Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, bazil85 said:

The particular poster that has been leading this point has achieved exactly what he wanted (all be it with a very small number of contributors) what I would suggest to you is to do some scenario analysis. Envision some scenarios where the Kibble veto could be detrimental for St Mirren yet beneficial for them. Then determine how likely you think that scenario is. 
 

Before you do that though I would maybe evaluate your understanding. They will not have control to force through major decisions, only a veto. A 51% shareholder has control to stop any decision by nature of their holding. 
 

don’t mean for any of that to sound condescending by the way, just clarifying for you. 

I don't require clarification. And you ARE being condescending while assuming I have been duped by another poster's supposed machinations.

I have looked at the facts as they are put to us and have come to the conclusion that there is a case for NOT giving a minority shareholding the right to stop club business from being done.

It doesn't require me to give scenarios as I think it a matter of principal that the majority shareholder has the ability to run the club as they see fit. Do you really think Gordon Scott would be happy with this scenario while he holds the majority of shares? If not then, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dickson said:

There is no need for a counter proposal. If the membership just reject this proposal SMISA will continue towards 71% share ownership and no minority shareholders with a veto. 

I don't think it's a case of me thinking too highly of myself. It's just a simple case of me not being willing to continue to give money to an organisation that has twice mis-represented what the cash would be used for. 

Remind me was Towelgate the first?

What was the second? Ring fenced £50K?

 

Spoiler

Share this post


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

It’s a fair ask if that’s what concerns you. just not something that worries me. The list provided and wording regarding “major” is enough for me. As I have said, I can think of very few scenarios that hampering SMFC would benefit the Kibble and none of them are likely to materialise due to our shareholding and the detrimental impact it would have on both sides.

Different people have different feelings towards risk though, absolutely fine. IMO it is a massively risk averse outlook that would be concerned with this.  

"Major"  is entirely different from "special".

Share this post


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

I mentioned this in a reply to someone else earlier: you claiming that people have returned to the same argument when they haven't.  They have just highlighted the fact that you use the same faulty logic/constantly make unsupported assertions/fail to back up those assertions when asked to do so/use the same crap patter in just about every thread.

Where have I claimed something that is wrong?

My logic isn’t faulty, I do not make unsupported assertations (I feel I’m always clear when giving fact or opinion, if asked I clarify). I’ll back-up facts as I see fit, I take this approach because you’re far from the only pedantic poster on here.

Oh, how far must I go back? As I have said, I agree with much of your content to LPM (I go onto elaborate further down, this is usually the bit where you move the goalposts and claim you haven’t given a view on something or some sort… You know what you do, I don’t need to tell you)

  1. That I claim getting the last word as victory
  2. You wrongly claimed you wouldn’t get in an argument with me
  3. You were wrong on acceptable use of the word “affordable”
  4. You were wrong in claims you were “done” with certain argument points
  5. There will be others but as above, I pick when I back-up facts because of pedantic posters

How is that spinning?  It's a f**king question.

It’s a leading question, related to a point I’ve already shown as wrong.

I call attention to peoples claims on pedantry.  See if people would just answer questions instead of body swerving them there would be no need for the pedantry claim (which seems to happen when people have been questioned on something that they have asserted as fact, but without any evidence) and therefore no need for me to bring up that quote.

Do you know what it is to be pedantic? You having the view that people should just answer your pedantic questions to avoid you being called pedantic is utter nonsense. I’ve called you out on it more than once, I’m not going to answer ridiculous questions to fan your ineffective argument style.   

f**ked if i can remember, but it was minor points.

Was it something pedantic?

Aye, OK. All your own work, eh?  Funny how your own opinions tend to come just after someone else has posted something almost identical.  you could save typing if you just quoted the person and used Ricky's "I agree" patter, rather than rewording it and presenting it as your own.  I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, just that it has definitely been influenced by several other posters on here.

Can You give an example of this? Not saying it hasn’t happened because as I say it’s a targeted subject but I have not taken anyone’s ideas as my own. If there’s a crossover it’s because of the subject matter.

We're on the same side in challenging LPM?  I'm challenging him for using the same tactics as you do. 

Really? So views on the veto, the oversight point? This isn’t you taking a side, you’re just calling out LPM’s tactics… What a lot of work you’ve put in to sit on the fence. I find it strange that there isn’t a single comment where you say you don’t disagree with him, you just have issue with his approach though. Or have I missed it?   

 

Share this post


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

I don't require clarification. And you ARE being condescending while assuming I have been duped by another poster's supposed machinations.

