Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Bud the Baker said:

Here's a quote from scoop1987/GLS shutup.gif back in 2011 when "The Consortium" froze him out of their deal to sell the club, it's pretty clear he's always had one eye on getting his money back, not that I blame him, however LPM is correct that when the dust settles the only people who will have put money into the club (net) are the fans.

 

Do you think lost income through investment and interest shouldn't be factored in to his investment in the club? For me this is a curious (and a wee bit selfish) point that some fans bring up. What's the expectation, that he puts in money on top of the lump sum that's allowed us to buy the club? If so, would we grudge him taking a profit out the club like many other football chairman in the world?

GLS has done a fantastic and (financially) self-less thing for our football club, people should not lose sight of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Do you think lost income through investment and interest shouldn't be factored in to his investment in the club? For me this is a curious (and a wee bit selfish) point that some fans bring up. What's the expectation, that he puts in money on top of the lump sum that's allowed us to buy the club? If so, would we grudge him taking a profit out the club like many other football chairman in the world?

GLS has done a fantastic and (financially) self-less thing for our football club, people should not lose sight of that. 

Had SMISA bought the 50 odd % from the consortium then GLS shares were worthless. Id say its not entirely self less what he's done. More protecting his initial Investment. 

Not getting into a debate over the rights or wrongs of that. Just saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

71%

 

GLS was keeping 8% back in the original proposal. Something which I questioned at the time. Now looks like his 8% is on the table for kibble. 

I believe it was his intention all along to get his original “investment” back.

Share this post


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

The point is a couple of posters have suggested that Scott might need £300k now. If so then the only body he should be selling to, and who could pay for it if the membership agree is Smisa.
Why sell over a quarter of the club you vowed would be fan owned to another business?
The reasons given dont make sense. Kibble could achieve all the aims it states in the proposal and save itself £300k in the process.

 

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, that's irrelevant to my point.

 

Maybe Kibble could achieve all their aims without buying shares but maybe there is a benefit for them to do so - I would assume that there is, or they wouldn't be doing it.  That, though, does not necessarily mean that the benefit to them would be detrimental to SMFC, it could also be beneficial or neutral to SMFC.

 

As I have said from the start of this, there are questions that need to be asked and, depending on the answers, an informed decision can be taken by those voting.

 

Claiming things, one way or the other, without getting answers to the relevant questions first is just scaremongering or "fanboying", depending on your stance.

Share this post


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

Had SMISA bought the 50 odd % from the consortium then GLS shares were worthless. Id say its not entirely self less what he's done. More protecting his initial Investment. 

Not getting into a debate over the rights or wrongs of that. Just saying. 

Selfless in a purely financial sense, as in return on his financial investment. I’m sure there are other reasons for him doing it but I still think it’s pretty poor people coining this as he isn’t losing any money/ investing in the club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bazil85 said:

Selfless in a purely financial sense, as in return on his financial investment. I’m sure there are other reasons for him doing it but I still think it’s pretty poor people coining this as he isn’t losing any money/ investing in the club. 

It's not self less financially though. As by going through with BtB he got back his outlay for the original shares which he may never have got back otherwise. Shrewd probably, selfless I wouldn't say so. 

Share this post


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

The SMISA proposal also states that there would be a new legal agreement drawn up if Kibble buy the shares. 

And I wonder who will be expected to foot the bill for that.....

Share this post


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

GLS doesn't own 71% of the shares to be able to sell them.

True. What i meant was the SMISA shareholding at the end of the buying process was supposed to be 71%. If this proposal goes through it would be 51%. 

 

Share this post


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

It's not self less financially though. As by going through with BtB he got back his outlay for the original shares which he may never have got back otherwise. Shrewd probably, selfless I wouldn't say so. 

I don’t think that negates the (speculative) lost income, not even close TBH. financially speaking he would have made more on his chunk of money by not doing this deal. putting the money in a bank account/ investing, especially given his business history, would return more money to him than what he’s done to support buying SMFC for the fans. We are talking a very big chunk of money not making any money for a pretty long period of time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t think that negates the (speculative) lost income, not even close TBH. financially speaking he would have made more on his chunk of money by not doing this deal. putting the money in a bank account/ investing, especially given his business history, would return more money to him than what he’s done to support buying SMFC for the fans. We are talking a very big chunk of money not making any money for a pretty long period of time. 
Just like the smisa membership then..?
Oh sorry they don't get and don't want their money back, and they are putting in hundreds of thousands more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



 
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, that's irrelevant to my point.
 
Maybe Kibble could achieve all their aims without buying shares but maybe there is a benefit for them to do so - I would assume that there is, or they wouldn't be doing it.  That, though, does not necessarily mean that the benefit to them would be detrimental to SMFC, it could also be beneficial or neutral to SMFC.
 
