Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
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.

No it doesn't, as with practically everything you've spouted about BTB over the last close to four years, it shows it's down to a negative agenda against GLS/ SMISA. 

Was apprehensive about pandering to your bias take but glad I did now. Good to have it in black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All smisa, smfc and Kibble's public hand wringing regarding their veto, highlights perfectly why there is no good reason that benefits smfc, or smisa to let them take over the club boardroom.
All the stakeholders have contradicted themselves regarding the veto, explaining how it's both important, and in the same breath, unlikely to be used in anger.
Smisa & Scott are panicking they've overcooked this in Kibble's favour and are desperately back tracking.
Kibble meanwhile are having a ball and even suggesting they dont really need the shares now they are getting control of the board.
What a clusterf**k!

On a different note... has anyone been given ONE tangible/measurable example of by how much new income will be added to the club?
Just one?
Kibble can see the pound signs lighting up for them though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last full day of "campaigning" is the LPM helicopter ready to rush him to soapboxes in all 4 corners of Renfrewshire, maybe plackards outside the Kibble HQ ? 

Roll on tomorrow night / Saturday and this finally gets put to bed one way or the other.

Share this post


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

All smisa, smfc and Kibble's public hand wringing regarding their veto, highlights perfectly why there is no good reason that benefits smfc, or smisa to let them take over the club boardroom.

They aren't taken over the club boardroom, you've been called out on this lie many times and my recently shared email further confirms you are wrong. 
All the stakeholders have contradicted themselves regarding the veto, explaining how it's both important, and in the same breath, unlikely to be used in anger.

Important like insurance is important but more often than not, never used. Unlikely to be used in anger because why would they? 
Smisa & Scott are panicking they've overcooked this in Kibble's favour and are desperately back tracking.

No one is observably panicking. half a dozen people going mental against this proposal doesn't show anyone is panicking. You've made several similar claims throughout the life of BTB and you to date have been completely wrong. I know it hurts to watch someone you hate succeed at the football club you support but is lying and mud slinging the only way you can handle BTB success? 
Kibble meanwhile are having a ball and even suggesting they dont really need the shares now they are getting control of the board.
What a clusterf**k!

Again, they're not getting control of the board, you've been proven wrong and can't accept it. 

On a different note... has anyone been given ONE tangible/measurable example of by how much new income will be added to the club?
Just one?

An actual fair point, shock horror. Something that will likely be further broken down during the transition period if the deal concludes. 
Kibble can see the pound signs lighting up for them though...

You have made claims Kibble will be taken money out of SMFC pockets, it's completely unfounded. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last full day of "campaigning" is the LPM helicopter ready to rush him to soapboxes in all 4 corners of Renfrewshire, maybe plackards outside the Kibble HQ ? 
Roll on tomorrow night / Saturday and this finally gets put to bed one way or the other.
"Soap boxes in all four corners of Renfrewshire"?
Nah... just the three where they use soap.
Interesting last line though... if the proposal is passed I agree that would be that, at least until it unwinds.
On the other hand if the vote is for the status quo, do you really think, Scott, Smisa and their Kibble mates will just accept that?
Remember they have had this in the planning for at least a year, and as Scott frequently says he doesn't rate fans having a say.
If it's no, it'll be like Boris refusing to honour his promise to 'die in a ditch' a over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

On a different note... has anyone been given ONE tangible/measurable example of by how much new income will be added to the club?
Just one?
 

Can you give one where there won't. 

Share this post


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

Roll on tomorrow night / Saturday and this finally gets put to bed one way or the other.

Doubt we'll hear the end of it.

Edited by pod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
14 minutes ago, pod said:
Can you give one where there won't. 

Not much of a marketing strategy that.

Your asking questions in the wrong place and of the wrong people. 

Share this post


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

Doubt we'll hear the end of it.

Yep, if the original proposal is anything to go by this ain't going away. I pointed out the irony that the biggest critics of the Kibble deal were the biggest critics of the current BTB deal which they now seem to fully support... Almost like something else is driving their opposition to this proposal, can't think what. :whistle

Also strange there has been no admittance that they have been wrong about the original BTB proposal as well all this time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Well I for one wont have much to do with any debate if the vote is passed?
I'll leave KFC to the nuggets! Lol

So long as we have a team, will you carry on supporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
13 minutes ago, pod said:
Your asking questions in the wrong place and of the wrong people. 

