Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Exactly. I'm somewhat bemused by BDs response. He clearly read the same sections as me off the SMiSA site and he's read the power to veto business plans and the appointment of directors and hes taken from it that it only applies to blocking unethical sponsors and the removal of their directors. 

Bazil says I'm unduly negative but I'm not making up scenarios here. It's right there on the SMiSA website! 

The bizarre thing is that some members are voting for this because they think an outside third party is needed cause the SMiSA commitee can't run a bath, yet they've allowed them to stay in situ for four years now. 

It's like watching St Mirren go 4-1 up away from home only to piss it all away in the 2nd half. Lets hope we win it on penalties..... 

What is the Clubs business plan other than running a football club. What else are we planning to branch in to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dickson said:

As things stand right now, it would be something the SMISA membership could vote on and decide for themselves.

Once this vote is carried it won't be up to the fans. Kibble would presumably block £1m coming into the business.

 

You are presuming that the SMISA membership will get to vote on every aspect of running the club. If that is completely illogical. SMISA should be asked to vote on Directors that will represent them not refer continually back to the membership on every aspect of running the business 

Share this post


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

I believe that beating companies sponsoring football clubs is a conflict of interest. As well as being morally wrong. that just my opinion.

If the Kibble veto such a decision i would welcome their governance 

I would see their point, personally I would be against them vetoing this... It's LPM finger in the air stuff though. There has been zero word they would veto a gambling company or indeed that one is interested in sponsoring us at a higher price than any other deal. All hypothetical financially benefiting SMFC scenarios that he puts above community benefit. A clear 180 on his previous (supposedly) held views. 

Edited by bazil85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Oh come on Bazil. Were you not at the meeting? Have you not watched the video? Jim Thomson specifically references Wonga and tells how Kibble would have veto'd that. 

Since you have referred to  their specific reference. 

Are they wrong about Wonga?

Edited by Brilliant Disguise

Share this post


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

Oh come on Bazil. Were you not at the meeting? Have you not watched the video? Jim Thomson specifically references Wonga and tells how Kibble would have veto'd that. 

Vetoing a payday loan company is not the same as vetoing gambling companies, that are generally major sponsors of professional football. If the Kibble had ethical issues with gambling sponsorship do you think they'd be trying to link in with a team in the Ladbrokes Premier that have just reached the quarter finals of the William Hill Scottish cup? This would already be a conflict if true. 

This is all tinfoil hat stuff, if the Kibble did have an issue with it, would gambling companies not have been a much easier example than a near defunct payday loan company? Move to the negative by creating situations that aren't there, as per. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t know why the Kibble have included the clause. 
However i have already given you a plausible reason to why they wish to to be in place. They wish to protect their Name and the Brand from a band of fans who may be willing to  sell the mane of the club to a strip club, drug dealer, money lender or some other unsavoury organisation that would devalue.
You must be aware of the ongoing debate on the morality of football clubs being sponsored by betting companies. Does the club wish to be associated with an organisation that brings misery to millions of people.
Scenario (Completely Hypothetical as the scenario is not legal, but go back 25 years)
Benson & Hedges wish to have their name on our shirts and are willing to pay £1m per year. Is this in your eyes what is more important brand or money 
I don't have an issue with that...

I want to know why the veto they insisted on goes far beyond that.

Still nobody can tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the Clubs business plan other than running a football club. What else are we planning to branch in to.
 
Exactly.

So a minority shareholder can essentially veto the very running of the football club...
and despite them insisting in having veto rights that go beyond normal business practice, we are expected to trust them to follow normal business practice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are presuming that the SMISA membership will get to vote on every aspect of running the club. If that is completely illogical. SMISA should be asked to vote on Directors that will represent them not refer continually back to the membership on every aspect of running the business 
Agreed...
I'm totally with you on this...

But when an outside party gets to elect two directors who can veto everything the guys we elect to run the club, how can we trust they will be able to do that job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

And I would too....
But we are talking about the majority of saints fans who will be incensed Kibble could deprive Goody of funds to strengthen the team.

Classic - utter classic even by your standards.

