Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts


I shared two of your posts that show you favoured governance to not allow the vote over the support for some of the most vulnerable in our community. You had more concern for the source of the money than the people it benefited.
That wasn’t what I said or what I was referencing. This was a subsequent vote to the normal three month spend, keep up.
Really, have you convinced yourself what's in your head is right, and what's written down is false. Get help but seriously sort yourself out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I still don't recall it that way but memory can be a funny thing. Obviously one of us is wrong but, to be honest, it doesn't matter enough to me to look into it, I'm just happy that SG voted the way he did, for whatever reason.
Just because we remember differently doesn't mean one of us has to be wrong Slarti!

The important thing is learning from it.

Mr Positivity sees negligible danger in the veto.

Dickson has rightly highlighted that had the veto been in place the outcome could have been very different.

Despite claiming to be passionate about the outcome back then and willing to give up his season ticket (as was I and I told SG as much), Mr Positivity is willing to put the club in the same danger all over again.

Irony, hypocrisy or a mixture?

Lines are blurred with him!Screenshot_20200214_165117.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. I last emailed Freeman about three weeks ago with a personal matter. And I last had an email exchange with Alan Russell just over a week ago. 
Both LPM and Bazil will confirm that I had previous dealings with Alan Russells superior at Supporters Direct too - Andrew Jenkins. 
 
At least you are not denying your previous ridiculous claims.

Just out of curiosity did Freeman reply or blank you? And did your exchange with Russell go something like the following?

You: Hi, Alan, blah, blah, blah.

Russell: f**k OFF YOU CRAZY BASTARD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because we remember differently doesn't mean one of us has to be wrong Slarti!

The important thing is learning from it.

Mr Positivity sees negligible danger in the veto.

Dickson has rightly highlighted that had the veto been in place the outcome could have been very different.

Despite claiming to be passionate about the outcome back then and willing to give up his season ticket (as was I and I told SG as much), Mr Positivity is willing to put the club in the same danger all over again.

Irony, hypocrisy or a mixture?

Lines are blurred with him!Screenshot_20200214_165117.thumb.jpeg.f9f5cf9a85fffcdb70ff08d8f5d5bc0f.jpeg
It does. It could be both of us, but at least one of us has to be wrong.

"Could" have been different, you are right, but there is absolutely no way to quantify it. A lot of things are possible but, without certainty, all anyone can do is try and work out the likelihood of each presented scenario. Unfortunately, there are those with agendas (on both sides) who will try and present their own case as fact without having anything to back it up.

Baz is the usual suspect on the forum but, in this case, LPM has been the one most guilty of it. I'm still waiting on answers to the questions I asked him days ago about the things he asserted as fact. I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, nice to have a civilised discussion on here, for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i simply asked to be directed to or furnished with a copy of the original trust deed of 1841 (i think) which is the original terms of reference and  is quoted on their website as being the basis on which they operate

I had read you had to provide ID for a freedom of information request, but think that's for a particular matter and not for what you requested.

 

You may have to wait 20 days for a reply if I read that correct in the info provided.

 

 

Edit to add, I tried a couple of mates who work there if they have or had seen a copy.

Unfortunately they hadn't in both cases.

Share this post


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

It does. It could be both of us, but at least one of us has to be wrong.

"Could" have been different, you are right, but there is absolutely no way to quantify it. A lot of things are possible but, without certainty, all anyone can do is try and work out the likelihood of each presented scenario. Unfortunately, there are those with agendas (on both sides) who will try and present their own case as fact without having anything to back it up.

Baz is the usual suspect on the forum but, in this case, LPM has been the one most guilty of it. I'm still waiting on answers to the questions I asked him days ago about the things he asserted as fact. I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, nice to have a civilised discussion on here, for a change. emoji38.png

It's a fact Kibble are not investing in St Mirren,they are just buying shares from GS, thereby breaking the GS/Smisa agreement.The cash is going to the Chairman ,who until he says otherwise, will not be investing any of the cash into the club.

It's a fact that this minority  shareholder has demanded veto rights in the running of the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a fact Kibble are not investing in St Mirren,they are just buying shares from GS, thereby breaking the GS/Smisa agreement.The cash is going to the Chairman ,who until he says otherwise, will not be investing any of the cash into the club.
It's a fact that this minority  shareholder has demanded veto rights in the running of the club.
Dont be bringing facts to a propaganda campaign.lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does. It could be both of us, but at least one of us has to be wrong.

"Could" have been different, you are right, but there is absolutely no way to quantify it. A lot of things are possible but, without certainty, all anyone can do is try and work out the likelihood of each presented scenario. Unfortunately, there are those with agendas (on both sides) who will try and present their own case as fact without having anything to back it up.

Baz is the usual suspect on the forum but, in this case, LPM has been the one most guilty of it. I'm still waiting on answers to the questions I asked him days ago about the things he asserted as fact. I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, nice to have a civilised discussion on here, for a change.
In the picture I posted, which one is wrong?

I love civilised debate and discussion.

I am even, despite how it might seem on here, willing to listen to all viewpoints.

That's how you learn. That's how you grow.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.

Certain other posters cannot.

Despite protestations, they are no less than antagonistic master baiting keyboard warriors with mental health issues!

Back to the matter on hand tho Slarti...

