Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, kevo_smfc said:

Its a shame that you tarnish all old firm fans with the same brush. 

With the brush of supporting clubs whose business model is to exploit sectarianism and hatred? 
 

Is there any other brush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
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 ?
 
You may have missed this to what you signed up to.

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.

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

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

You?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may have missed this to what you signed up to.

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

As you seem to not understand what I was referring to, I'll try and explain it clearer.

woiiftm wrote he signed up to "FULL fan ownership"

I was merely pointing out that he may have missed that they may be already a company that fits the criteria in the constitution that isn't owned by a fan of SMFC.
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 ?
 
Also, an existing shareholder may not be a fan but inherited the shares and kept them for sentimental reasons. So again no guarantee that SMFC as we speak is fully fan owned.

Glad to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don’t Stuart Dickson and Lord Pityme make a counter proposal? I thought with Stuart’s mega millions from his business empire it would be easy to find the money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don’t Stuart Dickson and Lord Pityme make a counter proposal? I thought with Stuart’s mega millions from his business empire it would be easy to find the money. 
Or we could stick with the one 1300 people signed up to?
It's a tough call.. lol

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
1 hour ago, div said:

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.

 

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

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
24 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:


As you seem to not understand what I was referring to, I'll try and explain it clearer.

woiiftm wrote he signed up to "FULL fan ownership"

I was merely pointing out that he may have missed that they may be already a company that fits the criteria in the constitution that isn't owned by a fan of SMFC.
Also, an existing shareholder may not be a fan but inherited the shares and kept them for sentimental reasons. So again no guarantee that SMFC as we speak is fully fan owned.

Glad to help.

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. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...