As I have said from the start of this, there are questions that need to be asked and, depending on the answers, an informed decision can be taken by those voting.
 
Claiming things, one way or the other, without getting answers to the relevant questions first is just scaremongering or "fanboying", depending on your stance.


If you are referring to me? I'd be interested to see what these errant claims are?

Share this post


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

So a change to the whole offer to the membership of SMISA is an "ordinary resolution"? 

That doesn't seem constitutional to me. 

Without a doubt this proposal is is an extraordinary one that requires a 75% Majority vote to pass.

I’m sure all the relevant parties know this, but are hoping that no one speaks out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Do you think lost income through investment and interest shouldn't be factored in to his investment in the club? For me this is a curious (and a wee bit selfish) point that some fans bring up. What's the expectation, that he puts in money on top of the lump sum that's allowed us to buy the club? If so, would we grudge him taking a profit out the club like many other football chairman in the world?

GLS has done a fantastic and (financially) self-less thing for our football club, people should not lose sight of that. 

Just pointing out that he's been looking to get his money back for over 10 years now and whinged about being cut out of a previous deal under an alias on this Forum. Since 2016 he's had the privilege & associated perks of running the club for no net cost (which I already mentioned :rolleyes:) - factor that in and I don't think he's owed anything other than thanks. I've said earlier that IMO selling 27.5% to Kibble is an improvement on the current deal for the ordinary fan & let's face it our Chairman too but he is the one driving the deal to complete fan ownership 5 years earlier than previously planned so I'm not going to be forced into misplaced admiration of GLS.

Edited by Bud the Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jaybee said:

OK, I can see why so many people are ranting and raving: however, how sure are you of the legally binding agreement? because if that is ironclad then the choice of whether Kibble comes in or not would appear to be down to SMISA.  

I do wonder exactly WHY Kibble want to buy shares without it giving them any measure of control.........seems odd, unless of course (as someone said) it prevents the 75% required to validate major changes of policy, although I can;'t for the life of me see where the benefit to them is.

The thing the winds me up is the level of abuse GS gets (in general) but specifically re the SMISA deal, I have never met the man; but given he stepped in when others didn't, to me it gives him a certain amount of latitude simply for that reason alone, and I think he is doing what he thinks is best for the club (which at this moment is still HIS club.

From the SMISA website

1730421631_Annotation2020-02-03142320.thumb.png.8674ed8110df65dbd0dcc67bce5fb13f.png

Jaybee, I think you need to look a bit beyond being grateful to various rich individuals who have stepped up at times to get control of the club - and start looking to what is in the clubs best interests. I wish everyone would.

I don't know Gordon Scott and what I'm posting isn't personal. I'm just deeply suspicious as to why the trustees of Kibble would be handing over - if LPM is correct - £300,000 of charity funds to buy shares in a football club. Shares that are never likely to increase in value, and never likely to pay a dividend. If it's to get use of facilities - then I'm sure they could be rented out without the need for the large outlay. So my suspicion is that they have been sold, or granted access to something that would directly impact on the potential revenues the club could make, and it all seems to be being done so Gordon Scott can get his cash a bit quicker - whilst remaining Chairman. 

It may be perfectly innocuous and there may be a great reason why Kibble Trustees and the SMISA Committee believe it to be a good deal - but, as someone who resigned my membership because SMISA weren't willing to stick to their initial pledge to benefit local community groups - I'd love for someone to get some clarity on what is in it for Kibble at the meeting on Thursday. 

Share this post


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

Just like the smisa membership then..?
Oh sorry they don't get and don't want their money back, and they are putting in hundreds of thousands more!

Yep all in the same boat and we all do it for the love of our football club. The return, just like buying a football ticket is on the park & how we move the club forward. 
 

people making out SMISA members are taking a hit & GLS isn’t are ignoring the money he could make from that lump sum & it’s far more than anyone could make from £25 a month. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Just pointing out that he's been looking to get his money back for over 10 years now and whinged about it being cut out of a previous deal under an alias on this Forum. Since 2016 he's had the privilege & associated perks of running the club for no net cost (which I already mentioned :rolleyes:) - factor that in and I don't think he's owed anything other than thanks. I've said earlier that IMO selling 27.5% to Kibble is an improvement on the current deal for the ordinary fan & more relevantly our Chairman too since he is the one driving the deal to complete fan ownership 5 years earlier than previously planned so I'm not going to be forced into misplaced admiration of GLS.

Good thing he isn’t wanting anything other than a thanks then isn’t it? Would be well within his right to propose a deal that would see a return for that size of investment, as would anyone else.
He hasn’t, he’s stumped up out of his love for the club. What a guy 👍

Share this post


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

75% of all members IMO would just be putting in barriers to change. It’s been shown that there’s a pool of members that just want to pay their money & don’t really Want to engage on voting. 

