Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts


Just now, Slartibartfast said:
4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Now now, you both can't be as awesome as me, stop fighting over it. 

I would never want to lower my intellect that far.

Aw pal, I know you still can't let go how I've bested you in debate in recent months but no need to remain bitter. We're on the same side here, remember?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok the OP is a bit tongue in cheek, but the underlying question remains.
If this deal is voted through, and smisa numbers drop as a result?
Who is going to pick up the slack?
The general nature of football fans will probably mean that they assume that Kibble are in charge, and will fund the club. Raising the very clear & present danger of smfc turning into Kibble FC by default/apathy/inevitability...
The point (completely wrong imo) being made by some is "well there isnt the skill set required among saints fans to run the club anyway"

Really? How so with Hearts & Well, oh yes and as the smisa chair likes to suggest our mirror image Barcelona?

I agree too many of the wrong people are in there now, but the fans have had little influence in shaping that.
Where we are at imo is the current board & smisa saying "we're done, its beyond us" so they, and minded members see Kibble as a safe haven. Nice and comfy, just kick back and let Kibble do it all.

To me we are at 'Point Break'... that being we really need to take a decision to break the apathy/laziness/lack of giving a f**k etc and 'break' what's setting in, so we can reset on tbe right path for fans, club and community.

See this for what it is, the board and Smisa are throwing in the cap, in the hope that, as Homer Simpson asks.. "cant somebody else do it?"

Through saving face, refusing to admit their done etc, etc... choosing the wrong people.

They are turning away from fans to hide/save admitting their shortcomings, and dressing this up as REAL fan ownership despite having already declared the last proposal was that and so much more.

It's 'Point Break' buds... will you just slide the slippers on and let it wash over you, or Break it, to Fix it..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Will Sevco fans be able to call us a 'new' club? If the proposal is voted through.

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Lol imagine being this raging.

I’m quoting both of you because I know you are on opposite ends of for and against on this. I also can’t be arsed sifting through multiple pages of shite on the other thread.

What is the full on deal with this “veto” that Kibble apparently want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:


It's 'Point Break' buds... will you just slide the slippers on and let it wash over you, or Break it, to Fix it..?

Why don't you give The Sun an exclusive.  Get in contact with them and tell them how a local charity is not being very charitable and how it could be the end of a historical football club.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two biggest critics of this deal are no longer supporters of fan ownership at St Mirren. Work that one out.
Is that the fun ownership where 'the fans' own the club, or the "New Improved Formula' fan ownership where you start selling off the club?

Why is our suggested version do different from Hearts & Motherwell... both clubs who nearly disappeared?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

I’m quoting both of you because I know you are on opposite ends of for and against on this. I also can’t be arsed sifting through multiple pages of shite on the other thread.

What is the full on deal with this “veto” that Kibble apparently want?

Generally major shareholders (over 25%) have a veto on major decisions. Kibble have one in this agreement, certain posters have blown it way out of proportion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Generally major shareholders (over 25%) have a veto on major decisions. Kibble have one in this agreement, certain posters have blown it way out of proportion. 

Special Resolutions is more accurate Baz!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Ok the OP is a bit tongue in cheek, but the underlying question remains.
If this deal is voted through, and smisa numbers drop as a result?
Who is going to pick up the slack?
The general nature of football fans will probably mean that they assume that Kibble are in charge, and will fund the club. Raising the very clear & present danger of smfc turning into Kibble FC by default/apathy/inevitability...
The point (completely wrong imo) being made by some is "well there isnt the skill set required among saints fans to run the club anyway"

Really? How so with Hearts & Well, oh yes and as the smisa chair likes to suggest our mirror image Barcelona?

I agree too many of the wrong people are in there now, but the fans have had little influence in shaping that.
Where we are at imo is the current board & smisa saying "we're done, its beyond us" so they, and minded members see Kibble as a safe haven. Nice and comfy, just kick back and let Kibble do it all.

