trauma to rebuild their lives is something which is of real benefit to the community, and the origin of the young person is entirely irrelevant. There is a wider debate about whether it's always good practice to move young people a considerable distance away from home - often it's not - but there are other times it's unavoidable. We should not discriminate against young people simply because of where they come from. An unfortunate parochialism has crept into this thread.

I would question this idea that people who come from other areas, the vast majority, somehow decide to stay in Paisley and are seen as pillars of the community. 

An awful lot of "if's" there while trying to prove a point,

I don't see anyone questioning what the Kibble TRY to achieve and no-one is discriminating against anyone.

You're barking up the wrong tree here mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
19 minutes ago, jaybee said:
Yes you may well have a point , I found most of the early part of the original post reasonable; until it became about GS raking in the profits, LPM seems to forget that SMFC is HIS club, he owns it and is entitled to do any deal HE thinks is OK. 
 
 

No smfc belongs to the fans.. at least that what the chairman says.
And can you please show where I said the chairman was raking in profit

Check with Companies House and see who owns the largest amount of shares, whoever that is is the owner NOW, who owns it later is another issue. apologies for the raking in the profits comment, my mistake you certainly didn't say that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, faraway saint said:
40 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Just to be nit picky weeeeeeeeee man, if your daughter  who  worked there for a whole 3 months, said the youths are mainly from other areas, then possibly some of the not mainly from other areas ones,  might just be local, (I am maybe stretching a point here in assuming 'not from other areas' means probably local) and if one assumes some (at least) of the employed staff are also local, then you owe cockles an apology............................don't hold your breath cockles.  😎

Popped you off ignore to point and laugh.........................please try to write in English, I have no fecking idea what the feck you're on about,  especially the bit in red, ya Wank Wank Wank Broadfoot. :lol:

Not My PROBLEM that you are illiterate...........do me a BIG favour and put me back on ignore. Your such an obnoxious little arsehole anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No he doesn't, WHO owns the most shares?  They are the clubs owner. That person or persons can do as THEY wish. and as someone else pointed out nobody else came up with cash to make sure asset strippers never had a chance to do their dirty deeds. smacks of jealousy to  me.
Oh my word. Really?

You don't care what happens to St Mirren fc as long as the person owning most shares does as they please, as is their right? Yes? Really?

Is that what you meant as that's how it read?

Share this post


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

Oh my word. Really?

You don't care what happens to St Mirren fc as long as the person owning most shares does as they please, as is their right? Yes? Really?

Is that what you meant as that's how it read?

He's got trouble producing sentences that reflect what goes on in his head. 

That's why I have him on ignore, another Wank Broadfoot. 

Share this post


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

https://communityshares.org.uk/resources/handbook/community-benefit-societies

I think LPM is wrong when he says that the sale of shares to Kibble would be illegal after SMISA buys the club. That doesn't appear to be true. Many businesses in the third sector do sell off chunks of their assets to private companies. That is perfectly legal. The stipulation under the regulations would be that the money from that sale of those assets would have to be used for the benefit of the broader interests of the community and not profit any member of the society. 

However I do think it is healthy to hold a large degree of scepticism over the proposal. After all the Trustees of a charity have a legal duty to ensure that all of their resources are used only to further or support it's charitable aims and I doubt that handing over six figure sums to a wealthy property developer driving an Aston Martin for his shares in a football club that are supposed to be worthless  would fit their legal obligations. So the question remains - what are they getting in return for their money that will further the aims of their charity? What is it that is being sold off at the football club for the sole financial benefit of Gordon Scott? And why are the committee at SMISA so happy to jump on board? 

I have to say as well that rather than turn ire on LPM for trying to raise awareness and discussion on the issue, it would be far more healthy for St Mirren fans to pour scorn and anger on the likes of - in this case smcc - who has posted to the effect that fans of the club should just do as the Chairman wants out of deference and respect to him. Many other football club fans have found to their cost that their chairman being a fan of their club doesn't offer any protection for the long term future of the club, when that individual is also driven by greed and a desire to make money out of every opportunity. 

I hold no axe against GLS. Nor am I particularly beholden to him for parking some of his (company's) money with the club. There were, are plenty of assets there to return his funds if things went wrong. Nor am I angry with him over his stewardship of the club to date. Neither do I grudge him getting his money back at the planned date or sooner. These are, in my opinion, red herrings which distort calm and objective scrutiny of the proposals. My only other contribution so far has been to suggest that whether legally (that should be a given) or not that a straight majority would suffice it would be both good practice and in the interests of transparency to hold an EGM and require 75% to vote in favour. If it is a great proposition then what would it's supporters and proponents have to fear!? 

Share this post


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

No he doesn't, WHO owns the most shares?  They are the clubs owner. That person or persons can do as THEY wish. and as someone else pointed out nobody else came up with cash to make sure asset strippers never had a chance to do their dirty deeds. smacks of jealousy to  me.

Let me get this straight Jaybee - just so I totally understand you. 

