Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Edit: Hillington is in Glasgow lol

 

Correct, but only a percentage.  80% of the site within Renfrewshire Council's area and 20% in Glasgow City Council's area.

Who gets the veto rights. :whistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LPM, I know the foundation of light really well - as you know. 
The Foundation partners with amongst others the Princes Trust. What part of Sunderland do they come from? 
https://www.foundationoflight.co.uk/careers-training/premier-league-works/
I agree with much of what you are saying. I just think you are barking up the wrong tree with your concern that Kibble aren't just Paisley based. 
Theres a clue in the name "partners" more than happy to have Kibble on board as partners rather than being the board

Share this post


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

To answer the highlighted bit - No. That isn't what I'm saying. I suggest you go back and read what I have been saying again. 

I did, either seems like that or a claim they have more control than has been communicated so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ice-tears said:

Canny wait for melt-down when Astro-turf pitch is put down😀watch this space!

Would that make us as successful as Livvie.   Bring it on.   Not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, me too. I wouldn't have any community partners on the board - but I'd have loads of community partners working with the club. 
 
That is what smisa should be using the influence expertise, contacts and good will of its members to bring to, and help build at the club.
Not let someone take the damn thing over ti suit their ends. How ever well intentioned they are.

Share this post


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

Agreed, me too. I wouldn't have any community partners on the board - but I'd have loads of community partners working with the club. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

That is what smisa should be using the influence expertise, contacts and good will of its members to bring to, and help build at the club.
Not let someone take the damn thing over ti suit their ends. How ever well intentioned they are.

So just to clarify, for both of you. You support BTB in its current format over this proposed change? Even after years and thousands of messages lamenting SMISA, GLS, BTB, often about community involvement and support. That deal you have probably been the two biggest critics of (even to the extent of claiming they were breaching regulations) is still better than this one?

Still better than a deal that very much moves charitable focus and community bond building into the SMFC boardroom... Cool

Share this post


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

No Bazil. Again I would suggest you go and read what has been actually said. 

You don't seem to understand, I'm asking, pretty much if you had a vote?

I'm not asking what your overall preference to fan ownership is, right now there are two options on the table. I'm sure you have also considered which option would potentially guide yo to your ideal scenario and as such weighed that into how you would approach a vote. 

Share this post


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

I think I've been pretty clear Bazil. I would vote to reject the proposal. As it stands the veto and the suspicion and lack of detail on what Kibble plan to do to get their return on investment, for me, makes it an absolute non starter. 

My hope would be that SMISA would then go and talk to Kibble and a way to work together without the need for the veto and without the need for them to spend £300k up front on shares they think are worthless. If agreement couldn't be reached, then I'd hope SMISA would start to engage with the many other community groups where there could be mutually beneficial partnerships. 

So why did you say no the first time I asked? You favour BTB in its current format despite years of attempting to talk it down. 

That might be your next step hopes but it’s far from a possibility that they would do that. The Rolling Stones said it best, you can’t always get what you want. 

Share this post


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

 

 

No matter how much this is played down or justified, there is the potential for some real scary shit in the future.

 

And there isn't for "total" fan ownership?

Every scenario has that potential.

Share this post


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

Oh dear. 

I don't think you and I are going to agree. 

I didn't see eye to eye at all with Stewart Gilmour and the previous board but the one great thing they did for St Mirren was they got the club out of debt, and away from the influence of the Clydesdale Bank. Yet here we see St Mirren supporters like you happy to give away that influence over the running of the club to a third party all over again.

 

Luck and fortunate timing were the greatest asset of SG and the previous board. Some times in business that’s they way it goes.

Remember the reason we are having this debate is down to SG and his consortium selling their shares. They only sold to SMISA via GLS because after 2 years no one was interested in paying them the monies they thought they were due. 

The debt the club were in to the banks is not the same as Kibble buying 27% off the shares. The banks could have liquidated the club, the Kibble can’t, SMISA would veto the vote

Edited by Brilliant Disguise

Share this post


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

The debt the club were in to the banks is not the same as Kibble buying 27% off the shares. The banks could have liquidated the club, the Kibble can’t, SMISA would veto the vote

Indeed.

The comparison between The Kibble and The Clydesdale bank is absolutely ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the proposal, watched the video, asked and had answered my questions and have now voted. I really do like the idea of the link up with Kibble and acknowledge the need for the expertise on offer but I still can't see why the shares are required to achieve the aims and requirements of both the club and Kibble, as a result i've voted no. I'll continue to pay my monthly cash no matter what the result so let's see what the result is on Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2020 at 5:38 PM, stlucifer said:

I'm as concerned about the terms of this proposal as you LPM but, quite frankly, you're talking pish.

Scott paid for his shares to allow SMISA the time to take control. SMISA were/are obliged to pay for them ergo GLS gains nothing extra from this proposal. he just gets some of his cash early.

mmmm - wrong

as previously confirmed GLS shareholding with the Kibble proposal will be well under 1%

under the original deal he would retain 8%

therefore he will be selling over 7% more via the new proposal and to quote div many pages ago "he ain't giving them away"

So yes he will gain from the proposal as apart from getting his cash early (and I have no real issue with that) he also gains by selling more shares

 

Share this post


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

mmmm - wrong

as previously confirmed GLS shareholding with the Kibble proposal will be well under 1%

under the original deal he would retain 8%

therefore he will be selling over 7% more via the new proposal and to quote div many pages ago "he ain't giving them away"

So yes he will gain from the proposal as apart from getting his cash early (and I have no real issue with that) he also gains by selling more shares

 

mmmm Wrong.

