Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

The number of contributors on here that are actively against this is not much higher than any previous £2 vote from what I can tell. Of that number, some have openly said they will go with the majority. That leaves a very small number of toy throwers (like yourself previously). You have made points on division in the past that have turned out to be false and SMISA remains in a very strong position compared to initial targets. We have also seen a few comments over social media of fans that will return to SMISA if this is voted through. Hell, even the only person on the planet that can rival you for negativity regarding SMISA has said the proposal is "exactly" what he was after. 
As Div has said before, your negative spin is clouded. The mask slipped on your content a long time ago and most on here realise your prophecies of doom hold absolutely no substance after multiple claims. Wee comments like "to facilitate one members profit" shows the reason behind your need for negativity, it is very clear. Your view is further eroded by unfounded claims Kibble will use this deal to the financial benefit of themselves and themselves alone. It is perfectly easy to understand that a strong and growing SMFC would be in the interest of their business partner. 
I maintain the view I have held all along on this. Your wee unfounded outbursts are a coping mechanism while you have to watch someone you don't like and an organisation you grudge progress the football team you support. It's looking increasingly likely this proposal will go through, if that's the case, again time will tell if you were wrong about it like you have been for the first years of this proposal. 
So anyone who questions this deal is a "toy thrower"!

How mature of you.

True to form though.

You say you don't care which way the vote goes but label everyone wanting more info or, heaven forbid, not being in favour of the deal!

More hypocrisy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

So anyone who questions this deal is a "toy thrower"!

Nope, more spin. He threw his toys because a vote he was in favour of got less than 1% backing and he cancelled his membership. I never once said or even close to suggested people questioning this deal are "toy throwers" simply by questioning. 

How mature of you.

You were wrong, I clarified what I meant (thought it was pretty clear the first time tbh)

True to form though.

That you spin my posts? 

You say you don't care which way the vote goes but label everyone wanting more info or, heaven forbid, not being in favour of the deal!

I'm now a yes following the Q&A, I will accept either way and continue to pay though, fan ownership in either form is my preference. I don't do what you are claiming. There's a difference between wanting more information, being undecided, coming to a conclusion you're against it and making unsubstantiated claims, being negative for the sake of being negative and holding a view charged only by a vendetta towards a person/ organisation.

More hypocrisy!

Nope, afraid not. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

I would not let LPM look after my dog never mind giving him a role in the Club. The BTB scheme was always going to come to this point on who and how they run the Club/Business when they take control. Your correct in that SMISA have shown to date that apathy exists in member engagement and the lack of experience in running. A business such as a football club. 

Kibble at least bring a tried and test knowledge of being able to run a business that is 20 times the size of SMFC. The question is can they run a Football Club.

Another question is can a fans' group - the majority of whom are not interested, do not attend meeting, nor vote, and could only find one (inexperienced) volunteer to put their name forward for the Board at the last election - run a football club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, just to be clear

They’ll be counting their own votes in their own office without independent witnesses ?

The vote can be whatever they want it to be
I take it you never got a answer from them when you asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
1 hour ago, whydowebother said:
So, just to be clear

They’ll be counting their own votes in their own office without independent witnesses ?

The vote can be whatever they want it to be emoji15.png

I take it you never got a answer from them when you asked?

I'm still waiting on an answer to why SMISA are paying the legal fees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sonny said:

Another question is can a fans' group - the majority of whom are not interested, do not attend meeting, nor vote, and could only find one (inexperienced) volunteer to put their name forward for the Board at the last election - run a football club?

Who do you think is doing it now Goldilocks and the three bears,  :huh:

Gordon Scott, Alan Wardrop, David Nicol, David Riley,  Am sure they're all members of SMISA 

Share this post


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

And would they all be SMISA members in that survey ?  

Nope, same way as the ones against on here aren’t all SMISA members. My view is it’s the best gauge we have so far. It’s a far bigger sample than on this website. Wont likely be spot on like other polls but will generally be a decent indicator I imagine. 

Edited by bazil85

Share this post


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

Nope, same way as the ones against on here aren’t all SMISA members. My view is it’s the best gauge we have so far. It’s a far bigger sample than on this website. Wont likely be spot on like other polls but will generally be a decent indicator I imagine. 