You think that whoever owns the most shares at St Mirren FC should be able to do anything they wish. Does that include asset stripping? Or would that be a dirty deed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Highly unhelpful post, there is a serious matter requiring debate/clarification not including clown car baw baggery of a tedious nature, thanks for your contribution
It wasn't helpful to any debate but it was rather amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

I hold no axe against GLS. Nor am I particularly beholden to him for parking some of his (company's) money with the club. There were, are plenty of assets there to return his funds if things went wrong. Nor am I angry with him over his stewardship of the club to date. Neither do I grudge him getting his money back at the planned date or sooner. These are, in my opinion, red herrings which distort calm and objective scrutiny of the proposals. My only other contribution so far has been to suggest that whether legally (that should be a given) or not that a straight majority would suffice it would be both good practice and in the interests of transparency to hold an EGM and require 75% to vote in favour. If it is a great proposition then what would it's supporters and proponents have to fear!? 

What is the proposition though, Ricky? 

As I've said before Kibble is a charity. There are clear rules and guidance on what the Trustees of a Charity can spend their money on. Buying worthless shares in a Scottish football club, that have never realised a dividend, off a business man who drives around in an Aston Martin would look extremely suspicious if that was really the entirety of the deal. So the question that should be getting asked over and over again is what are Kibble getting in return for their money? 

I don't know Gordon Scott either and this isn't personal. I just think there should be far more scrutiny of the deal than has been published by SMISA to date. 

St Mirren partnering and working with local charities and community groups is something I have always argued for. By it's legal definition it's what SMISA as a Community Benefit Society should be doing. I just think that it's somewhat odd that it's being done in this particular way and I'd like to hear what Kibble are being offered in return for handing Gordon Scott a wedge of money for some worthless shares. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes it is
This is the opening line of the About Kibble section of the kibble.org website

"Kibble supports at risk children and young people (aged 5-26) across the UK."

This would suggest that they are not a Paisley or Renfrewshire community operation, despite being based in Paisley.

Personally, I don't think that's an issue with regards the proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the opening line of the About Kibble section of the kibble.org website

"Kibble supports at risk children and young people (aged 5-26) across the UK."

This would suggest that they are not a Paisley or Renfrewshire community operation, despite being based in Paisley.

Personally, I don't think that's an issue with regards the proposal.
London Lady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:
2 hours ago, jaybee said:
No he doesn't, WHO owns the most shares?  They are the clubs owner. That person or persons can do as THEY wish. and as someone else pointed out nobody else came up with cash to make sure asset strippers never had a chance to do their dirty deeds. smacks of jealousy to  me.

Oh my word. Really?

You don't care what happens to St Mirren fc as long as the person owning most shares does as they please, as is their right? Yes? Really?

Is that what you meant as that's how it read?

Not at all, simply making a point that several people chose to ignore, it is a forum and as such has diverse opinions but sometimes what people want takes over from common sense. I am sure that GS stepped in and bought the shares and fully intends to pass ownership to the fans; but to read some of the rhetoric on here you might think otherwise.

Indeed I do care what happens to St Mirren and personally I worry about 'fan ownership' regarding the practicalities of how it will work 

So no, it is not a case of the owner doing as he pleases, just his entitlement to do as he wishes with his investment, ie: the Kibble quible.

I am not sure that it will benefit the club as much as is intimated, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

Share this post


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

No he doesn't, WHO owns the most shares?  They are the clubs owner. That person or persons can do as THEY wish. and as someone else pointed out nobody else came up with cash to make sure asset strippers never had a chance to do their dirty deeds. smacks of jealousy to  me.

Let me get this straight Jaybee - just so I totally understand you. 

You think that whoever owns the most shares at St Mirren FC should be able to do anything they wish. Does that include asset stripping? Or would that be a dirty deed? 

Read my response to buddieinek. I was making a point, nothing more.

Share this post


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

Yes you may well have a point , I found most of the early part of the original post reasonable; until it became about GS raking in the profits, LPM seems to forget that SMFC is HIS club, he owns it and is entitled to do any deal HE thinks is OK. 

 

 

You sure about that ?  because he already has a deal, Am pretty sure it will be legally binding  :huh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all, simply making a point that several people chose to ignore, it is a forum and as such has diverse opinions but sometimes what people want takes over from common sense. I am sure that GS stepped in and bought the shares and fully intends to pass ownership to the fans; but to read some of the rhetoric on here you might think otherwise.
Indeed I do care what happens to St Mirren and personally I worry about 'fan ownership' regarding the practicalities of how it will work 
So no, it is not a case of the owner doing as he pleases, just his entitlement to do as he wishes with his investment, ie: the Kibble quible.
I am not sure that it will benefit the club as much as is intimated, but I could be persuaded otherwise.
So bottom line... His ball... He can do what he likes?

Still seems that way to me from what you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Point one, as I don't know the break down on employing local people I'll leave that to a side.

Point two, these youths, and my daughter worked there for 3 months, are mainly from other areas, how is that helping the local community?

I know you're falling over yourself to disprove EVERYTHING he says but there's many parts of his posts that are true and many that throw up interesting scenarios.

 

The problem with LPM is that his reasonable points are wrapped up in a sea of unproven conspiracy theory mud slinging and posts full of incoherent screeching.

Someone else needs to calmly break down the risks here in a coherently stuctured and evidence-based manner because nobody is going to listen seriously to this absolute spangle.

Share this post


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

Let me get this straight Jaybee - just so I totally understand you. 

You think that whoever owns the most shares at St Mirren FC should be able to do anything they wish. Does that include asset stripping? Or would that be a dirty deed? 

It's not a case of whether he "should" or not.

It's a matter of fact that he can do whatever he wants because he is the owner. If he truly wanted to, he could sell every asset and pulp the entire club.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...