Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

[Kombibuddie]

26 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I’ll attend as your proxy if you want. 

Thanks for your kind offer but unfortunately, I will politely decline on this occasion. [emoji16]

Edited February 3, 2020 by Kombibuddie

[bazil85]

Just now, Kombibuddie said:

Thanks for your kind offer but unfortunately, I will politely decline on this occasion.

Can someone fill me in though, have I missed something? What’s the vote for at the meeting? 

[Bud the Baker]

18 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

GLS - what a guy 👍

What was scoop1987/GLSs reason for making his posts in 2011 if not to cause trouble for the old BoD? 

scoop1987/GLSs reaction (thankfully briefer) to being frozen out by "The Consortium" reminds me of LPMs behaviour since leaving the SMiSA committee - what a pair!  👍

 

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

From the SMISA website

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. 

I'm hoping Thursday clarifies that the gains for kibble from their investment also results in financial gains for SMFC.

Maybe I'm just a dreamer.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, Bud the Baker said:

What was scoop1987/GLSs reason for making his posts in 2011 if not to cause trouble for the old BoD? 

scoop1987/GLSs reaction (thankfully briefer) to being frozen out by "The Consortium" reminds me of LPMs behaviour since leaving the SMiSA committee - what a pair!  👍

 

 

No idea, I wasn’t active on here back then. Whatever did happen I’m not really one for holding grudges and not letting things go close to a decade later. Are you? 😂

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

Is 75% in the SMiSA rules or in the BtB proposal (or both)?  I would assume that they are two different things.

That is a hair well and truly split

[Kombibuddie]

Had a wee look back on the emails I exchanged with SMISA, here's what they said.

it was 2/3's (66%) not 75% as I previously thought for a proposal to be accepted.

Quote

To submit a formal Members Resolution you would need to provide the exact wording of the resolution, and your reasons for submitting it, addressed to our Secretary at least 28 days before the meeting. To be adopted it would then need to be supported by two-thirds of those casting a vote at the general meeting.

11 votes for + 1 by proxy (32.43%) and 16 against + 9 by proxy. (67.57%).

Consistency with their rules will require 2/3rds for the Kibble proposal to be accepted.

[Kombibuddie]

26 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Can someone fill me in though, have I missed something? What’s the vote for at the meeting? 

I don't think there is a vote. I have offered LPM a proxy to attend in my place (if it is allowed). He's more likely to ask the questions that i'd want asked.

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Kombibuddie

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

I don't think there is a vote. I have offered LPM a proxy to attend in my place (if it is allowed). He's more likely to ask the questions that i'd want asked.

 

I don’t think you’ll need a proxy for that, just ask someone to ask your question. Happy to do it myself 

[Kombibuddie]

Just now, bazil85 said:

I don’t think you’ll need a proxy for that, just ask someone to ask your question. Happy to do it myself 

Thanks again for your kind off er but LPM is my preferred option on this issue.

I hope he's free & allowed in

[Guest TPAFKATS]

So it's not impossible. But I don't really understand why the Trustees at Kibble would need to spend £300k of their charities money on a shareholding at the club to be able to do this. 

Me neither, however my interest is in the SMFC side of the deal. Its up to Kibble to question how they spend their money.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, Kombibuddie said:

Thanks again for your kind off er but LPM is my preferred option on this issue.

I hope he's free & allowed in

No bother, you’ll also need to hope the worthwhile question lands in the middle of the no doubt rambling 😂

[Bud the Baker]

-

Just now, bazil85 said:

1) No idea, I wasn’t active on here back then.

2) Whatever did happen I’m not really one for holding grudges and not letting things go close to a decade later. Are you? 😂

 

1) But you can read, still ducking the question is answer enough.  😂

2) Putting scoop1987/GLSs history regards to recovering monies paid for his shares is relevant to this thread, and as I have no objection to him doing so and actually support the current deal/proposal it's not a grudge, my point being that scoop1987/GLS reaction to being frozen out was similar to LPMs, whinging on BAWA - what a pair! 👍 

 

 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Surely by agreeing this deal with Kibble, St Mirren FC are losing a corporate sponsor.

Good question

[Kombibuddie]

2 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Surely by agreeing this deal with Kibble, St Mirren FC are losing a corporate sponsor.

SMISA really don't need this deal with Kibble, SMISA' opening gambit on their web page is

Quote

- SMISA created the #BuyTheBuds campaign because there could be no better owners than the people who will care for the club most – you, the fans.

71% ownership puts The Club in even better hands. Adding another major shareholder dilutes the purpose of BTB. No thanks.

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

-

1) But you can read, still ducking the question is answer enough.  😂

2) Putting scoop1987/GLSs history regards to recovering monies paid for his shares is relevant to this thread, and as I have no objection to him doing so and actually support the current deal/proposal it's not a grudge, my point being that scoop1987/GLS reaction to being frozen out was similar to LPMs, whinging on BAWA - what a pair! 👍 

 

 

1. I never answered because I don’t know but I imagine you’re probably right & he was trying to cause trouble given scenario 

2. Your opinion, I don’t think it’s relevant though nine years later. 

[Lord Pityme]

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

Not a smisa member bud so cant attend. There are plenty smisa members going who do want to get to the bottom of WHY?
And what are Kibble planning to get out of it, and how that may benefit/negatively impact the club going forward.
Post your questions here, I am sure there are others who will asking similar ones who can make sure yours get incorporated.

[Hiram Abiff]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

1. I never answered because I don’t know but I imagine you’re probably right & he was trying to cause trouble given scenario 

2. Your opinion, I don’t think it’s relevant though nine years later. 

As he’s involved again now then it obviously is relevant! 😃

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Not a smisa member bud so cant attend. There are plenty smisa members going who do want to get to the bottom of WHY?
And what are Kibble planning to get out of it, and how that may benefit/negatively impact the club going forward.
Post your questions here, I am sure there are others who will asking similar ones who can make sure yours get incorporated.

Why don’t you answer him now for them? You seem to know all the answers already and how this will take us to the ‘brink’ 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, Hiram Abiff said:

As he’s involved again now then it obviously is relevant! 😃

Nope I disagree, but I’m not in the habit of holding a scenario against someone nine years later as I have said. It’s like when people hold the herald interview about the bigots against him.
Oh to have a completely clear of mistakes past eh? 

[Lord Pityme]

Why don’t you answer him now for them? You seem to know all the answers already and how this will take us to the ‘brink’ 

Here's a couple of questions,
why dont you f**k off?
Would we need just a simple majority to confirm it?

[Lord Pityme]

Good idea.

Perhaps we need a separate thread with the first post updated by the OP as a new question gets added?

[pod]

1 hour ago, Dickson said:

From the SMISA website

 

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. 

Wouldn't have believed it legal to use charitable funds for a private enterprise unless it was benefiting the Kibble in a big way. Just my opinion.

    

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Here's a couple of questions,
why dont you f**k off?
Would we need just a simple majority to confirm it?

If there was such a vote I fear we would both be in a fair amount of danger... for very different reasons. 

[pod]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM8vOcxatsI