To me we are at 'Point Break'... that being we really need to take a decision to break the apathy/laziness/lack of giving a f**k etc and 'break' what's setting in, so we can reset on tbe right path for fans, club and community.

See this for what it is, the board and Smisa are throwing in the cap, in the hope that, as Homer Simpson asks.. "cant somebody else do it?"

Through saving face, refusing to admit their done etc, etc... choosing the wrong people.

They are turning away from fans to hide/save admitting their shortcomings, and dressing this up as REAL fan ownership despite having already declared the last proposal was that and so much more.

It's 'Point Break' buds... will you just slide the slippers on and let it wash over you, or Break it, to Fix it..?

Time to support the LPM coping mechanism that has managed his hatred of all things GLS/ SMISA for so many years… Did I say support? I meant rip apart.

You asked the question on other threads, a new one isn't needed. There is little to no indication the numbers will drop noticeably. the majority of comments over social media are positive and there are very, very few people that have said they'll cancel their membership. I've actually seen more re-join than cancel posts. 

The nature of football fans is not to assume a minority shareholder is in charge, what on earth do you base this on? 

That is not a clear and present danger, it's wishful thinking so you can continue to moan and claim you were right. You've had a fantasy about BTB failing for best part of four years, that has continuously been wrong and to add insult to injury, you’ve had to watch SMFC factually progress on and off the park in that time. 

Fan skillets can still be used if available and required, getting the knowledge and experience from the Kibble isn't a hindrance to this point. 

Only one of those clubs has recorded profit for four years in a row, can you guess which? If GLS formed a fan buyout model identical to Hearts or identical to Well, you would oppose it. This is clear given your changed stance since the Kibble announcement. 

More spin and wishful thinking that the current BOD are saying they’re “done” You’re just incapable of accepting them presenting a good deal.

At “point break” so the best option in your opinion to stick with the current proposal and continue to “save SMISA” as you have previously claimed, required?

Throwing in the cap, picking the wrong people, trying to save faith. Turning away from the fans, having shortcomings, choosing the wrong people. This is all baseless, as I say above, coping mechanism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m quoting both of you because I know you are on opposite ends of for and against on this. I also can’t be arsed sifting through multiple pages of shite on the other thread.
What is the full on deal with this “veto” that Kibble apparently want?
They want to take control over proceedings in exchange for their £300k to ensure their aims and objectives are achieved.
They actually confirm this in their proposal. They're not shy about seeing this as Kibble expanding through smfc.
Why some people, (despite the lack of one, just one set of figures showing how this will add an additional revenue stream to the club) think otherwise is mystifying.
Kibble want to expand, smfc are ripe for exploitation... so much so that a charity is throwing £300k away, and the fans are being asked to sign over to Kibble.
Have smisa, or the club given one, just one example of how they are going to step up to this new challenge?
That should be a genuine worry for all!
It appears it's only Kibble who have a plan, and the resource and determination to see it delivered!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Generally major shareholders (over 25%) have a veto on major decisions. Kibble have one in this agreement, certain posters have blown it way out of proportion. 

 

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

They want to take control over proceedings in exchange for their £300k to ensure their aims and objectives are achieved.
 

Okay. So Baz, you see this as normal because it’s the done thing on boards. LPM obviously sees it in a different light.

The next thing I ask is - Are we really going to be a fan-owned club if an outside company can veto anything we try to implement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

They want to take control over proceedings in exchange for their £300k to ensure their aims and objectives are achieved.
They actually confirm this in their proposal. They're not shy about seeing this as Kibble expanding through smfc.
Why some people, (despite the lack of one, just one set of figures showing how this will add an additional revenue stream to the club) think otherwise is mystifying.
Kibble want to expand, smfc are ripe for exploitation... so much so that a charity is throwing £300k away, and the fans are being asked to sign over to Kibble.
Have smisa, or the club given one, just one example of how they are going to step up to this new challenge?
That should be a genuine worry for all!
It appears it's only Kibble who have a plan, and the resource and determination to see it delivered!