Fear not... I respect your right to be wrong!

Screenshot_20200208_220513.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, elvis said:

So when do we find out the result of the vote. 

At the press release.

 

oh shit that’s already happened.

Edited by Yflab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:
3 hours ago, waldorf34 said:
It's a fact Kibble are not investing in St Mirren,they are just buying shares from GS, thereby breaking the GS/Smisa agreement.The cash is going to the Chairman ,who until he says otherwise, will not be investing any of the cash into the club.
It's a fact that this minority  shareholder has demanded veto rights in the running of the club.

Dont be bringing facts to a propaganda campaign.lol

Could be worse ,I see the Fans Council are having their Burns Supper on Valentine's  day, great planning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



It's a fact Kibble are not investing in St Mirren,they are just buying shares from GS, thereby breaking the GS/Smisa agreement.The cash is going to the Chairman ,who until he says otherwise, will not be investing any of the cash into the club.
It's a fact that this minority  shareholder has demanded veto rights in the running of the club.


You do not know this.
Yes, they are buying shares from GS.
They cannot break the GS/SMiSA agreement.
Yes it is.
You do not know this.
They have asked, not demanded, hence the vote.

Two right (wins), two wrong (loses) and two suppositions (draws) - 8/18 points, not bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



In the picture I posted, which one is wrong?

I love civilised debate and discussion.

I am even, despite how it might seem on here, willing to listen to all viewpoints.

That's how you learn. That's how you grow.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.

Certain other posters cannot.

Despite protestations, they are no less than antagonistic master baiting keyboard warriors with mental health issues!

Back to the matter on hand tho Slarti...

Fear not... I respect your right to be wrong!

Screenshot_20200208_220513.thumb.jpeg.0105c6081920927e2e26328460fb9eda.jpeg


That quote is not 100% accurate as sometimes when I talk I am not repeating what I already know, I am making it up on the spot as I go along - just like this post.

Share this post


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


 

 


You do not know this.
Yes, they are buying shares from GS.
They cannot break the GS/SMiSA agreement.
Yes it is.
You do not know this.
They have asked, not demanded, hence the vote.

Two right (wins), two wrong (loses) and two suppositions (draws) - 8/18 points, not bad.

 

SMiSA has a legal agreement with Gordon Scott - or at least so they tell us - to buy all but 8% of the shares he owns (giving them a total 71% shareholding). To facilitate Gordon Scott selling all but 0.05% of his shares to Kibble (giving them a 27% shareholding) SMiSA has to agree to set aside this legal agreement (thereby reducing their total shareholding to just 51%)  That is the reason for the vote. 

SMiSA Members have not been asked to vote on whether to allow Kibble a veto on all ordinary and special resolutions on the club board. The SMiSA committee, Gordon Scott and Kibble have already decided that if they can get SMISA members to agree to waive their legal agreement the veto will be part of the arrangement. The "extended" veto is being sold to fans as something that protects all sides - which it does do in the interim period whilst Gordon Scott's shares are still being transferred over to SMISA ownership. However once this period has passed the veto is to remain in place. The only beneficiary from that would be Kibble. 

Under normal circumstances any minority shareholder with 25% of the shares in a company or more would be allowed a veto on Special Resolutions only. However in this proposal the veto is to be extended to "all major decisions within the club". 

Edited by Dickson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SMiSA has a legal agreement with Gordon Scott - or at least so they tell us - to buy all but 8% of the shares he owns (giving them a total 71% shareholding). To facilitate Gordon Scott selling all but 0.05% of his shares to Kibble (giving them a 27% shareholding) SMiSA has to agree to set aside this legal agreement (thereby reducing their total shareholding to just 51%)  That is the reason for the vote. 
SMiSA Members have not been asked to vote on whether to allow Kibble a veto on all ordinary and special resolutions on the club board. The SMiSA committee, Gordon Scott and Kibble have already decided that if they can get SMISA members to agree to waive their legal agreement the veto will be part of the arrangement. The "extended" veto is being sold to fans as something that protects all sides - which it does do in the interim period whilst Gordon Scott's shares are still being transferred over to SMISA ownership. However once this period has passed the veto is to remain in place. The only beneficiary from that would be Kibble. 
Under normal circumstances any minority shareholder with 25% of the shares in a company or more would be allowed a veto on Special Resolutions only. However in this proposal the veto is to be extended to "all major decisions within the club". 
FFS.

Kibble CANNOT break the legal agreement between SMiSA and Gordon Scott. Only SMiSA or Gordon Scott can do that as they are the only two parties involved in the agreement. If they agree to another agreement then the current one is NOT being "broken", no matter who else is involved.

The veto is part of the proposal put to the vote, therefore SMiSA members ARE being asked to vote on it.

It really isn't that f**king difficult. Maybe next time try looking at what I was responding to before embarrassing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read that SMISA are paying the legal fees, Why would this be so if the deal is between GS and Kibble. Could be I’m mistaken but if not then , why are SMISA paying
Legal fees need paid to draft another agreement between SMiSA and GLS. Why GLS isn't (apparently) paying anything towards it I have no idea. Kibble have nothing to do with it.

I would presume that GLS and Kibble are paying any legal fees they have in regards to the sale by GLS to Kibble.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...