Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

Explain exactly how that comes about. The profit will be SMFCs not Kibbles so how could money belonging to SMFC be spent on Kibble projects when they will only have 25% representation. Do you think having a % share entitles them to take that % of the company's profit to spend as they wish ?

 

er, yes, it’s called a dividend

 

It could be a return of capital

 

Various mechanisms

 

What do you think shareholders in the real world invest in companies for?

 

Wait, hang on, you don’t understand what you voted for [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

default_1eye.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Explain exactly how that comes about. The profit will be SMFCs not Kibbles so how could money belonging to SMFC be spent on Kibble projects when they will only have 25% representation. Do you think having a % share entitles them to take that % of the company's profit to spend as they wish ?
Kibble will only need one other board member/chairman to side with them and they'll be in a position to carry what they want.
Doesn't matter anymore if you were for or against it. The facts are Kibble are in a strong place within the club now. We hope it's for the good of the club but Kibble have been clear from the outset... they wanted 27.5% and two board members to protect their interests and investment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 

er, yes, it’s called a dividend

 

What do you think shareholders in the real world invest in companies for?

 

Wait, hang on, you don’t understand what you voted for emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

 

default_1eye.gif

When was the last time Saints paid out a dividend?

Also, which company law says a dividend must be paid out at all?

BTW, in the real world, shareholders invest in companies primarily for capital gain in the form of increased share price. Dividends are nice but they are not always the main aim. Pension companies might be the exception.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:


Admittedly, you later admit that you were wrong but this, above, is exactly what I was referring to yesterday. You phrase something badly and then argue that you didn't/it's obvious what you meant/etc. Maybe, since you admitted your error, you have learned and my job here is done.
Just as well that he didn't then, isn't it? emoji38.png

My initial post was correct, that wasn’t what he was referring to. 

 I clarified what I meant and admittedly made a mistake in wording. I put my hands up to it as I would do anytime I was wrong. IMO it was a bit of a trivial error but an error none the less, so fair play for the poster in calling me out on it. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I’m absolutely fine thanks. I know there is some on here that have issue with me and this is one of the ways they act out. Yourself included. 

Your behaviour on here borders on OCD.

Nobody else spends MONTHS and MONTHS posting exactly the same response on each topic.

That isn't normal. That isn't normal at all. We all know you THINK it's normal. But it isn't.

Why not be a normal person, post your view and then stop?

Why repeat precisely the same point hundreds of times on the same thread?

How many times have you posted that you believe Gordon's story about the 10% thing?

How many times have you posted a phrase about negative posters?

On both topics it is literally hundreds of times.

Nobody else does that on here.

Not even Dickson or LPM.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oaksoft said:

Your behaviour on here borders on OCD.

Nobody else spends MONTHS and MONTHS posting exactly the same response on each topic.

That isn't normal. That isn't normal at all. We all know you THINK it's normal. But it isn't.

As I have said before, in the grand scheme there is a very small number of SMFC fans that take issue with my posts. This is a prime example, a small point on SMISA numbers/ finance and we have three or four of the usual suspects going tonto. 
 

It is what it is and generally down to me calling them out on several overlay negative stances regarding the club in the past. It’s nothing to do with ‘what’s wrong’ with anyone. Some are just adverse to my opinion and how I express it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bazil85 said:

As I have said before, in the grand scheme there is a very small number of SMFC fans that take issue with my posts. This is a prime example, a small point on SMISA numbers/ finance and we have three or four of the usual suspects going tonto. 
 

It is what it is and generally down to me calling them out on several overlay negative stances regarding the club in the past. It’s nothing to do with ‘what’s wrong’ with anyone. Some are just adverse to my opinion and how I express it. 

And here you are AGAIN saying the same f**king thing for the 500th time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the last time Saints paid out a dividend?

Also, which company law says a dividend must be paid out at all?

BTW, in the real world, shareholders invest in companies primarily for capital gain in the form of increased share price. Dividends are nice but they are not always the main aim. Pension companies might be the exception.

 

1. When was the last time Saints were part owned by a third party organisation?

 

2. I give in. Quote me the relevant sections about dividends as you obviously know

 

3. One of the main drivers of share prices is the dividend.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the scenario that was presented, though. Owning a specific %age of a company does not entitle you to that same %age of any profit, never mind the profit on one specific bit of business.

AFAIK, SMFC have never paid a dividend and I can't see why they would now.


St Mirren have never been part owned by a third party organisation before

A very large Scottish financial company sold its Canadian subsidiary a couple of years ago

They gave most of the money pocketed from the deal to shareholders

That’s a real life example
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

OK, maybe my work isn't done. emoji38.png

I am quite able to follow a conversation, thank you, and can see what people are referring to. The problem seems to be that you can't.

 

My initial point was correct that SMISA is over 120% (not 120% over the target that a further comment suggested) of the initial set target. I clarified what I meant by that because someone misinterpreted that I can’t work out a very simple percentage. You don’t need to believe me, he doesn’t need to believe me. It won’t stop it being true. 

9 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:


But it wasn't a small point. You wrote something that was factually incorrect then, when questioned about it, tried to make out that it was the fault of others for not understanding what you were thinking when you wrote it. People can only go by what you post, not what you meant to post.