You ask "If Betfair want to sponsor the club to a significant amount. How many fans would be happy at Kibble vetoing it because it doesn't sit with their brand?". 

A respondant points out that they are of the opinion that betting firms should not be sponsoring clubs due to conflict of interest to which you respond "And I would too....
But we are talking about the majority of saints fans who will be incensed Kibble could deprive Goody of funds to strengthen the team. "

So to sum up you think that Kibble would be quite right to block a sponsorship deal with a firm like Betfair but the majority of Saints fans would be incensed that Kibble would be depriving the club of the income such sponsorship would bring.

So you are morally on the same wavelength as Kibble (a plus I suppose) but your average Saints fans have no morals and would be incensed. WoW that is one of your best yet.

Step away from the keyboard for your own sake a public breakdown is never a good sight !

Share this post


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

Classic - utter classic even by your standards.

You ask "If Betfair want to sponsor the club to a significant amount. How many fans would be happy at Kibble vetoing it because it doesn't sit with their brand?". 

A respondant points out that they are of the opinion that betting firms should not be sponsoring clubs due to conflict of interest to which you respond "And I would too....
But we are talking about the majority of saints fans who will be incensed Kibble could deprive Goody of funds to strengthen the team. "

So to sum up you think that Kibble would be quite right to block a sponsorship deal with a firm like Betfair but the majority of Saints fans would be incensed that Kibble would be depriving the club of the income such sponsorship would bring.

So you are morally on the same wavelength as Kibble (a plus I suppose) but your average Saints fans have no morals and would be incensed. WoW that is one of your best yet.

Step away from the keyboard for your own sake a public breakdown is never a good sight !

Would say it's been clearly shown his morals will move in any direction, as long as his view can oppose GLS and SMISA. He's went from banging on about us not being community focused enough to a view that the deal should be rejected so SMFC can take advantage of any income, ethical or otherwise.

He has then shamefully justified his move away from caring about local community by saying that the Kibble help people beyond Paisley and Renfrewshire. A staggering outlook from a guy that has went on for over three years about a vote to support the team he supports wage budget. Moral high ground bungee jumping lol. 

Share this post


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

This proposal that was put to SMISA members with a nod and wink from the committee to get it voted through. They wheeled out Tony Fitzpatrick to go on about Reg Brearly again whilst backing the deal. Jim Goodwin was sat at the table telling St Mirren fans that this was a great thing and he was full of trust for Kibble. George Adam, Gordon Scott and Colin Orr told us they endorsed the deal and a couple of very plausible people from the Kibble board were there to sell us the proposal without going into much detail on the vision. 

If everyone had stepped away from their keyboard at that point would anyone have noticed the third party veto? Would anyone have been questioning whether this met the terms of the constitution? Would anyone have asked the question why this isn't a resolution worthy of an EGM and a 66%/33% vote? Would anyone have asked "what is in it for Kibble"? 

I really hate it when people try desperately to stifle open debate, particularly on a rather important issue like whether the club should let a third party have a strong influence over it's business operations for the first time since the stadium move. It makes me hugely suspicious as to the reasons why they would do that. Isn't it better when all the ins and outs of the proposal are aired, and those voting can make a reasoned and informed choice ?

When I questioned the sale being of benefit to Gordon Scott I was rather glibly told that I should accept that Gordon Scott is not merely a member of SMiSA and therefore we should make different considerations for him. That didn't come from SMISA BTW, that came from Supporters Direct (Scotland) - something that directly contravenes the stated aims of Supporters Direct and of the ISA movement and their one member, one vote principle - regardless of contribution. 

 

Of course they were going to fill the table on the evening to launch the initiative with the beauty parade. What was the alternative fill the table with you, LPM, Melmac and BIEK to tell the SMISA member how great it is not to be a member of SMISA and that it was a shit idea. 

Let’s see how the vote goes and see if it was worthy of you special resolution and 66/33 vote.

Open debate only works when you are debating facts not the continual search for the Smoking Gun. We are back to the magic Veto again. the veto that is now being played out as the Kibble revoking the business plan of SMFC being a football club.

Your last paragraph appears to be your attempt to get support from SD(Scotland) to block a vote for an organisation that you are not even a member of.