Why didn't you re-join SMISA for a couple of weeks at least, attend the meeting the other week and raise all of these doubts you have at the Q&A?

Do you honestly think the people that have St Mirrens best interests at heart would put such a proposal forward if it never had St Mirrens best interests at heart to grow?

Feeling like a record player, though if you think this proposal was dreamed up over a couple of weeks and had no scrutiny behind it, carry on thinking like that. 
Thankfully you are a minority that has nothing positive to say.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't you re-join SMISA for a couple of weeks at least, attend the meeting the other week and raise all of these doubts you have at the Q&A?
Do you honestly think the people that have St Mirrens best interests at heart would put such a proposal forward if it never had St Mirrens best interests at heart to grow?
Feeling like a record player, though if you think this proposal was dreamed up over a couple of weeks and had no scrutiny behind it, carry on thinking like that. 
Thankfully you are a minority that has nothing positive to say.
 
Well your openness changed over the short course of that post! Lol
For my part, I respect your decision whatever it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kevo_smfc said:

Why didn't you re-join SMISA for a couple of weeks at least, attend the meeting the other week and raise all of these doubts you have at the Q&A?

Do you honestly think the people that have St Mirrens best interests at heart would put such a proposal forward if it never had St Mirrens best interests at heart to grow?

Feeling like a record player, though if you think this proposal was dreamed up over a couple of weeks and had no scrutiny behind it, carry on thinking like that. 
Thankfully you are a minority that has nothing positive to say.
 

Membership was closed once the deal was announced,  I wonder if there was a spike in membership just before it :rolleyes: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. So Baz, you see this as normal because it’s the done thing on boards. LPM obviously sees it in a different light.

The next thing I ask is - Are we really going to be a fan-owned club if an outside company can veto anything we try to implement?

We will be a pale shadow of a Hearts, Well etc... and have inevitable conflicts of interest in the boardroom. What other Scottish club has a complete outside body set to run the club?

 

Edit: and they will need just One other board member to vote with them to defeat smisa.

 

Now who in the board (with a casting vote)just having trousered £300k might be disposed to backing Kibble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

 

Okay. So Baz, you see this as normal because it’s the done thing on boards. LPM obviously sees it in a different light.

The next thing I ask is - Are we really going to be a fan-owned club if an outside company can veto anything we try to implement?

Yep. They don't have a veto on "anything" just what would be considered a special resolution under the arrangement. There are some points that always come under that but it isn't exhaustive. Special resolutions can be written into an agreement for other decisions that would not normally need to come under special. The nature of a football club makes this very subjective. A look online there isn’t a great deal of information and there is nothing in the legislation that details to the contrary. The main concerns on these pages are around the examples (astro pitch, selling sponsorship rights). As I have said before, this might put the fear into some with a very high risk adverse outlook but I suggest they do some scenario analysis. What realistic scenario could come-up that would benefit Kibble and hamper SMFC (considering that a sponsorship deal linked to the Kibble that we didn’t want would very likely have conflict of interest repercussions anyway). Kibble also can’t propose and carry special. Normal resolutions with their shareholding.

The main reason why I would “accept the risk” is the very likely situation where Kibble and SMFC will mutually benefit from being pulled in the same direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
21 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:
Okay. So Baz, you see this as normal because it’s the done thing on boards. LPM obviously sees it in a different light.
The next thing I ask is - Are we really going to be a fan-owned club if an outside company can veto anything we try to implement?

We will be a pale shadow of a Hearts, Well etc... and have inevitable conflicts of interest in the boardroom. What other Scottish club has a complete outside body set to run the club?

No we won't be... Is my assertion anymore valid than yours? In reality that is just your opinion and your opinion has been wrong many times before on BTB. 

Do you agree that there can also be risks when one shareholder has too much power? 

Also if your definition of outside body is anyone that isn't the collective fans of the club, then almost all of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...