Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts


9 minutes ago, East Lothian Saint said:

 

Just a thought but if Kibble come on Board maybe that shitfest of a ticket website run by InterStadia will get punted and we'll all be able to buy tickets online with no hassle. Hopefully they will have the contacts and resources to assist there.

That would be a great Contribution.

I understand that the club have a long term agreement with Interstadia. I think it is for another 3 years at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it though?
  1. Not a celebrity endorsement
  2. It isn’t a done deal
  3. I would be very surprised if people in their position blindly endorsed something so relative to their pretty public sports roles.
  4. Can you back-up your claim they didn’t spend time looking at it further? Otherwise it is baseless and as such doesn’t stand-up your argument.
His opinion is baseless because he hasn't backed it up with facts...

Yet YOUR opinion, not backed up with fact, differs how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





I don't. I remember a few, but not "many".
It was a few... Till SG spouted the Armageddon scenario at a fans meeting.

At that point, most people fell in line with the Chairman's wishes as he was "in the know"!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

Share this post


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

His opinion is baseless because he hasn't backed it up with facts...

Yet YOUR opinion, not backed up with fact, differs how? emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

Eh? It not a celebrity endorsement, it’s not a done deal and he doesn’t seem to be able to back up his claim.

My view is they wouldn’t likely endorse something without reading and reviewing it, that certainly is an opinion. Perhaps you disagree or as usual just trying to be awkward regarding practically any view I have? :whistle

Share this post


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

It was a few... Till SG spouted the Armageddon scenario at a fans meeting.

At that point, most people fell in line with the Chairman's wishes as he was "in the know"!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

This is not my memory at all of this. I remember a clear majority of responding fans over all clubs demanding they weren't allowed back in. If it was "most" why didn't Gilmour vote that way? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh? It not a celebrity endorsement, it’s not a done deal and he doesn’t seem to be able to back up his claim.
My view is they wouldn’t likely endorse something without reading and reviewing it, that certainly is an opinion. Perhaps you disagree or as usual just trying to be awkward regarding practically any view I have? :whistle
"wouldn't likely"!

You criticised him for the very thing you are not just doing... but defending.

Your hypocrisy is astounding!
Knows no bounds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

The people that generally think that on here consistently take stands against club decisions, SMISA and our chairman to name a few. When your outlook is that is positive behaviour, defending club decisions, SMISA, our chairman, etc won’t look like positive behaviour.  

Waging a war against every Saints fans who doesn't share your view is not a positive thing on any level.

Share this post


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

This is not my memory at all of this. I remember a clear majority of responding fans over all clubs demanding they weren't allowed back in. If it was "most" why didn't Gilmour vote that way? 

BIK is right on this. This place went into metldown after that meeting when it was clear that I think Dickson and one other (Drew I think) voted against Gilmour after his Armageddon speech and everyone else fell for that bullshit.

You'd need to ask Gilmour himself what made him change his mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The people that generally think that on here consistently take stands against club decisions, SMISA and our chairman to name a few. When your outlook is that is positive behaviour, defending club decisions, SMISA, our chairman, etc won’t look like positive behaviour.  


Yet you yourself were negative towards the manager, the players and the club at the start of last season and negative towards those who were positive, like myself.

The reality is that you’re “positivity” is towards your own point of view and you’re negative towards anyone who disagrees with you.

Share this post


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

"wouldn't likely"!

You criticised him for the very thing you are not just doing... but defending.

Your hypocrisy is astounding!
Knows no bounds!

No I haven’t, do you genuinely realise how ridiculous this makes you look? I’ve clearly pointed to what is fact and what is opinion. Opinions are okay to give... shock horror. 
 

lets not detract from your whole point being hair splitting though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Waging a war against every Saints fans who doesn't share your view is not a positive thing on any level.

That’s not what I do. 

16 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

BIK is right on this. This place went into metldown after that meeting when it was clear that I think Dickson and one other (Drew I think) voted against Gilmour after his Armageddon speech and everyone else fell for that bullshit.

You'd need to ask Gilmour himself what made him change his mind.

Not my memory of it at all. Was the first time I really took notice of SMFC related social media and was massively against any vote that would allow the new club in anywhere but the bottom of Scottish football (Personally didn’t think they should even get in there). I remember it as a near consensus. 

Not sure what the benefit is in pulling up old points though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I haven’t, do you genuinely realise how ridiculous this makes you look? I’ve clearly pointed to what is fact and what is opinion. Opinions are okay to give... shock horror. 
 
lets not detract from your whole point being hair splitting though. 