I have looked at the facts as they are put to us and have come to the conclusion that there is a case for NOT giving a minority shareholding the right to stop club business from being done.

It doesn't require me to give scenarios as I think it a matter of principal that the majority shareholder has the ability to run the club as they see fit. Do you really think Gordon Scott would be happy with this scenario while he holds the majority of shares? If not then, why not?

I've came to the conclusion the reward is worth the risk, if you think the risk of Kibble using this to the detriment of SMFC as opposed to protect their investment fine. 

Yes I think he would, the scenario remains a veto for major decisions, they don't have the power some are suggesting to run the club. I think from the comments GLS would be of the opinion Kibble will pull in the same direction as SMFC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

"Major"  is entirely different from "special".

Read up on it, the decisions they can influence can be written into special resolution. The examples given are perfectly reasonable in my opinion. I think there are just a number of people that have blown up a very minor risk. I guess time will tell if it goes through. 

Share this post


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

Read up on it, the decisions they can influence can be written into special resolution. The examples given are perfectly reasonable in my opinion. I think there are just a number of people that have blown up a very minor risk. I guess time will tell if it goes through. 

That's the big issue, They shouldn't have any influence 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should try a calculator first.....
1200 members x £175 = £210,000
Second with                  = £210,000
Total                                 = £420,000
So is that calculation based on one stand or two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

You mean the shirts won't have Kibble emblazoned across them emoji44.png

They may well do but I doubt very much if would be Bet-Kibble or Kibble-Bet that we'd see!!

Share this post


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

I dont think Kibble are factoring in what, if any involvement they want if we drop out of the top league?
They kinda alluded to this in their proposal.

They're business men. Probably not clever enough to think of that. :o

Edited by pod

Share this post


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

I don't know if you are counting me as one of the biggest critics but I think my journey has been well documented and it's not puzzling at all. I remain completely supportive of fan ownership and completely committed to community partnerships between football clubs and their local community groups. I just have two issues with this deal. 

1. I don't understand why the community group, Kibble, has to pay £300k for shares they themselves appear to believe are completely worthless, just to gain access to facilities that they should be able to rent from the club anyway,. 

2. I don't get how giving a third party a veto on any major decisions that fans make in the club they own fits any form of the concept of what fan ownership is supposed to be about. 

The £300k i presume gives the Kibble a guaranteed opportunity to pitch to the board their ideas that would be mutually beneficial to both the Club and the Kibble. Without the shares they are just another 3rd party pitching. There have been moans by others of a lack of additional revenue schemes to date however they are also against a body wanting to prove their track record of generating a revenue stream.

 

The other points re the veto. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board then deliberately sabotage the running of the club. Surely all members on a board should work together for the benefit of the company. That’s what being a Director in law requires you to do. There will be times when board members disagree. However a good Director swallows his pride accepts the decision and moves on. A egotistical huffy board member with their own agenda spits the dummy out, goes on line to advise all that want to listen about how the big boys stole his baw, proceed to resign from the board then continually berate every movement that the former board do.

As i have stated already. In my opinion SMISA running the entire club is a disaster in the making. I have yet to see anyone to date with capability of running the club and drive it forward. On line you now start to see individuals old and new trying to get themselves noticed as potential board candidates. The BTB needs a 3rd party to assist in running the club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The £300k i presume gives the Kibble a guaranteed opportunity to pitch to the board their ideas that would be mutually beneficial to both the Club and the Kibble. Without the shares they are just another 3rd party pitching. There have been moans by others of a lack of additional revenue schemes to date however they are also against a body wanting to prove their track record of generating a revenue stream.
 
The other points re the veto. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board then deliberately sabotage the running of the club. Surely all members on a board should work together for the benefit of the company. That’s what being a Director in law requires you to do. There will be times when board members disagree. However a good Director swallows his pride accepts the decision and moves on. A egotistical huffy board member with their own agenda spits the dummy out, goes on line to advise all that want to listen about how the big boys stole his baw, proceed to resign from the board then continually berate every movement that the former board do.
As i have stated already. In my opinion SMISA running the entire club is a disaster in the making. I have yet to see anyone to date with capability of running the club and drive it forward. On line you now start to see individuals old and new trying to get themselves noticed as potential board candidates. The BTB needs a 3rd party to assist in running the club. 
Back again Div?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Pityme said:
5 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:
The £300k i presume gives the Kibble a guaranteed opportunity to pitch to the board their ideas that would be mutually beneficial to both the Club and the Kibble. Without the shares they are just another 3rd party pitching. There have been moans by others of a lack of additional revenue schemes to date however they are also against a body wanting to prove their track record of generating a revenue stream.
 
