Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts


Got my answer.

As expected, my "yes or no" question could not be answered in one word!

Actually, it could!

In the interests of fairness I will not divulge the answers in full
... Fair to say though, Kibble will be part owners of St Mirren and deservedly have a degree of influence!

Fan ownership?

My arse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



"Despite being in the best position to answer all the questions, Cllr McMillan refused."
"Despite being in the best position to answer all the questions, Cll McMillan refused"
It appears he didn't lie but he refused to say anything.
Smells a wee bit stinkier than just an oversight.
I hope you're right & there is nothing to see here. I don't share your confidence.


What were these questions that he refused to answer?

Hmm Na, I think it shows pretty clearly why my point was relevant and yours was just shoved in with another argument. You don’t have to agree on that but that’s my reasoning and I don’t need to change it 


What point? The fact is, you totally missed the point, almost to the same absurd level as Ricky on the Bank thread.


Can't agree with this Bazil.
It is a step beyond what 25%+ shareholding grants under normal rules.
It is absolutely crucial that people know the full facts and ramifications of surrendering so much to a minority shareholder.
whether you believe they are likely to use this against the will of the majority shareholder is neither here nor there. It is still within the realms of possibility.


Hence my previous tongue in cheek comment about marriage etc. It's all about levels of risk and managing it.


I'm getting Bonnie Langford from that.


Did that actually sound clever in your head?

No answers then? I'm not surprised in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was that your petty attempt at the last word?

The one I let you get on every other post?
The problem with giving someone like Baz the last word is that they take it as a "victory" and then later bring the "victory" up during the next, usually unrelated, disagreement as if it is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea.

But apparently, none of the labour bods would answer whatever it was they were getting asked.






Did that actually sound clever in your head?

No answers then? I'm not surprised in the slightest.

Share this post


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

Was that your petty attempt at the last word?

The one I let you get on every other post? emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

I quite enjoy getting the last word, self admitted. You do as well, just can’t admit it. 

Share this post


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


 

 


What were these questions that he refused to answer?



What point? The fact is, you totally missed the point, almost to the same absurd level as Ricky on the Bank thread.




Hence my previous tongue in cheek comment about marriage etc. It's all about levels of risk and managing it.




Did that actually sound clever in your head?

No answers then? I'm not surprised in the slightest.

 

One of your go to argument techniques, to claim stuff like this. I fully feel my response was appropriate. You don’t have to agree but it’s clear you take issue with different opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
50 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Was that your petty attempt at the last word?

The one I let you get on every other post? emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

The problem with giving someone like Baz the last word is that they take it as a "victory" and then later bring the "victory" up during the next, usually unrelated, disagreement as if it is relevant.

This isn’t true. I have never once brought it up as a victory in any way, shape or form. The only time it gets brought up is by other contributors like yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:
2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
I quite enjoy getting the last word, self admitted. You do as well, just can’t admit it. 

Last word on the subject?

If you need it that much take it. Like I say I enjoy it but only because I enjoy this part of BAWA. People will make false allegations that I claim it as some sort of victory, won’t find any sign of that. But I’m happy to give a last word if someone like yourself so desperately craves it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you need it that much take it. Like I say I enjoy it but only because I enjoy this part of BAWA. People will make false allegations that I claim it as some sort of victory, won’t find any sign of that. But I’m happy to give a last word if someone like yourself so desperately craves it. 
Ok thanks.. just this once, I'll take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sally02 said:

The Veto

I think that a lot of people have taken a fairly basic view of the fact that Kibble would be able to Veto any major decisions relating to SMFC Ltd, as they would be 27.5% shareholders in the company. Obviously if you invest in a business to the proposed level, you would want as much influence as possible to protect your investment.

My take on the reality of the eventual working of this would be that SMISA with 51% of the shareholding and majority fan ownership would have a complete right to Veto any proposals and plans as they saw fit and proper, with no real recourse for Kibble to challenge or object.  On the other hand, if Kibble vetoed a proposal or plan put forward by the board majority, and the SMISA members and the rest of the fanbase were not happy with Kibble's position, in that situation I am sure the case would make the public domain and the press would no doubt put their various twists and slants on it, which leaves Kibble open to scrutiny, questions regarding their overall motives in the partnership, and potential damage to their reputation. Was their veto for their own benefit only, for the mutual benefit of both partners, etc etc ? Kibble will be very aware of this.

If the boot was on the other foot, I don't think SMISA would be under scrutiny in that way, as in general, Football Clubs and their Boards are perceived as only one event away from a crisis and often weekly managed anyway - certainly the case in Scotland!

So I would suggest that the veto is not as powerful a tool to Kibble as you might first think - it has its dangers for them as well as SMISA. 

 

7 hours ago, Dickson said:

If that is your rational then it's bonkers. Seriously did you read what you wrote? Better than you did, for sure!

Currently SMISA are heading for 7!% share ownership. We were all sold this as a great idea that secured the future of the club forever. When the deal is concluded the club would be under the control of SMISA members who can do pretty much as they wish. Did I say otherwise? I was only putting a scenario out there that may happen!

You are voting to reduce that shareholding to 51%. I HAVEN'T VOTED EITHER WAY YET, unless you illegally voted for me.

If that is carried a third party will hold 27% and won't just have the protection afforded in law to any minority shareholder with a 25% shareholding.(to veto any Special Resolutions) but enhanced powers to veto "any major decision". And you are going to rely on Chick Young and his pals to be interested enough, and to understand it enough to stop this third party using their veto for anything. All I said is Kibble would be more likely to be scrutinised for using a veto than SMISA/Board!

I absolutely understand your other post with concerns about the ability of the SMISA membership to run a football club. If you'd stopped there then fair enough. You voted yes cause you want competent leadership. Again I haven't voted either way yet, oh condescending one!

