Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

Still can't count to one, wee scrote.

I elaborated it on it being a yes. Someone demanding a yes and no answer doesn’t mean they get one. Must have been a very spoiled upbringing if you think you can demand such things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:


Yes.

I don't even trust myself with my online passwords. emoji38.png

I was replying to various posts. Your post didn't have to have anything to do with the others. Just like I'm doing here. It was perfectly clear.

Besides that, I won't take lessons on how to reply from someone who does it by copying and pasting.

It's "overly" not "overlay" - just trying to be helpful.
That's plenty of time for LPM to make a rip-roaring c**t of himself a few times more.

Feels like you were needlessly going off on a tangent to me from the rest of the content. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another one that doesn’t give voting members credit to make their own decisions and that is completely incapable of understanding the benefits in people close to the deal making recommendations. 
Funnily enough, a friend phoned me last night.

He was encouraging everyone to vote.

I mentioned the veto.

He called to ask "what veto".

Most voters will have followed party policy when voting.

You know that but still insist on being a cantankerous yes man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Pity the people making the recommendations haven't explored the membership skillsets before throwing in the towel & recommending Kibble to become a major shareholder. 
It's quite a different question to "who wants to be on the SMISA committee"
 
No exploration of 'what next' amongst the membership.
 
 
Dafty.. what the hell skills would 1,200 combined members have?

Tube!

You know fine well we can't be trusted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Pity the people making the recommendations haven't explored the membership skillsets before throwing in the towel & recommending Kibble to become a major shareholder.

It's quite a different question to "who wants to be on the SMISA committee"

No exploration of 'what next' amongst the membership.

I am 100% sure there would still be moaning from the select through regardless of how the panned out. However the ‘exploration’ of a very successful charity to the extent our futures are correlated doesn’t seem a bad thing to me or many. 

Share this post


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

Still can't count to one, wee scrote.

I called you out, you’re raging, all else has failed so it’s the insults. Ouch 

3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Funnily enough, a friend phoned me last night.

He was encouraging everyone to vote.

I mentioned the veto.

He called to ask "what veto".

Most voters will have followed party policy when voting.

You know that but still insist on being a cantankerous yes man!

All details are available to your friend. The veto has been blown up on here way out of proportion. It’s already been pointed out that it’s aligned to 25%+ shareholding

your friend not being aware of that when they voted, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As I have said before, many supporting this proposal have earned good faith given the success of BTB to date. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
33 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:
Pity the people making the recommendations haven't explored the membership skillsets before throwing in the towel & recommending Kibble to become a major shareholder. 
It's quite a different question to "who wants to be on the SMISA committee"
 
No exploration of 'what next' amongst the membership.
 
 

The members have had 4 years to come forward and declare an interest, if my memory is correct a total of 3 persons have came forward.

I agree in part, there has been 4 years for members to show an interest but, as I said, "who wants to be on the SMISA committee" is a very different question to exploring 'what next' for when the buds is bought.

There has been no exploration of the skillset of the membership to identify if the required skills are available and there would be members willing to utilise their skills and come on board.

After the Buds were going to be bought, under the original plan, SMISA representation on the club board would be very different to what it is now. It's been said on here many times, right now, as the majority shareholder, what GLS wants, GLS gets (or just about. Maybe he gives some concessions). That doesn't enthuse people to get involved.

SMISA owning 71% of the club and having greater representation on the BOD would, most likely encourage members to become more involved. Instead, this partnership with Kibble, is in effect, us throwing the towel in for others to run The Club.

Share this post


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

Hi

Dafty.. what the hell skills would 1,200 combined members have?

Tube!

You know fine well we can't be trusted!

If the exchanges on here are representative of 1200 members, then f**king right they can't be trusted to run a football club IMO.

Share this post


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

 

There has been no exploration of the skillset of the membership to identify if the required skills are available and there would be members willing to utilise their skills and come on board.

Actually, there has.

