Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

How on earth do you accidentally forget that you work for Kibble during a decision to award Kibble funding?
 
I never said accidentally or forget, I said he was found guilty of making a mistake.

One error of judgement, especially one that he admitted to when pointed out, does not mean that he is an "unfit" person in the way that a certain poster was trying to insinuate. He may be an "unfit" person due to something else, I don't know, but not because of this. It's not as if he is not declaring that he works for Kibble in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I don't think he worked for Kibble Works. Maybe he believed that with Kibble and Kibble Works being two separate legal entities that he didn't need to declare. He was wrong, he was found guilty, end of story. If he had been found guilty of lying or deliberately hiding the fact for some dodgy reason then that would be different.

 

Share this post


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

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.

I seem to remember that SMiSA members were asked about their skillset and willingness to be up for election for the St Mirren Board. Response was very poor hence I suspect this led to the current SMiSA Committee stating 'We have a partnership with someone who can be a vehicle to make the Club bigger and better than what it can be if it is just us on our own'.

Does the SMiSA fanbase have enough people with a skillset to run a business with a multi-million turnover and are willing to do it for nothing? I do not know but it does not look like it has based on the numbers volunteering at the last election and the poor response to voting and attending meetings by SMiSA members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
49 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
My point that it stemmed from was perfectly clear. You just felt the need to continue into a different conversation. 

Nope. I think you better look back. You're just trying to twist things to make you "right".

Not a matter of right or wrong. My opinion, your opinion. 

Share this post


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

I don't think he worked for Kibble Works. Maybe he believed that with Kibble and Kibble Works being two separate legal entities that he didn't need to declare. He was wrong, he was found guilty, end of story. If he had been found guilty of lying or deliberately hiding the fact for some dodgy reason then that would be different.

 

Can you understand that people might read this and think about corruption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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.


I was quoting what the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life had said at the hearing in that the proposal was for the funding and a separate paper mentioned the Kibble as the contractor.

He self reported himself immediately after the meeting when he found out about the conflict of interests.

That is why he was suspended for 1 meeting of the committee, as it was a mistake acknowledged by the panel in its mitigation for the lenient punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:
2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:
That's plenty of time for LPM to make a rip-roaring c**t of himself a few times more.

There... that's your contribution right there. You offer nothing but continue to serve it up ad nauseam.

My god you got a cheek, you have already taken ad nauseam. to totally new levels. Pot......kettle methinks. 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you understand that people might read this and think about corruption?
I can understand that they might do so if they weren't aware that it had been investigated and what the outcome was. Since that information has been provided, I don't think any reasonable person should. It's all just part of LPM's "vendetta", in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seem to remember that SMiSA members were asked about their skillset and willingness to be up for election for the St Mirren Board. Response was very poor hence I suspect this led to the current SMiSA Committee stating 'We have a partnership with someone who can be a vehicle to make the Club bigger and better than what it can be if it is just us on our own'.
Does the SMiSA fanbase have enough people with a skillset to run a business with a multi-million turnover and are willing to do it for nothing? I do not know but it does not look like it has based on the numbers volunteering at the last election and the poor response to voting and attending meetings by SMiSA members.


This is why I’ve voted in favour. I get the impression there is an apathy among the SMISA membership to get involved and make a direct contribution. If it got to 2026 and we were looking for folk to step up then I think it would be the same story. This way we get control but aren’t reliant entirely on SMISA to drive commercial streams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes 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. 

If that is your rational then it's bonkers. Seriously did you read what you wrote? 

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. 

You are voting to reduce that shareholding to 51%. 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. 

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. 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. 

 

Edited by Dickson

Share this post


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

I don't think he worked for Kibble Works. Maybe he believed that with Kibble and Kibble Works being two separate legal entities that he didn't need to declare. He was wrong, he was found guilty, end of story. If he had been found guilty of lying or deliberately hiding the fact for some dodgy reason then that would be different.

 

is this not pertinent

Quote

Renfrewshire SNP Council Group called a Special Council Meeting of Renfrewshire Council to discuss the issue of the funding deal which saw the current Labour leader of Renfrewshire Council actively back the council handing over £25,000 to his employers – the Kibble organisation based in Paisley.  However, the council leader, Councillor Mark McMillan, declared a non-financial interest and moved Labour’s amendment.  Despite being in the best position to answer all the questions, Cllr McMillan refused as did his Labour colleagues

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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:

 

 

How much beer are we talking g about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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!

After all GLS stated at the AGM that the supporters/SMiSA could not be trusted to choose a strip from a set of designs.

As long as those pesky supporters keep supporting our £2 discretionary spends...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:
2 hours ago, bazil85 said:
Not a matter of right or wrong. My opinion, your opinion. 

I pointed out why your opinion was wrong but you just don't seem to accept it. Get over yourself, FFS.

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 

Share this post


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

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

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. 

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.

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.
I can only quote from the official papers rather than press reports.

Where he after notifying the relevant persons after the meeting also acknowledged in a forthright manner his failures at the following full council meeting and in the following correspondence with the investigating officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can only quote from the official papers rather than press reports.

Where he after notifying the relevant persons after the meeting also acknowledged in a forthright manner his failures at the following full council meeting and in the following correspondence with the investigating officials.
So he did answer the questions & the press report is not correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
I'm getting Bonnie Langford from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stlucifer said:

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.

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. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...