Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts


48 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Facts smisa.
What's the committee view on providing a benefit to one member (GLS) by facilitating his profit in share dealings, contrary to the constitution,?

Asking for a lot of friends.

Again more innuendo. 

 Is it profit ?  

Profit is where you buy for a price and sell for a greater price. 

The friends bit is just blatant lies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again more innuendo. 

 Is it profit ?  

Profit is where you buy for a price and sell for a greater price. 

The friends bit is just blatant lies

Well in the case of breaching the smisa constitution, whether a member makes more than they paid for something is irrelevant!

The question is are they benefitting from being a smisa member?

And unquestionably in this case, this member is. This is evidenced by the smisa committee requesting ALL smisa members to vote, to change an agreement, the outcome of which is ONE member benefitting to the tune of £300k, a d the membership getting a diminished settlement than agreed, and voted on.

A clearly cut breach of the constitution, it could not be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Nah loads of people know me on here.

They dont know who...

Brilliant Disguise/Cockles

Slarti B

Sally

Bazil

Etc.. etc.. are.

Now theres irony!

 

 

I know who you are - I was asking you who Slarti was? 

Irony ? - An Edinburgh punter asking his new burd if she can press clothes! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Voting cant be going to plan when smisa are all over these boards and fan Facebook page desperately trying to smear anyone with the temerity to question or challenge the Kibble proposal.
Very unedifying, and will be, as these things always are, noted by the support.

Would you count on it, given your underwhelming record regarding SMISA claims? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2020 at 11:51 AM, Slartibartfast said:

If the deal is not voted through and SMiSa numbers drop as a result, who is going to pick up the slack?  See what I did there? :P

 

I don't think anyone has said that there definitely isn't the skill set there, they have said that very few has put themselves forward for election who have the required skill set.  In fact there are just very few at all who have put themselves forward for election.

 

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.

 

 

SMISA numbers to drop after a decision to stick to the original plan that they signed up to? 

Interesting concept, but far less likely than the other scenario

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

SMISA numbers to drop after a decision to stick to the original plan that they signed up to? 

Interesting concept, but far less likely than the other scenario

Based on? Seen very few people openly saying they would consider quitting. Few (probably more) comments about people looking to rejoin/ join. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

So its 'your opinion' that states as gospel what my future intentions may, or may not be?

Ffs read that back to yourself pal... its bonkers.

 

Just stick to your line of disagreeing with anything I comment on, even if its unquestionably correct. Lol

Then natural order will be maintained.

 

Edit: for official smisa smear campaign read on here posts by 'Brilliant Disguise'... although its actually a piss poor disguise that practically leads to the posters front door!

So you are now assuming that a poster is actually SMISA in "disguise" - you are losing it big time, conspiracy theories coming out your ears now.  As for the opening sentence we will see peoples reactions when the result is announced - not long to wait.  Like the vast majority I won't be bothered either way, the membership will decide and I will abide by it. The fun will be watching others react. I expect a lot of toys out of the pram regardless of how it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are now assuming that a poster is actually SMISA in "disguise" - you are losing it big time, conspiracy theories coming out your ears now.  As for the opening sentence we will see peoples reactions when the result is announced - not long to wait.  Like the vast majority I won't be bothered either way, the membership will decide and I will abide by it. The fun will be watching others react. I expect a lot of toys out of the pram regardless of how it goes.
You say 'toys out of prams' if members do as they are asked and cast a vote?
Who hurt you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Is the member "benefiting" from being a member, or are they "benefiting" and a member?  In other words, is this deal reliant on GLS being a member of SMiSA?
Immaterial...
The fact is he is benefitting as member as a vote of the entire membership has been called to facilitate the sale of his shares.
He couldn't sell them any other way until ten years were up, and smisa reneged on the agreement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Well in the case of breaching the smisa constitution, whether a member makes more than they paid for something is irrelevant!

The question is are they benefitting from being a smisa member?

And unquestionably in this case, this member is. This is evidenced by the smisa committee requesting ALL smisa members to vote, to change an agreement, the outcome of which is ONE member benefitting to the tune of £300k, a d the membership getting a diminished settlement than agreed, and voted on.

A clearly cut breach of the constitution, it could not be.

 

Your now changing your claim of the earlier post from quote  “benefit to one member (GLS) by facilitating his profit in share dealings, contrary to the constitution,”

To now GLS is diminishing the SMISA settlement of getting 51% of shares for 51% of the cost. Is the reduced percentage really that relevant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

Your now changing your claim of the earlier post from quote  “benefit to one member (GLS) by facilitating his profit in share dealings, contrary to the constitution,”

To now GLS is diminishing the SMISA settlement of getting 51% of shares for 51% of the cost. Is the reduced percentage really that relevant

As far as I'm concerned yes, if I entered into an agreement to buy 71 % of say land, and then the seller decides that I can only have 51 % and that a new 3rd party will have a veto on what I want to do with the land, I would remove myself from the deal and look for my money back.

Add this to the fact that, the kibble get the shares and GLS gets 300k (which they are both entitled to if the deal goes ahead), then why are SMISA paying the legal fees?    This  not only puzzles me but gives concerns for the future as to what else we will pay for.  

Edited by Iamhammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Nah loads of people know me on here.

They dont know who...

Brilliant Disguise/Cockles

Slarti B

Sally

Bazil

Etc.. etc.. are.

Now theres irony!

 

 

Good few people on here know me, if anyone is that interested in that fine but as others have said, I see little point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

SMISA current have over 25% of shares. This technically allows them to have this magic “veto” that everyone keeps alluding to.

The new deal appears to have a veto drawn up in a legal agreement to allow them to block more than what would be deemed normal under company operating structures. Something which is not there now for smisa. At the moment smisa as a 25% shareholder have the right to block special resolutions. The question being asked I believe is why are kibble being afforded more power than this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
SMISA current have over 25% of shares. This technically allows them to have this magic “veto” that everyone keeps alluding to.
 
In fact we are being brainwashed to believe that GLS not only runs SMFC he runs SMISA with a strangle hold equivalent to Kim Jong Um. Yet he only has 51% shares in the club.
Now that apparently SMISA will only get 51% they will have no influence on how to run the club
Wake up and smell the pish
You've pretty much proven the point without realising it.
GS has a majority of shares and currently gets pretty much what he wants at board level. SMISA can't veto anything.
SMISA will have the same amount once they buy GS shares, if this proposal goes through, however kibble WILL have a veto.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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