I remember e-mailing SMISA when they were looking to see what could be offered.

After a few e-mails back and forth, it all went quiet.

Probably proves, other than an ability to drink a lot of beer,  I've got eff all skills worth mentioning.:lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All details are available to your friend. The veto has been blown up on here way out of proportion. It’s already been pointed out that it’s aligned to 25%+ shareholding
your friend not being aware of that when they voted, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As I have said before, many supporting this proposal have earned good faith given the success of BTB to date. 
twattery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There... that's your contribution right there. You offer nothing but continue to serve it up ad nauseam.
I'll add more when you answer the questions I asked you about the assertions you made. In other words, I probably won't be adding any more since you probably won't answer the questions. I know why you don't answer, it's because you don't have valid answers as you were just spouting pish. Having opinions is fine, asserting them as fact without supplying any evidence isn't.

You spout pish and then have the audacity to claim that I add nothing. You come across as a very small man with a very big, yet unfounded, opinion of yourself. You know, the sort of person that, when they arrive at a party, everyone says "Oh, shit!". Maybe you're not like that in the real world, maybe you are, I don't know. All I have to go on is your incessant ramblings on here.

Anyway, fancy answering the questions now? No? Didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There... that's your contribution right there. You offer nothing but continue to serve it up ad nauseam.
If you remember you said to someone previously that because they weren't a member of SMISA their contribution to a discussion about SMISA was irrelevant. Do you agree with your previous comments?

Share this post


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

Funnily enough, a friend phoned me last night.

He was encouraging everyone to vote.

I mentioned the veto.

He called to ask "what veto".

Most voters will have followed party policy when voting.

You know that but still insist on being a cantankerous yes man!

Seems to be  a lot of canvassing going on 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Actually, there has.

I remember e-mailing SMISA when they were looking to see what could be offered.

After a few e-mails back and forth, it all went quiet.

Probably proves, other than an ability to drink a lot of beer,  I've got eff all skills worth mentioning.:lol:

I remember that too. It may have been in the form of a questionnaire. 

As I remember it though they were looking for specific professional qualifications and skills rather than interests and hobbies and skills. I totally understand why they went that way, but if I were an accountant or a solicitor - whilst I might be happy to read something through for them, or check something and offer advice for free, I don't think I'd be keen to extend my working week for no pay all the time for them. 

I thought what Stewart Donald at Sunderland did was interesting when he first took over there are chairman. The majority of fans were embarrassed about the seats in their stadium. The weather had battered them and seats that were once red were now pink. He told the fans that he'd buy the seats and if they'd come in and install them he would feed them. Within 9 days 10,000 new seats had been installed and after 3 months 32,000 seats had been changed over. They weren't looking for skilled tradesmen to do the job - just football fans that they could supervise using a screwdriver. 

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/11540607/sunderland-replace-32000-seats

Edited by Dickson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
Feels like you were needlessly going off on a tangent to me from the rest of the content. 

As I said, it was perfectly clear.

My point that it stemmed from was perfectly clear. You just felt the need to continue into a different conversation. 

Share this post


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


You're really not very good at this, are you?

He was found guilty of an "oversight", i.e. a mistake, not deliberately doing anything.


Fact what? Evidence what?

I presume due to the fact that I do not know if they will even have any legal fees for it.Only to you.

How on earth do you accidentally forget that you work for Kibble during a decision to award Kibble funding?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

The agenda for the meeting didn't refer to the involvement of Kibbleworks in the proposal. emoji106.png

The meeting where this occurred

Quote

Councillor McMillan not only failed to declare an interest in a debate on his employer receiving a council contract, but he actually took part in the debate – declaring that, “I am happy to support this project”.

Pretty sure his employer (Kibble) must have been mentioned at some stage before his declaration of being happy to support or are you suggesting a council committee had no idea who or what they were approving funding for. If that was the case, wouldn't that be negligent.

Edited by Kombibuddie

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...