Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

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!

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.
 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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: 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


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

Got my answer.



In the interests of fairness I will not divulge the answers in full
 

Only fair you should share your answer BiEK,it’s not the Masons.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


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

And there you go, bringing up situations where I gave you the last word and claiming victory.  You're just after saying that you don't do that. :hammer

 

I'm not on any side here.  Where would you get that idea from?  Where have I stated my preference on the way the vote should go?  All I have done is point out and question the flaws in claims from both sides.  It just so happens that, in this thread, most of them have come from your mirror image poster.

Nope, just situations where you were wrong, spinning, being needlessly pedantic in debate and how I called you out on it. The last word was completely irrelevant, I even offered it to you multiple times and you chose repetitive messages over an admittance you wanted it. Same goes here, if you want it, just ask. 

The side where LPM is being beyond ridiculous in some of his claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Kibble is only interested in using the catering side etc for training purposes would it really matter to them which division we are in? Is there not a danger they could veto some decision that could keep us up but be costly?

Share this post


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

Maybe because some of those who have different opinions went in a wee huff and quit SMiSA rather than staying and fighting for what they believe.  Just a thought.

👏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, guinness said:

if Kibble is only interested in using the catering side etc for training purposes would it really matter to them which division we are in? Is there not a danger they could veto some decision that could keep us up but be costly?

That makes no sense. A strong SMFC means a more financially sound SMFC and a larger profile. No major shareholder would want the company they've invested in to take a considerable drop in income. 

Share this post


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

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.

Come now Baz, they will have veto over "major decisions", this is where it is different from the "special resolution" situation.

Again I am not saying that this is all a bad thing and I'm still undecided which way I'll vote but let's stick to "actual" facts. 

Share this post


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

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.

Do we as a club know what these special resolutions would be that would allow Kibble to have their veto?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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..?

Verbose kech, you can't half speak a lot and say feck all ........of interest. 

Share this post


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

So it's only relevant when you say it is?  That explains a lot, actually.

 

Do you think I'm on LPM's side now?  You earlier claimed that I was on your side.

But again I haven’t done what you claim regarding the last word so you’re point... once again, is irrelevant. 
 

regarding which part Exactly? Remember I will always call you out on your word spin and pedantic debating techniques. 
 

I’ve not seen you challenge me on my view regarding the proposal so far, you’ve challenged him multiple times. so I’d say still on mine regarding him talking rubbish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Come now Baz, they will have veto over "major decisions", this is where it is different from the "special resolution" situation.

Again I am not saying that this is all a bad thing and I'm still undecided which way I'll vote but let's stick to "actual" facts. 

As I go onto say it’s not. Research online you’ll see ‘special resolutions’ aren’t exhaustive and are often defined when the share dealing is proposed/ finalised. Exactly what we are saying. 
 

again I would urge anyone to do some scenario analysis. The risk is there but I genuinely can’t understand anyone coming to a conclusion beyond minimum.  
 

as for dealing in ‘actual facts’ it’s actual fact that risk exists in practically any business venture. We are dealing in severity of risk not existence of. 

Edited by bazil85

Share this post


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

Do we as a club know what these special resolutions would be that would allow Kibble to have their veto?

Some examples included but not an exhaustive list. The nature of special resolutions is they aren’t exhaustive, can check that in the legislation behind them. And in many other companies documentation. 

Share this post


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

As I go onto say it’s not. Research online you’ll see ‘special resolutions’ aren’t exhaustive and are often defined when the share dealing is proposed/ finalised. Exactly what we are saying. 
 

again I would urge anyone to do some scenario analysis. The risk is there but I genuinely can’t understand anyone coming to a conclusion beyond minimum.  

Baz, I don't have to research online I have personal experience to rely on and know the difference. Again I am not saying anything against the deal or Kibble but it all has to be understood and unfortunately you regularly blur the lines!!

Interesting wee bit in bold don't you think!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reluctant to comment on this, as I am not in possession of all the facts. To do otherwise amounts to speculation. 

https://www.kibble.org - info gleaned from the website indicates it's a children's charity. I can see why a relationship with such a charity might be mutually beneficial - football being a good, wholesome activity and the club helping local children and potentially growing our fan base. It costs the club very little to allow kids to sit in unsold seats, for example.

The charity certainly has a large income: https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=SC026917

What are people's concerns about the charity's involvement? Personally I cannot see any problem. It's clearly a professionally run organisation and if the club can benefit from the charity's management, then all is good. I think the club and the charity have some shared aims, and can work together.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...