The other points re the veto. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board then deliberately sabotage the running of the club. Surely all members on a board should work together for the benefit of the company. That’s what being a Director in law requires you to do. There will be times when board members disagree. However a good Director swallows his pride accepts the decision and moves on. A egotistical huffy board member with their own agenda spits the dummy out, goes on line to advise all that want to listen about how the big boys stole his baw, proceed to resign from the board then continually berate every movement that the former board do.
As i have stated already. In my opinion SMISA running the entire club is a disaster in the making. I have yet to see anyone to date with capability of running the club and drive it forward. On line you now start to see individuals old and new trying to get themselves noticed as potential board candidates. The BTB needs a 3rd party to assist in running the club. 

Back again Div?

Nope. Nor am I GLS, JLS or Bazil (mad as a)

I’m Spartacus 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After much deliberating I've decided to vote no. A lot of what Kibble would bring to the table is commendable and would certainly help in aspects of the club, however concerning is the fact that this has been carved up without looking at other ways to get members more actively involved and also the structure of the deal.

I've been on other committees and always found that when the consequences of non-activity were laid out then people understood and came forward. I'll hold my hands up and say that I didn't come forward last twice as my other activities elsewhere wouldn't have meant that I had spare capacity to do anything. It seems underhand to have progressed as far as they have with the proposed deal without advising members we were considering looking for alternative options to the 71% model and also not to present any case around alternatives (ie other charities / organisations approached).

On the structure of the deal I'm not comfortable with what has been stated regarding number of seats and potential veto. The ability for material decisions, which may be in the financial best interests of the club, but at odds with the direction of Kibble, to be vetoed is not what I'd want from the board. The board have talked previously about putting financial sense ahead of the wishes of fans (Old Firm in Family Stand), but are now recommending a deal where shackles will be put on the ability to make directional decisions that could be profound for financial well-being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

The £300k i presume gives the Kibble a guaranteed opportunity to pitch to the board their ideas that would be mutually beneficial to both the Club and the Kibble. Without the shares they are just another 3rd party pitching. There have been moans by others of a lack of additional revenue schemes to date however they are also against a body wanting to prove their track record of generating a revenue stream.

 

The other points re the veto. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board then deliberately sabotage the running of the club. Surely all members on a board should work together for the benefit of the company. That’s what being a Director in law requires you to do. There will be times when board members disagree. However a good Director swallows his pride accepts the decision and moves on. A egotistical huffy board member with their own agenda spits the dummy out, goes on line to advise all that want to listen about how the big boys stole his baw, proceed to resign from the board then continually berate every movement that the former board do.

As i have stated already. In my opinion SMISA running the entire club is a disaster in the making. I have yet to see anyone to date with capability of running the club and drive it forward. On line you now start to see individuals old and new trying to get themselves noticed as potential board candidates. The BTB needs a 3rd party to assist in running the club. 

We could appoint from outside the club someone with expertise in finance and running high office willing to work for minimum wage....  Derek MacKay's looking for a job  :toilet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We could appoint from outside the club someone with expertise in finance and running high office willing to work for minimum wage....  Derek MacKay's looking for a job  :toilet
Not yet he's not, unfortunately.

Share this post


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

I see that the OS home page first article tonight is about the SMiSA vote.

Absolutely no information on Friday night match against Hearts.

Priorities?

FBA7B739-9544-4E58-9D35-B576AB1F4D40.thumb.png.d18834f92a9b48556bad211d7a311d42.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see that the OS home page first article tonight is about the SMiSA vote.
Absolutely no information on Friday night match against Hearts.
Priorities?

Priorities?
How about tomorrow night and a trip to Motherwell ( 2 articles )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, alanb said:


Priorities?
How about tomorrow night and a trip to Motherwell ( 2 articles )

Two other articles on the home page are about a game that was postponed. The club should be actively promoting the game on Friday. Our priority must be to stay in the league. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two other articles on the home page are about a game that was postponed. The club should be actively promoting the game on Friday. Our priority must be to stay in the league. 

 

I am referring to the two articles referencing the cup tie

One match info and the other a buddievision interview with Jim Goodwin dated 17th Feb

Agree with priorities games wise but editorial content of website is first come first dealt with, so cup tie first

Set timer for first Hearts article

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...