Share this post


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

It isn't land though, it's a football club that we are all very strongly attached to. If you had a strong attachment to this "land" the new deal would benefit the land and you would be paying a reduced cost, would you do it? 

No, its just a matter of principle to me. 

Share this post


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

I don’t know why the Kibble have included the clause. 

However i have already given you a plausible reason to why they wish to to be in place. They wish to protect their Name and the Brand from a band of fans who may be willing to  sell the mane of the club to a strip club, drug dealer, money lender or some other unsavoury organisation that would devalue.

You must be aware of the ongoing debate on the morality of football clubs being sponsored by betting companies. Does the club wish to be associated with an organisation that brings misery to millions of people.

Scenario (Completely Hypothetical as the scenario is not legal, but go back 25 years)

Benson & Hedges wish to have their name on our shirts and are willing to pay £1m per year. Is this in your eyes what is more important brand or money 

It already is, being a member of the SFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Classic - utter classic even by your standards.
You ask "If Betfair want to sponsor the club to a significant amount. How many fans would be happy at Kibble vetoing it because it doesn't sit with their brand?". 
A respondant points out that they are of the opinion that betting firms should not be sponsoring clubs due to conflict of interest to which you respond "And I would too....
But we are talking about the majority of saints fans who will be incensed Kibble could deprive Goody of funds to strengthen the team. "
So to sum up you think that Kibble would be quite right to block a sponsorship deal with a firm like Betfair but the majority of Saints fans would be incensed that Kibble would be depriving the club of the income such sponsorship would bring.
So you are morally on the same wavelength as Kibble (a plus I suppose) but your average Saints fans have no morals and would be incensed. WoW that is one of your best yet.
Step away from the keyboard for your own sake a public breakdown is never a good sight !
Nice imaginary twist.
Fyi I am against gambling & alcohol sponsors.
I am also against outside bodies taking over the club... does that make me Anti St Mirren?
You are funny, I'll give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dickson said:

give a £300k hand out to the Aston Martin driving, property developer Chairman of the football club. 

 

Which bit of this do you not like GLS for.

1. Selling.his shares to the Kibble

2. Drives a flash car

3. Is a property Developer

4. He is the chairman of a football club

Look up the definition of hand out

Share this post


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

You couldn't even find reference of the veto on the SMISA website as late as last night. If I didn't hold your hand to get you there you'd still be contesting it was only about vetoing Wonga sponsorship rather than having the power to veto the election and removal of directors elected and deselected from the club board by SMISA members. 

What I would have preferred to have seen was the full legal agreement published for the members to read and consider and it left for them to debate without any of the promotional PR bullshit. 

 

I read the stuff on the SMISA webpage in the “Interim Period section” just could not believe this was the VETO that you and LPM kept referring to. You both had portrayed it as if Kibble could veto everything  associated with the club. We are now on to the Kibble stopping everything as its part of the business club.

Re your earlier message. The Club have already had history of running a failed leisure club. That was the days before Puregym and The Gym.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As everyone can see I asked you a question.

Why in a debate where openness and honesty should be paramount won't you answer?

Do you now say you were wrong in writing that someone's views on SMISA were irrelevant because they weren't a member?

For the record I have no other logins on here, I did previously have Charlie the Charolis but that was last used by my son many years ago.

Let's see if this is answered.
Div wrote the exact same thing and didn't respond to my challenge.

Why are you not directing your question to him too if it is that important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dickson said:

A quantity of financial aid given to a person or an organisation. 

I'd say that was reasonably accurate given that Jim Gillespie at Kibble said at the meeting that he would consider gifting the shares to SMISA in the future for free once the deal is done. Kibble don't value the shares but they are going to pay £300k to get them. It's either a hand out or they have bought goods and services from St Mirren that weren't Gordon Scotts to give away. 

I don't know Gordon Scott as a person and have had no dealings with him on a personal basis. I don't "not like" him. I just think this deal stinks. 

Buying someone’s share is not financial aid its a purchase

 Clutching at straws linking Mr Gillespies throw away comment of possibly gifting the shares back as offering finically aid.

