Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

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
4 hours ago, portmahomack saint said:

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

But don't let him anywhere near the academy. 

Share this post


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

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

Go onto Hearts website. They are actively promoting hospitality beam back for Friday night at Tynecastle and also QF.

What we really need is Basil getting the gig of “Head of PR and Communication”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go onto Hearts website. They are actively promoting hospitality beam back for Friday night at Tynecastle and also QF.

What we really need is Basil getting the gig of “Head of PR and Communication”. 

Not interested in Hearts website

Do they have a game before Friday to discuss/promote coz we do

No! hence promoting their own agendas for Friday night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go onto Hearts website. They are actively promoting hospitality beam back for Friday night at Tynecastle and also QF.
What we really need is Basil getting the gig of “Head of PR and Communication”. 
You sure he's not already in post as head of PR and comms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Can you please point out to me one instance of SMISA trying to smear anyone. I have yet to see SMISA post on any thread on BWA never mind this one. Every post is the persons personal opinion. I think you are imagining / hearing things again. As I stated well back in the thread you are gagging to call the vote "rigged" if it goes against how you would have voted if you had a say which we all know you don't. The result will be a fair and binding one no matter which way it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you please point out to me one instance of SMISA trying to smear anyone. I have yet to see SMISA post on any thread on BWA never mind this one. Every post is the persons personal opinion. I think you are imagining / hearing things again. As I stated well back in the thread you are gagging to call the vote "rigged" if it goes against how you would have voted if you had a say which we all know you don't. The result will be a fair and binding one no matter which way it goes.

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!

Share this post


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

Let me deal with the middle paragraph first. Why would anyone pay £300k to be on a board and then deliberately sabotage the running of a club. If I can point you in the direction of Stockport County as a place to do a bit of research you might notice that a man called Brian Kennedy put in substantially more than ten times that amount into the club clearing off the clubs debts in a deal done with the supporters trust - with part of the deal being that Sale Sharks, whom he owned, would ground share at Edgeley Park. At the time, on the face of it, it looked like a tempting deal. It didn't quite work out that way in the end though. I'd encourage you to read up on it. It landed up with Stockport County committing to pay 30% of all transfer fees to the Sale Sharks owner. 

Now I'm not saying that Kibble are in anyway doing something as shifty as that, but they will be getting their £300k back one way or another and that veto is a very powerful weapon to have to ensure they get what they want. 

As for the pitching to the board, trust me, if SMISA think that there is a mutual benefit to working with Kibble they would listen to whatever pitch they were making anyway. Kibble wouldn't need to be minority shareholders with a powerful veto to make that happen. 

As for the last paragraph, I hope you aren't counting me in the list of people you think are making a pitch as a potential board candidate but just incase you are can I dispel that notion. At no point have I ever tried to gain favour with anyone on these forums or with any St Mirren fan. I have no desire to be on any committee or board at senior football level in Scotland. I've done my time on committees at amateur level in two different sports and I'm at a stage in my life where I want to enjoy my spare time. I agree that fan ownership can be difficult, and there have been disastrous examples like the Stockport County one. The leadership of these things is hugely important and I'd agree I don't see the right sort of people at SMISA currently. But that's not to say that those who could run the club don't exist amongst the support. Apart from anything else AFIAK Gordon Scott and Stewart Gilmour are both members of SMISA.  

 

 

The Stockport/Kennedy situation is not the same as the SMISA/Kibble one. Kennedy put money in to the club as a loan to bankroll them and prevent them going under. He stipulated conditions for the repayments of his loan. I appreciate that there is irony on how that all turned out. It’s not the same as buying £300k of shares to get on a board where you have no control to force your own agenda through. You may have a “veto” however to use it continually would question their role on the board and their own agenda. Ultimately the business would fail with blatant use of the veto.

Like most people i am slightly sceptical of why KIbble are doing this and what they get from it. However they have a long established business that has been developed on Core Local Values. They do not have a reputation of being parasites or asset strippers. They appear to have a desire to build and work with from within on another long established business.

Idealistically its not the fans ownership that i romantically dreamed of. However what is the alternative. Fans with agendas and chips on their shoulders trying to run a £m business as if it was a bowling club. Businesses are not run by committees, they are run by a strong board of flexible Directors who can adapt and move with the times.

The Directors of a business are the custodians of said business. It is their responsibility to ensure that they leave it in a better place than when they started.

 

Edited by Brilliant Disguise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Stockport/Kennedy situation is not the same as the SMISA/Kibble one. Kennedy put money in to the club as a loan to bankroll them and prevent them going under. He stipulated conditions for the repayments of his loan. I appreciate that there is irony on how that all turned out. It’s not the same as buying £300k of shares to get on a board where you have no control to force your own agenda through. You may have a “veto” however to use it continually would question their role on the board and their own agenda. Ultimately the business would fail with blatant use of the veto.
Like most people i am slightly sceptical of why KIbble are doing this and what they get from it. However they have a long established business that has been developed on Core Local Values. They do not have a reputation of being parasites or asset strippers. They appear to have a desire to build and work with from within on another long established business.
Idealistically its not the fans ownership that i romantically dreamed of. However what is the alternative. Fans with agendas and chips on their shoulders trying to run a £m business as if it was a bowling club. Businesses are not run by committees, they are run by a strong board of flexible Directors who can adapt and move with the times.
The Directors of a business are the custodians of said business. It is their responsibility to ensure that they leave it in a better place than when they started.
 
You do know you are talking directly to smisa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this you disclosing facts or innuendo on the inner going’s of the SMISA board
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.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...