No... I am asking questions of the right people, in the right place, maybe though in the wrong order..?

Then they obviously aren't listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So long as we have a team, will you carry on supporting.
To be honest, if the vote passes, and we become KFC paisley then I'll just pick and choose the odd away game/play off/cup semi or final. (Obviously sparse on the last two)
I would have no inkling to fund Kibble FC directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Well I for one wont have much to do with any debate if the vote is passed?
I'll leave KFC to the nuggets! Lol

Well worth a bookmark this... I suppose the interpretation of "much" will likely mean just the 10 new threads a week on the subject, if the original proposal is anything to go by. 

Share this post


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

All smisa, smfc and Kibble's public hand wringing regarding their veto, highlights perfectly why there is no good reason that benefits smfc, or smisa to let them take over the club boardroom.
All the stakeholders have contradicted themselves regarding the veto, explaining how it's both important, and in the same breath, unlikely to be used in anger.
Smisa & Scott are panicking they've overcooked this in Kibble's favour and are desperately back tracking.
Kibble meanwhile are having a ball and even suggesting they dont really need the shares now they are getting control of the board.
What a clusterf**k!

On a different note... has anyone been given ONE tangible/measurable example of by how much new income will be added to the club?
Just one?
Kibble can see the pound signs lighting up for them though...

Its like an Advent Calendar of smear. Today window opened Lets roll out the “added income to the club”.

If the vote is yes and GLS is gone who is the next target for your malevolence.

Heard a rumour that Kibble are to appoint a Richard A to the board. Now that would be funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its like an Advent Calendar of smear. Today window opened Lets roll out the “added income to the club”.
If the vote is yes and GLS is gone who is the next target for your malevolence.
Heard a rumour that Kibble are to appoint a Richard A to the board. Now that would be funny
Have you passed the smear test?

Share this post


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

 

 

Enough said.

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.

Slarti, I think the above is where that part came from...……...again I am not crying foul but I am always concerned (because of my professional life) that things are covered properly. I haven't, and I have looked (although it could be sitting somewhere obvious and I've missed it), seen the proposed legal agreement and I think GLS/SMiSA/Kibble have been a bit loose in the way they have talked about Veto's and Major Decisions from both the sales pitch and at the meeting. I'm not in anyway accusing anyone of anything underhand I just think the whole thing could have been handled better, the fact that they are pushing "their agenda" will always make some look with a suspicious eye.

Share this post


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

WTF are you talking about now? 

1. Whereas some have fair concerns and have been balanced in debate, there is a clear vendetta behind some contributors opposition to the deal. I've covered yours already. 

2. Contributors that have been wrong about BTB in it's current form and are now campaigning for the status quo. I'd expect an admittance from them that they were wrong to form part of their argument to stick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the veto only applies to the specific items listed and not "all major decisions" as was stated before, that still means Kibble would be able to veto the clubs business plan, club sponsors and the selection or deselection of any directors as voted by the SMiSA membership. All of the scenarios talked about on here would be areas of enhanced powers over the regulatory protection given to a 25%+ shareholder. 
And for what is this power being given away? 
 
Smisa & Smfc have got themselves in a real clusterf**k over giving away this veto over club decisions to a outside charity.
Especially when that charity are acting like they've got two cocks saying they really dont need the shares once they are in!

Share this post


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

Erm I've stated i have always backed fan ownership and made it clear I've joined SMiSA twice on the back of their original proposal. I am certainly not campaigning for money that was supposed to be in an asset lock for community benefit to be spent on players wages, first team footballs, or any of the other nonsense items that SMISA brought forward that clearly only benefited the Ltd Companies bank account. 

Hope that provides some clarity

Pretty irrelevant I would say. 

Share this post


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

Even if the veto only applies to the specific items listed and not "all major decisions" as was stated before, that still means Kibble would be able to veto the clubs business plan, club sponsors and the selection or deselection of any directors as voted by the SMiSA membership. All of the scenarios talked about on here would be areas of enhanced powers over the regulatory protection given to a 25%+ shareholder. 

And for what is this power being given away? 

 

I never thought for a second the email I received would put this issue to bed. But I also don't think for a second the Kibble will veto a football club business plan, deselect voted directors or realistically stop any major sponsor bar the very extreme example given.

I don't genuinely think you do either. Need for the negative as I have said many times. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...