Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
33 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:
Pity the people making the recommendations haven't explored the membership skillsets before throwing in the towel & recommending Kibble to become a major shareholder. 
It's quite a different question to "who wants to be on the SMISA committee"
 
No exploration of 'what next' amongst the membership.
 
 

The members have had 4 years to come forward and declare an interest, if my memory is correct a total of 3 persons have came forward.

I agree in part, there has been 4 years for members to show an interest but, as I said, "who wants to be on the SMISA committee" is a very different question to exploring 'what next' for when the buds is bought.

There has been no exploration of the skillset of the membership to identify if the required skills are available and there would be members willing to utilise their skills and come on board.

After the Buds were going to be bought, under the original plan, SMISA representation on the club board would be very different to what it is now. It's been said on here many times, right now, as the majority shareholder, what GLS wants, GLS gets (or just about. Maybe he gives some concessions). That doesn't enthuse people to get involved.

SMISA owning 71% of the club and having greater representation on the BOD would, most likely encourage members to become more involved. Instead, this partnership with Kibble, is in effect, us throwing the towel in for others to run The Club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Hi

Dafty.. what the hell skills would 1,200 combined members have?

Tube!

You know fine well we can't be trusted!

If the exchanges on here are representative of 1200 members, then f**king right they can't be trusted to run a football club IMO.

Share this post


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

 

There has been no exploration of the skillset of the membership to identify if the required skills are available and there would be members willing to utilise their skills and come on board.

Actually, there has.

I remember e-mailing SMISA when they were looking to see what could be offered.

After a few e-mails back and forth, it all went quiet.

Probably proves, other than an ability to drink a lot of beer,  I've got eff all skills worth mentioning.:lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All details are available to your friend. The veto has been blown up on here way out of proportion. It’s already been pointed out that it’s aligned to 25%+ shareholding
your friend not being aware of that when they voted, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As I have said before, many supporting this proposal have earned good faith given the success of BTB to date. 
twattery.

Share this post


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

Funnily enough, a friend phoned me last night.

He was encouraging everyone to vote.

I mentioned the veto.

He called to ask "what veto".

Most voters will have followed party policy when voting.

You know that but still insist on being a cantankerous yes man!

Seems to be  a lot of canvassing going on 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
Feels like you were needlessly going off on a tangent to me from the rest of the content. 

As I said, it was perfectly clear.

My point that it stemmed from was perfectly clear. You just felt the need to continue into a different conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:


You're really not very good at this, are you?

He was found guilty of an "oversight", i.e. a mistake, not deliberately doing anything.


Fact what? Evidence what?

I presume due to the fact that I do not know if they will even have any legal fees for it.Only to you.

How on earth do you accidentally forget that you work for Kibble during a decision to award Kibble funding?

 

Share this post


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

The agenda for the meeting didn't refer to the involvement of Kibbleworks in the proposal. emoji106.png

The meeting where this occurred

Quote

Councillor McMillan not only failed to declare an interest in a debate on his employer receiving a council contract, but he actually took part in the debate – declaring that, “I am happy to support this project”.

Pretty sure his employer (Kibble) must have been mentioned at some stage before his declaration of being happy to support or are you suggesting a council committee had no idea who or what they were approving funding for. If that was the case, wouldn't that be negligent.

Edited by Kombibuddie

Share this post


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

I agree in part, there has been 4 years for members to show an interest but, as I said, "who wants to be on the SMISA committee" is a very different question to exploring 'what next' for when the buds is bought.

There has been no exploration of the skillset of the membership to identify if the required skills are available and there would be members willing to utilise their skills and come on board.

After the Buds were going to be bought, under the original plan, SMISA representation on the club board would be very different to what it is now. It's been said on here many times, right now, as the majority shareholder, what GLS wants, GLS gets (or just about. Maybe he gives some concessions). That doesn't enthuse people to get involved.

SMISA owning 71% of the club and having greater representation on the BOD would, most likely encourage members to become more involved. Instead, this partnership with Kibble, is in effect, us throwing the towel in for others to run The Club.

I seem to remember that SMiSA members were asked about their skillset and willingness to be up for election for the St Mirren Board. Response was very poor hence I suspect this led to the current SMiSA Committee stating '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'.

Does the SMiSA fanbase have enough people with a skillset to run a business with a multi-million turnover and are willing to do it for nothing? I do not know but it does not look like it has based on the numbers volunteering at the last election and the poor response to voting and attending meetings by SMiSA members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
49 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
My point that it stemmed from was perfectly clear. You just felt the need to continue into a different conversation. 

Nope. I think you better look back. You're just trying to twist things to make you "right".

Not a matter of right or wrong. My opinion, your opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

I don't think he worked for Kibble Works. Maybe he believed that with Kibble and Kibble Works being two separate legal entities that he didn't need to declare. He was wrong, he was found guilty, end of story. If he had been found guilty of lying or deliberately hiding the fact for some dodgy reason then that would be different.

 

Can you understand that people might read this and think about corruption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:
2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:
That's plenty of time for LPM to make a rip-roaring c**t of himself a few times more.