What a hypocrite you are.

You were all for 66% of the vote for the £2 Pot Spend Proposal to be successful.

At last years SMISA AGM, my proposal put to the SMISA membership required (under SMISA' rules) two thirds of the vote for the "Save the Pot" option to get added to all votes. On the day, of those that voted, it got about 30%. There were about 70% of the vote against it.

Basil, will no doubt trip over himself to remind us that, of the total membership, only about 1% voted for it. However, there was only 2% of the vote voted against it.

That proposal was insignificant in comparison to the proposal of selling 27% of St Mirren shares to Kibble for which, the SMISA membership is being asked to vote on and sanction the breaking of the current agreement.

SMISA must be consistent in their application of their rules.

SMISA has a responsibility to adhere to their own rules and that is two thirds of the vote for any proposal to be passed.

 

 

Edited by Kombibuddie
Figures correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a hypocrite you are.
You were all for 75% of the vote for the £2 Pot Spend Proposal to be successful.
At last years SMISA AGM, my proposal put to the SMISA membership required (under SMISA' rules) 75% of the vote for the "Save the Pot" option to get added to all votes. On the day, of those that voted, it got about 30%. There were about 70% of the vote against it.
Basil, will no doubt trip over himself to remind us that, of the total membership, only about 1% voted for it. However, there was only 2% of the vote voted against it.
That proposal was insignificant in comparison to the proposal of selling 27% of St Mirren shares to Kibble for which, the SMISA membership is being asked to vote on and sanction the breaking of the current agreement.
SMISA must be consistent in their application of their rules.
SMISA has a responsibility to adhere to their own rules and that is 75% of the vote for any proposal to be passed.
Careful... he only like his versions of democracy, and rule adherence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I AM being a bit dim here.......................BUT what doe sit matter re SMISA rules and regs, if GS decides to sell shares to Kibble, how does SMISA rules have any relevance, or am I REALLy being dim?
GS currently has an agreement to sell his shares to SMISA.
If he wants to sell them to Kibble he has to agree this with SMISA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Pityme said:
2 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:
What a hypocrite you are.
You were all for 75% of the vote for the £2 Pot Spend Proposal to be successful.
At last years SMISA AGM, my proposal put to the SMISA membership required (under SMISA' rules) 75% of the vote for the "Save the Pot" option to get added to all votes. On the day, of those that voted, it got about 30%. There were about 70% of the vote against it.
Basil, will no doubt trip over himself to remind us that, of the total membership, only about 1% voted for it. However, there was only 2% of the vote voted against it.
That proposal was insignificant in comparison to the proposal of selling 27% of St Mirren shares to Kibble for which, the SMISA membership is being asked to vote on and sanction the breaking of the current agreement.
SMISA must be consistent in their application of their rules.
SMISA has a responsibility to adhere to their own rules and that is 75% of the vote for any proposal to be passed.

Careful... he only like his versions of democracy, and rule adherence.

I know.

Unfortunately, this meeting they're having, not enough notice for me to attend. Do you want to attend as my Proxy?

Share this post


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

What a hypocrite you are.

You were all for 75% of the vote for the £2 Pot Spend Proposal to be successful.

At last years SMISA AGM, my proposal put to the SMISA membership required (under SMISA' rules) 75% of the vote for the "Save the Pot" option to get added to all votes. On the day, of those that voted, it got about 30%. There were about 70% of the vote against it.

Basil, will no doubt trip over himself to remind us that, of the total membership, only about 1% voted for it. However, there was only 2% of the vote voted against it.

That proposal was insignificant in comparison to the proposal of selling 27% of St Mirren shares to Kibble for which, the SMISA membership is being asked to vote on and sanction the breaking of the current agreement.

SMISA must be consistent in their application of their rules.

SMISA has a responsibility to adhere to their own rules and that is 75% of the vote for any proposal to be passed.

You’ve almost answered your first point for me. First I don’t remember it overlay coming up as a blocker but if it was proposed as 50% for that arrangement I would have supported it. Personally a majority is always my preference.
however in saying that, I do see the difference, (as you’ve pretty much said) your proposal was something that very much could sneak under the radar because there was very little interest in it (as proven with the turnout) this is something much more on the agenda, smack dab with members. Horses for courses a wee bit but I can see both sides. 

I would never have supported 75% of ALL members though, not for either or any arrangement. And I have said I can see the justification of 75% of VOTING members, that’s different from ALL. 

Share this post


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

I know.

Unfortunately, this meeting they're having, not enough notice for me to attend. Do you want to attend as my Proxy?

I’ll attend as your proxy if you want. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...