When i watched the coverage i took that comment as a playing to the masses 

Share this post


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

Where LPM lost me was when he went on about Kibble not being local to the community. I think he's gone too far there. The fact is that Kibble might be a national charity but they do a great deal of work in the local area so to me that doesn't come into it. 

However you have accused me of the same thing that you are accusing LPM of here. I have always stated that community partnerships were the way to go. I've been shouting that loudly on every St Mirren outlet for longer than SMISA have existed. What I have never once proposed though is that those charities and community groups should have to pay a fee to the chairman, or to buy shares in the club, in order to make those mutual benefits happen. I have also never suggested that those community groups should have the ability to veto just about everything in the everyday operation of the football club. 

What I would love to see happen is for the SMISA membership to vote down these proposals, but to also send a message to the SMISA committee that despite their rejection of the proposals they would still like to see a partnership between SMISA and the Kibble to find a way to deliver what both sides want without the undue influence on the club board and without the need for the charity to give a £300k hand out to the Aston Martin driving, property developer Chairman of the football club. 

 

The red flag regarding you is that you focus on what IMO are very minor details. Now you can say, that's just the nature of the deal but we both know that is always the way it goes with you regardless of subject. Your mask also slipped with the negativity towards GLS (continuing in this post, the car he drives has nothing to do with him getting his money back at what ultimately would equate to a loss over time), previously you even went to the extent of using negative connotations like "asset stripping" My observation of you is it's more important to disagree on something than it is to look at the benefits of a deal. That's backed up by even you saying this is "exactly" the kind of deal you wanted. 

The Kibble see a benefit in buying a shareholding, down to protecting their investment is my take from the meeting and notes. St Mirren/ SMISA see a benefit in it. What's the problem? From your posts, your issues are two fold. 1. A guy that made the biggest contribute by far to SMFC being fan owned getting his money back early, without a penny profit (don't have a clue why this is an issue) 2. a veto that has observably been blown out of proportion that will only be an issue in the most extreme scenarios or where kibble will vote on ethical grounds. Are you genuinely saying with all you have claimed you have an issue with Kibble voting down a payday loan company as our sponsor or rejecting us changing our strip colour? 

Re your last paragraph. Are these two points really such red lines for you that you would reject a deal "exactly" like you were looking for? A bitterness towards GLS and a veto protecting their investment that presents extremely low risk of hurting the club? Your view is either an attempt to be awkward or petty, there is no other explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where LPM lost me was when he went on about Kibble not being local to the community. I think he's gone too far there. The fact is that Kibble might be a national charity but they do a great deal of work in the local area so to me that doesn't come into it.  However you have accused me of the same thing that you are accusing LPM of here. I have always stated that community partnerships were the way to go. I've been shouting that loudly on every St Mirren outlet for longer than SMISA have existed. What I have never once proposed though is that those charities and community groups should have to pay a fee to the chairman, or to buy shares in the club, in order to make those mutual benefits happen. I have also never suggested that those community groups should have the ability to veto just about everything in the everyday operation of the football club. 

What I would love to see happen is for the SMISA membership to vote down these proposals, but to also send a message to the SMISA committee that despite their rejection of the proposals they would still like to see a partnership between SMISA and the Kibble to find a way to deliver what both sides want without the undue influence on the club board and without the need for the charity to give a £300k hand out to the Aston Martin driving, property developer Chairman of the football club. 

 

 

Again...sigh...I have nothing but respect for the work Kibble do, and who it benefits.

The facts are Smisa and the club are stating all that Kibble will do in this proposal will benefit the local community.

When in fact it will benefit young people, and perhaps their communities across the uk.

For me charity begins at home!

Look at the phenomenal response to the 12 days of xmas food bank appeal.

Local people, followers of the club coming together to benefit their own.

That's what the club and smisa should be targeting not simply shifting responsibility for looking good to Kibble.

Here's what it should look like...

https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/

 

We should be building our own charity, rather than letting one build itself in our nest.

We need to build partnerships that make our club fans and community more resilient. Read through this... we could easily team up with a club charity like this to learn how to build our own.

https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/business/

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...