Fine, great.

What I don't quite get is why you were so desperate to prove the point that the SMISA membership couldn't run a football club by showing you personally couldn't be trusted to work through the issue logically and to vote in a manner that made any sense.  This is all made up in your head, mate!

 

 

You really are a piece of work! Just reply to the voices in your head, because I'm not really interested in what you think!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That your last word? Lol

Why would it be?

 

Just so you are aware, "people like Baz" included you, don't get upset, I wouldn't want you to think I wasn't including you in the discussion. I thought it was obvious seeing as the two of you are so alike.

No idea.

 

But apparently, none of the labour bods would answer whatever it was they were getting asked.

So, for all you know (even though it's highly unlikely), the questions could have been along the lines of "what size is your penis" and "does your wife like anal"?

One of your go to argument techniques, to claim stuff like this. I fully feel my response was appropriate. You don’t have to agree but it’s clear you take issue with different opinion. 

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.

This isn’t true. I have never once brought it up as a victory in any way, shape or form. The only time it gets brought up is by other contributors like yourself. 

You're funny. Did you not claim that you proved BiEK (maybe it was someone else) wrong about various things while arguing about something else long after he had stopped replying to you on those various other things?

Ok thanks.. just this once, I'll take it.
Do you think he'll let you? As soon as you disagree with him about something else he will claim you are bringing up the same argument again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Choices. 
1. No Kibble deal. 
Outcome... Slower growth
Greater Fan Control
2. Kibble deal
Outcome.. Much faster growth.
Fan controlled but with a brake. 
2... Kibble are part owners of St Mirren fc. Fan ownership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
12 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:
Choices. 
1. No Kibble deal. 
Outcome... Slower growth
Greater Fan Control
2. Kibble deal
Outcome.. Much faster growth.
Fan controlled but with a brake. 

2... Kibble are part owners of St Mirren fc. Fan ownership?

BEK. If the deal does not get approval then slower growth is likely but with SMISA exercising full control. 

If the deal goes through then the likelihood is faster growth, faster community involvement and improved PR and Marketing. The price for SMISA would be accepting that they would not have full control and would have to share power including the risk of veto. 

Up to the members now. 

Edited by St.Ricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BEK. If the deal does not get approval then slower growth is likely but with SMISA exercising full control. 
If the deal goes through then the likelihood is faster growth, faster community involvement and improved PR and Marketing. The price for SMISA would be accepting that they would not have full control and would have to share power including the risk of veto. 
Up to the members now. 
If the deal is approved... Which I believe it will be... Kibble will be part owners of St Mirren.

"they need a degree of influence over that investment, which only a shareholding will give."

Remember that quote from SMISA.

People were warned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

BEK. If the deal does not get approval then slower growth is likely but with SMISA exercising full control. 

If the deal goes through then the likelihood is faster growth, faster community involvement and improved PR and Marketing. The price for SMISA would be accepting that they would not have full control and would have to share power including the risk of veto. 

Up to the members now. 

If the deal does not go through, it will be growth on precisely the same timeframe that buddies signed up for.

 

NOT SLOWER growth, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about what has been going at any meetings. I'm not going to pretend I understand the complexities of business. I am just a fan of SMFC who wanted to help get my club in to fan ownership. I voted no because I feel misled.

Share this post


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

Ricky. 

Why would that need to be the case? 

Let's for a moment assume that everything we have been told is correct. SMiSA and Gordon Scott think that having a partnership with Kibble is a great thing that will see growth at the club, and Kibble have seen an opportunity to get involved with the club to use the clubs facilities to train their kids for the working environment. What is there to stop that from happening without the share purchase and the veto? 

Why would Kibble need to spend £300k on shares that they themselves see as so worthless they might even give them away to SMISA? Why would Kibble need the power of a veto over the SMISA board? And why would SMISA feel the need to give up the strong position at the club they all support, in order to give a third party a veto over every major decision they make? Is Gordon Scott really so desperate for the £300k right now that he would want to see control of his boyhood club given to a third party? 

Surely if the deal is rejected there would still be scope for a less invasive partnership with Kibble on terms that would sit better with the clubs support? 

And if there isn't then I think it would be quite clear that St Mirren have dodged a bullet. 

 

 

It doesn't have to be Stuart. It's my judgement that it would be. I've given reasons in two earlier posts. 

This doesn't mean that I am recommending acceptance of the deal to members. And you are right, alternative approaches could be found. Im merely pointing out what I believe. 

I have avoided taking sides since I am not and have not been a SMISA member.   I can understand members who joined on the basis that they would almost solely control the club feeling that this is a big change in direction. It is. It also has an opportunity for collaboration and potentially faster growth. 

Over to the members. 

Share this post


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

I definitely think it’s been blown up but it’s very much a matter of perspective & understand the concerns. A major shareholder having a say in major decisions isn’t an issue for me. Yes there’s risk attached but I personally see it as minimal and much much more likely SMFC & Kibble will be pulling in the same direction. 
 

follow on from that to your next point, personally don’t think it’s so much but appreciate some will. I even wouldn’t call it surrendering TBH. 
 

and as I have said before, risks are always within the realms of possibility with any deal. Fans looking for a deal with zero risk will be looking for a very long time. 

But they won't JUST have a say. They will have control by way of a veto. That is disproportionate to the size of the shareholding.

A major shareholder is not THE major shareholder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think he'll let you? As soon as you disagree with him about something else he will claim you are bringing up the same argument again. 
Oh dear... Slarti/Baz whatever calls himself is becoming detached.... or?
Just upping the shit stirring to bring some joy into his life?

Maybe we should have a vote on that?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...