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 


You had a lot of problems with it at the start of last season as you attacked the manager, the players and the club

 

Being positive doesn’t mean you’ll always agree with everything that happens. The BOD made a mistake in hiring Stubbs last season & in turn he made a mistake in multiple signings. I aired my frustration, there was no ‘attacking’ 

11 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 


Yet you yourself were negative towards the manager, the players and the club at the start of last season and negative towards those who were positive, like myself.

The reality is that you’re “positivity” is towards your own point of view and you’re negative towards anyone who disagrees with you.

 

See above ^^^ didn’t realise you were about at that point last season... cough 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIK is right on this. This place went into metldown after that meeting when it was clear that I think Dickson and one other (Drew I think) voted against Gilmour after his Armageddon speech and everyone else fell for that bullshit.
You'd need to ask Gilmour himself what made him change his mind.
Add me to that list.

I then emailed SG who called me to chat on the phone.

Credit for that at least.

Needless to say he didn't change my mind. L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not my memory of it at all. Was the first time I really took notice of SMFC related social media and was massively against any vote that would allow the new club in anywhere but the bottom of Scottish football (Personally didn’t think they should even get in there). I remember it as a near consensus. 
Not sure what the benefit is in pulling up old points though. 
Were you at the "Armageddon" meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I'm disappointed in the Smisa committee for sending out that email today titled a "Reminder to Vote". A reminder should be just that, a nudge to the recipient in case they have forgotten about the vote. Nothing more than that. Instead Smisa have used this email as another opportunity to push their case for a Yes vote. That's not a "reminder" it is blatant propaganda aimed at influencing the voter. We've already seen the original email pushing for members' support for the proposal, we've had the opportunity to attend the Q&A, and the video of that Q&A is out on general release. Yet still the "reminder" isn't even-handed. Poor show IMO. Fear that the proposal might fail ? 

And I'm wondering what exactly is the criteria that entitles people to cast a vote here. Do you have to be an active member of (contributor to) BtB or is just being a Smisa member enough to qualify ? I am in the latter category (non-contributor) yet I am being invited to vote. Why should I have the same voting rights as those who are shelling out their hard-earned £££ every month ? I have presumed that this is an administrative error and I won't be voting as I feel unqualified to cast a vote. Certainly morally unqualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Not my memory of it at all. Was the first time I really took notice of SMFC related social media and was massively against any vote that would allow the new club in anywhere but the bottom of Scottish football (Personally didn’t think they should even get in there). I remember it as a near consensus. 
Not sure what the benefit is in pulling up old points though. 

Were you at the "Armageddon" meeting?

It was a long-time ago, I think I was though. Like I say, don’t think this subject coming back up is relevant. 
 

my memory is fundamentally a majority of St Mirren fans Discussing the subject being completely against them being voted in. I think that’s backed up by SG voting in the manner he did. If that was his view and the majority St Mirren view, why did he change it? 

Share this post


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

I have to say I'm disappointed in the Smisa committee for sending out that email today titled a "Reminder to Vote". A reminder should be just that, a nudge to the recipient in case they have forgotten about the vote. Nothing more than that. Instead Smisa have used this email as another opportunity to push their case for a Yes vote. That's not a "reminder" it is blatant propaganda aimed at influencing the voter. We've already seen the original email pushing for members' support for the proposal, we've had the opportunity to attend the Q&A, and the video of that Q&A is out on general release. Yet still the "reminder" isn't even-handed. Poor show IMO. Fear that the proposal might fail ? 

And I'm wondering what exactly is the criteria that entitles people to cast a vote here. Do you have to be an active member of (contributor to) BtB or is just being a Smisa member enough to qualify ? I am in the latter category (non-contributor) yet I am being invited to vote. Why should I have the same voting rights as those who are shelling out their hard-earned £££ every month ? I have presumed that this is an administrative error and I won't be voting as I feel unqualified to cast a vote. Certainly morally unqualified.

The vote is open to all registered members of SMISA. If you think that you are morally unqualified to vote why are you getting so het up about the reminder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, smcc said:

The vote is open to all registered members of SMISA. If you think that you are morally unqualified to vote why are you getting so het up about the reminder?

Thanks for the clarification on the voting issue.

As for your question, even though I have chosen not to vote (for reasons stated above) I realise that the outcome of the vote will affect all St Mirren supporters (ie me). Therefore I see it as important that voters make their choice free from propaganda disguised as a reminder.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...