GLS could sell those shares at anytime. He wasn't obliged to keep them so he gains nothing from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dickson said:

Aye but the minority shareholding is worthless. So he does gain from this. 

I doubt there are many people out there who are looking to buy an 7.999% shareholding in a fan run football club. Even Jim Gillespie at Kibble says he could be quite willing to gift away their 27% shareholding once the deal is done. 

That depends who wanted them. No one can say definitively that they were worthless. They're worth as much as anyone would be willing to pay. IF SMISA did end up with 71% there is nothing to say A.N. Other wouldn't pay to get the other 7-8% to get past 25% to allow some influence. You might think that unlikely but it doesn't mean it couldn't be the case. I'm not for the Kibble agreement but I'm not playing prophet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there isn't for "total" fan ownership?
Every scenario has that potential.
Of course there is...
But under the original proposal, we, the fans, would have more control over who makes the decisions.

Note... Not over the decisions... but over who is elected to make them.

Fan management is suicidal... Fan ownership is not.

We could still come to agreement with the Kibble and other charities or community groups...

Without seriously reducing our shareholding.

Share this post


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

Did Ken McGeoch ever offload his 10% shareholding? 

Good question. I think he must have done under the BTB deal, as when I asked about the legacy shareholders GLS said that the largest individual was 0.5%.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Of course there is...
 1.....But under the original proposal, we, the fans, would have more control over who makes the decisions.

 2....Note... Not over the decisions... but over who is elected to make them.

 3...Fan management is suicidal... Fan ownership is not.

We could still come to agreement with the Kibble and other charities or community groups...

Without seriously reducing our shareholding.

1... Worrying  aspect.

2... Glad you clarified that.

3...True.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Good question. I think he must have done under the BTB deal, as when I asked about the legacy shareholders GLS said that the largest individual was 0.5%.

 

Smisa paid him off last year along with the other directors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, alwaysabuddy said:

mmmm - wrong

as previously confirmed GLS shareholding with the Kibble proposal will be well under 1%

under the original deal he would retain 8%

therefore he will be selling over 7% more via the new proposal and to quote div many pages ago "he ain't giving them away"

So yes he will gain from the proposal as apart from getting his cash early (and I have no real issue with that) he also gains by selling more shares

 

The "gain" will be significantly less than what he could have gained by not getting involved with BTB at all. Investing that cash or simply leaving it gathering interest (granted low rates) would easily have returned more than what he gets for the 8%

For me, posters focusing on that is similar to LPM focusing on the work Kibble do outside Renfrewshire, it's irrelevant to the debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against my better judgement, I reached out to SMISA to confirm further what I already knew. As we have seen with MANY other subjects, it would seem the usual suspects have indeed blown up a scenario to meet a negative agenda. Given their (to date incorrect) feelings towards the initial BTB proposal, is it any surprise? 

Response below:

Although not a frequent visitor to the forum I have seen a little of the chat about the so-called "veto". I would agree with you that it is mostly semantics, based on the use of words and phrases like "veto" and "all major decisions" in written and spoken discussions, and some people's view of what these might mean.

Neither of these actually appear in the proposed legal agreement.

For "veto" the relevant term is "mutual agreement"; and this only applies to matters specifically listed in the agreement, e.g. the items listed in your extract, that require mutual approval of the three/two major shareholders. And these are mostly the same items which currently require SMiSA's mutual approval in our agreement with Gordon Scott.

"all major decisions" is simply an umbrella term for all of the above.

Other than those specifics items,  there are the usual business matters of any Limited Company which are classed as Reserved Shareholder Matters in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Acts. These simply require a majority vote of all shareholders, with no special  "veto".

And finally it might be worth mentioning that again, as with all Limited Companies, if any shareholder(s) feels that a board decision is the wrong decision, a resolution to vote on it at a members' meeting can be called for; and who are the largest shareholders - SMiSA  of course with their 51%.

Hope this helps,

Regards

The SMiSA Committee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Against my better judgement, I reached out to SMISA to confirm further what I already knew. As we have seen with MANY other subjects, it would seem the usual suspects have indeed blown up a scenario to meet a negative agenda. Given their (to date incorrect) feelings towards the initial BTB proposal, is it any surprise? 
Response below:
Although not a frequent visitor to the forum I have seen a little of the chat about the so-called "veto". I would agree with you that it is mostly semantics, based on the use of words and phrases like "veto" and "all major decisions" in written and spoken discussions, and some people's view of what these might mean.
Neither of these actually appear in the proposed legal agreement.
For "veto" the relevant term is "mutual agreement"; and this only applies to matters specifically listed in the agreement, e.g. the items listed in your extract, that require mutual approval of the three/two major shareholders. And these are mostly the same items which currently require SMiSA's mutual approval in our agreement with Gordon Scott.
"all major decisions" is simply an umbrella term for all of the above.
Other than those specifics items,  there are the usual business matters of any Limited Company which are classed as Reserved Shareholder Matters in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Acts. These simply require a majority vote of all shareholders, with no special  "veto".
And finally it might be worth mentioning that again, as with all Limited Companies, if any shareholder(s) feels that a board decision is the wrong decision, a resolution to vote on it at a members' meeting can be called for; and who are the largest shareholders - SMiSA  of course with their 51%.
Hope this helps,
Regards
The SMiSA Committee

That actually opens the barn door wider as the 'veto' as confirmed by smisa isnt restricted in the agreement to a limited/specific set of events.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...