Exactly so don't be counting yer chickens just yet 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

BAWA 48 hour survey

In favour 54%

Undecided 36%

Against 10%

809 votes

Signs are they'll be alright... Unless maybe they've compromised the twitter voting capability. Those pesky SMISA committee members. 

That's less than 50%of members voting for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





Kombi, I believe you've made a mistake in what you have written.


Re the bit about saving money, if my money is reduced from £12/month to £11/month. From the end of next year and taking that we could possibly purchase the club as early as 2023. Then over that 12 month period I'd save £12.
Cockles,

If you walk away when the buds is bought, yes, you don't pay as much in, therefore, you've saved money but your SMISA membership ends when you stop paying.

After the buyout (51% or 71% or whatever %), members are going to have to keep paying in to continue their membership.

To continue SMISA membership, you will be paying on the never never and in the long run, no saving will be realised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to imagine a lot

Nope, same way as the ones against on here aren’t all SMISA members. My view is it’s the best gauge we have so far. It’s a far bigger sample than on this website. Wont likely be spot on like other polls but will generally be a decent indicator I imagine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another question is can a fans' group - the majority of whom are not interested, do not attend meeting, nor vote, and could only find one (inexperienced) volunteer to put their name forward for the Board at the last election - run a football club?
Buy the buds was sold on the premise that they could /would.
There's no evidence so far that they can't.
Other clubs appear to be able to do it, mainly by employing a chief executive and others to run the club.
We appear to have decided that smfc is unique and needs the input of kibble to do it.

Share this post


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

Who do you think is doing it now Goldilocks and the three bears,  :huh:

Gordon Scott, Alan Wardrop, David Nicol, David Riley,  Am sure they're all members of SMISA 

He's got a point though. Of those guys only David Nicol was elected by the membership of SMISA. 

Gordon Scott bought his seat, Alan Wardrop was appointed on the back of his work with the Fans Council (an unelected group set up by the previous chairman), and David Riley got handed his seat after being rejected my the members he's supposed to represent. That's not to decry the work they've done, but it flies in the face of the idea that the board are representatives of the fans. 

There doesn't seem to be much talent amongst the SMISA membership, certainly there is nothing that appears to inspire the membership or to fire them up and the group is even more severely hampered by the fact that each time the membership vote has come around the SMISA committee has sought to limit the candidates to those of a particular skill set.

SMISA and the club board still haven't produced a business plan despite early promises. There's no vision beyond buying up the 71% or now 51% of shares. Colin Orr even admitted at the meeting that the SMISA committee hadn't considered what they would do when they get control of the club because they thought they had more time to prepare. 

Little wonder that anyone looking on from the outside would think "by f**k they need to get people in who are more competent." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
You are a one

Who posted this?

"That leaves a very small number of toy throwers (like yourself previously)."

Answers on a postcard to
Bazil the Forgetful, Paisley.

& you accuse BinEK of spin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cockles,

If you walk away when the buds is bought, yes, you don't pay as much in, therefore, you've saved money but your SMISA membership ends when you stop paying.

After the buyout (51% or 71% or whatever %), members are going to have to keep paying in to continue their membership.

To continue SMISA membership, you will be paying on the never never and in the long run, no saving will be realised.
Now, you're just being silly. Those that stay members after the buyout would be the same no matter when the buyout occurs so they would be paying the fee "forever" anyway. With this deal they will be paying the higher amount (fees + BtB) for less time, therefore they will be saving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

You are a one emoji1787.png

Who posted this?

"That leaves a very small number of toy throwers (like yourself previously)."

Answers on a postcard to
Bazil the Forgetful, Paisley.

& you accuse BinEK of spin emoji1787.pngemoji1787.pngemoji1787.png

Bazil is like a spinning top. His problem is he does it so much he gets dizzy and loses his place. 

It's a shame really. 

He's been the guy who has argued most against Community Involvement right from the start, yet now when the dog whistle is blown it's the best thing since sliced bread and it's worth gifting away a veto over ordinary resolutions to an outside group at this fan owned club. 

Whisper it, but he looks a bit silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bazil is like a spinning top. His problem is he does it so much he gets dizzy and loses his place. 
It's a shame really. 
He's been the guy who has argued most against Community Involvement right from the start, yet now when the dog whistle is blown it's the best thing since sliced bread and it's worth gifting away a veto over ordinary resolutions to an outside group at this fan owned club. 
Whisper it, but he looks a bit silly. 
Aye jostling for the title of 'Mr Community' with Scott after he agreed with Scott issuing a STATEMENT to smisa members, warning them how to vote when a community option appeared on the £2 vote.
You couldnae make it up.