There... that's your contribution right there. You offer nothing but continue to serve it up ad nauseam.

My god you got a cheek, you have already taken ad nauseam. to totally new levels. Pot......kettle methinks. 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seem to remember that SMiSA members were asked about their skillset and willingness to be up for election for the St Mirren Board. Response was very poor hence I suspect this led to the current SMiSA Committee stating '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'.
Does the SMiSA fanbase have enough people with a skillset to run a business with a multi-million turnover and are willing to do it for nothing? I do not know but it does not look like it has based on the numbers volunteering at the last election and the poor response to voting and attending meetings by SMiSA members.


This is why I’ve voted in favour. I get the impression there is an apathy among the SMISA membership to get involved and make a direct contribution. If it got to 2026 and we were looking for folk to step up then I think it would be the same story. This way we get control but aren’t reliant entirely on SMISA to drive commercial streams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Veto

I think that a lot of people have taken a fairly basic view of the fact that Kibble would be able to Veto any major decisions relating to SMFC Ltd, as they would be 27.5% shareholders in the company. Obviously if you invest in a business to the proposed level, you would want as much influence as possible to protect your investment.

My take on the reality of the eventual working of this would be that SMISA with 51% of the shareholding and majority fan ownership would have a complete right to Veto any proposals and plans as they saw fit and proper, with no real recourse for Kibble to challenge or object.  On the other hand, if Kibble vetoed a proposal or plan put forward by the board majority, and the SMISA members and the rest of the fanbase were not happy with Kibble's position, in that situation I am sure the case would make the public domain and the press would no doubt put their various twists and slants on it, which leaves Kibble open to scrutiny, questions regarding their overall motives in the partnership, and potential damage to their reputation. Was their veto for their own benefit only, for the mutual benefit of both partners, etc etc ? Kibble will be very aware of this.

If the boot was on the other foot, I don't think SMISA would be under scrutiny in that way, as in general, Football Clubs and their Boards are perceived as only one event away from a crisis and often weekly managed anyway - certainly the case in Scotland!

So I would suggest that the veto is not as powerful a tool to Kibble as you might first think - it has its dangers for them as well as SMISA. 

Share this post


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

I don't think he worked for Kibble Works. Maybe he believed that with Kibble and Kibble Works being two separate legal entities that he didn't need to declare. He was wrong, he was found guilty, end of story. If he had been found guilty of lying or deliberately hiding the fact for some dodgy reason then that would be different.

 

is this not pertinent

Quote

Renfrewshire SNP Council Group called a Special Council Meeting of Renfrewshire Council to discuss the issue of the funding deal which saw the current Labour leader of Renfrewshire Council actively back the council handing over £25,000 to his employers – the Kibble organisation based in Paisley.  However, the council leader, Councillor Mark McMillan, declared a non-financial interest and moved Labour’s amendment.  Despite being in the best position to answer all the questions, Cllr McMillan refused as did his Labour colleagues

"Despite being in the best position to answer all the questions, Cllr McMillan refused."

"Despite being in the best position to answer all the questions, Cll McMillan refused"

It appears he didn't lie but he refused to say anything.

Smells a wee bit stinkier than just an oversight.

I hope you're right & there is nothing to see here. I don't share your confidence.

Share this post


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

Actually, there has.

I remember e-mailing SMISA when they were looking to see what could be offered.

After a few e-mails back and forth, it all went quiet.

Probably proves, other than an ability to drink a lot of beer,  I've got eff all skills worth mentioning.:lol:

 

 

How much beer are we talking g about?

Share this post


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

Hi

Dafty.. what the hell skills would 1,200 combined members have?

Tube!

You know fine well we can't be trusted!

After all GLS stated at the AGM that the supporters/SMiSA could not be trusted to choose a strip from a set of designs.

As long as those pesky supporters keep supporting our £2 discretionary spends...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:
2 hours ago, bazil85 said:
Not a matter of right or wrong. My opinion, your opinion. 

I pointed out why your opinion was wrong but you just don't seem to accept it. Get over yourself, FFS.

Hmm Na, I think it shows pretty clearly why my point was relevant and yours was just shoved in with another argument. You don’t have to agree on that but that’s my reasoning and I don’t need to change it 

Share this post


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

I called you out, you’re raging, all else has failed so it’s the insults. Ouch 

All details are available to your friend. The veto has been blown up on here way out of proportion. It’s already been pointed out that it’s aligned to 25%+ shareholding

your friend not being aware of that when they voted, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As I have said before, many supporting this proposal have earned good faith given the success of BTB to date. 

Can't agree with this Bazil.

It is a step beyond what 25%+ shareholding grants under normal rules.

It is absolutely crucial that people know the full facts and ramifications of surrendering so much to a minority shareholder.

whether you believe they are likely to use this against the will of the majority shareholder is neither here nor there. It is still within the realms of possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can only quote from the official papers rather than press reports.

Where he after notifying the relevant persons after the meeting also acknowledged in a forthright manner his failures at the following full council meeting and in the following correspondence with the investigating officials.
So he did answer the questions & the press report is not correct?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...