Share this post


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

Who do you think is doing it now Goldilocks and the three bears,  :huh:

Gordon Scott, Alan Wardrop, David Nicol, David Riley,  Am sure they're all members of SMISA 

It is a legitimate question and gratuitous comments add nothing to the conversation.

While not decrying the effort currently being invested by SMiSA members on the BoD there appears to be a ceiling that has been reached by good intentioned, part-time volunteers who may not have the time, experience, interest and resources to take things much further. The current Board (as you point out are mostly SMiSA members) back the Kibble partnership. The SMiSA Committee also back the Kibble partnership.

To quote Colin Orr 'We strongly believe about delivering the best possible future for the Club and strongly believe this partnership will do that.'

And

'We have a partnership with someone who can be a vehicle to make the Club bigger and better than what it can be if it is just us on our own'. 

So again, has the current Board reached a limit to how much it can take the Club forward? SMiSA and the BoD seem to think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's got a point though. Of those guys only David Nicol was elected by the membership of SMISA. 
Gordon Scott bought his seat, Alan Wardrop was appointed on the back of his work with the Fans Council (an unelected group set up by the previous chairman), and David Riley got handed his seat after being rejected my the members he's supposed to represent. That's not to decry the work they've done, but it flies in the face of the idea that the board are representatives of the fans. 
There doesn't seem to be much talent amongst the SMISA membership, certainly there is nothing that appears to inspire the membership or to fire them up and the group is even more severely hampered by the fact that each time the membership vote has come around the SMISA committee has sought to limit the candidates to those of a particular skill set.
SMISA and the club board still haven't produced a business plan despite early promises. There's no vision beyond buying up the 71% or now 51% of shares. Colin Orr even admitted at the meeting that the SMISA committee hadn't considered what they would do when they get control of the club because they thought they had more time to prepare. 
Little wonder that anyone looking on from the outside would think "by f**k they need to get people in who are more competent." 
David Riley wasn't elected?
I'm sure he stood for election, not his fault no one else stood against him.

Share this post


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

David Riley wasn't elected?
I'm sure he stood for election, not his fault no one else stood against him.

I believe the definition of "elected" is to choose someone by means of voting. 

You are right he was the only candidate, but there was no vote.

The only election he took part in, he lost - won by David Nicol. By definition he was rejected by the membership that he is now supposed to represent. . 

Edited by Dickson

Share this post


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

I believe the definition of "elected" is to choose someone by means of voting. 

You are right he was the only candidate, but there was no vote.

The only election he took part in, he lost - won by David Nicol. By definition he was rejected by the membership that he is now supposed to represent. . 

Pretty sure a vote took place to confirm members were happy with his appointment.

https://www.smisa.net/news-archive/19-buythebuds/259-st-mirren-director-election-voting-open

Edited by alanb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, it’s hard reading through this topic. I’ve done it to try and help me come to a decision on how to vote. I’ve also watched the video of the meeting and read the original proposal.
Initially, I was a bit skeptical on SMISA having less shares than originally promised and also not knowing too much about Kibble.
So what have I gleaned from all this, well, from what I can see is that most SMISA members, like myself and my wife don’t really do much more than pay our subs and vote on the £2 spend. And we do that because we want fan ownership, to never have some fly by night come in and destroy our club. We don’t have much more input than that due to having many other commitments for our time. It seems most don’t. Which is why SMISA might struggle to find many willing and able people to run the club once fan ownership is realised.
Kibble, a local charity, look like a well run company and being a charity, I doubt will try to destroy us for their own benefit (even if that was possible with a minority share). But, as SMISA members, we would act to stop them doing so if that was the case. 51% is the magic number.
Personally, I don’t know any current board members, SMISA or otherwise. But I trust them to run our football club. Mistakes have been and will continue to be made. The same has to go for the ones Kibble would appoint. We have to trust that they will do what they think is best for SMFC as they will be a part of it (again, I reiterate, a minority part). But I do think they will at least be capable of helping to run our club, and probably bring a good level of experience and professionalism to the table.
We are all taking a leap of faith in the BtB scheme to help secure the future of our club and I for one am happy to hold hands with Kibble and leap together.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...