 

I put my hands up to making a mistake in subsequent posts, that’s the admirable thing to do yet you can’t seem to let it go? I’d say that says more about you than it does me. As I have already said though my initial point stands up, it was simply misinterpreted. Again You don’t need to believe it and are welcome to think I can’t do basic calculations, it’s still not true. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dickson said:

You claim to be a businessman Oaksoft. Would you sign away control of your business without covering as many bases as possible in a water tight legal agreement? Would you think it was sensible to think through as many scenarios as possible and to protect yourself from them, or would you think that was an illness and sign your life away regardless? 

In this specific case gullible is exactly the right word. Look at the facts. 

  • The SMISA committee believe they aren't competent enough to grow the football club themselves
  • They recommend a proposal that sees a third party come in to attempt to grow the football club for them
  • Around 91% of the SMISA membership hear the committee members they elected to represent them tell them they aren't competent. 
  • And they then vote in favour of the third party coming in without any sight of the legal agreement and without answers to many of the pertinent questions being raised.

Yet you think I'm the one who has the illness. 

This isn’t true, in fact it’s ridiculous. All your other points have been done to death with your spin called out multiple times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dickson said:

You claim to be a businessman Oaksoft. Would you sign away control of your business without covering as many bases as possible in a water tight legal agreement? Would you think it was sensible to think through as many scenarios as possible and to protect yourself from them, or would you think that was an illness and sign your life away regardless? 

In this specific case gullible is exactly the right word. Look at the facts. 

  • The SMISA committee believe they aren't competent enough to grow the football club themselves
  • They recommend a proposal that sees a third party come in to attempt to grow the football club for them
  • Around 91% of the SMISA membership hear the committee members they elected to represent them tell them they aren't competent. 
  • And they then vote in favour of the third party coming in without any sight of the legal agreement and without answers to many of the pertinent questions being raised.

 

Surely SMISA used the services of a business lawyer. :unsure: Pretty naïve if not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dickson said:

I don't think a dividend would be the most likely scenario. That would mean they'd only get a small percentage of the overall value. 

More likely would be an insistence that the £1m be used to develop or expand in the facilities that Kibble want to use to enable their ROI. 

So they have 27.5% of the company and can exert decisions through vetos, whatever way they want, but they would only get a small percentage of the overall value?

You squared that circle really well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sonny said:

I think it is quite insulting to describe the 91.6% as 'gullible'.

As with all major decisions in life - getting married, getting a new job, having children, buying a house, moving abroad, buying a car or a business arrangement - there are no accompanying 50 pages of cast iron guarantees in your favour covering any perceived eventuality you can dream up.  You are attracted to an idea then you investigate and get as many answers as possible and from the correct sources (not a forum) then you go with your gut instinct and if it feels right you go ahead and try to make it work. Things do not always work out the way you would want however they may turn out better and the best thing you had ever done. Its about trusting in yourself and those that you enter into the agreement with. Because you do not get the 50 pages of guarantees that suit you does not mean you are gullible. It is an informed decision.

Look who posted it.

Given his history his opinion isn't worth shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

My initial point was correct that SMISA is over 120% (not 120% over the target that a further comment suggested) of the initial set target. I clarified what I meant by that because someone misinterpreted that I can’t work out a very simple percentage. You don’t need to believe me, he doesn’t need to believe me. It won’t stop it being true. 

I put my hands up to making a mistake in subsequent posts, that’s the admirable thing to do yet you can’t seem to let it go? I’d say that says more about you than it does me. As I have already said though my initial point stands up, it was simply misinterpreted. Again You don’t need to believe it and are welcome to think I can’t do basic calculations, it’s still not true. 

Sorry, bazil....

Disappearing.013.001

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Your behaviour on here borders on OCD.

Nobody else spends MONTHS and MONTHS posting exactly the same response on each topic.

That isn't normal. That isn't normal at all. We all know you THINK it's normal. But it isn't.

Why not be a normal person, post your view and then stop?

Why repeat precisely the same point hundreds of times on the same thread?

How many times have you posted that you believe Gordon's story about the 10% thing?

How many times have you posted a phrase about negative posters?

On both topics it is literally hundreds of times.

Nobody else does that on here.

Not even Dickson or LPM.

 

32 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Your behaviour on here borders on OCD.

Nobody else spends MONTHS and MONTHS posting exactly the same response on each topic.

That isn't normal. That isn't normal at all. We all know you THINK it's normal. But it isn't.

Why not be a normal person, post your view and then stop?

Why repeat precisely the same point hundreds of times on the same thread?

How many times have you posted that you believe Gordon's story about the 10% thing?

How many times have you posted a phrase about negative posters?

On both topics it is literally hundreds of times.

Nobody else does that on here.

Not even Dickson or LPM.

Got a gut feeling your dealing with some kind of electronic robotic device, no human could ever be so repetitive or annoying than this twat who seems capable of typing over a 100 words a minute robot GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, sally02 said:

The match has been cancelled tonight because Kibble require the pitch for a Rice planting work project!

Will St. Mirren or Kibble get the rice?

I believe all the rice products will be shipped to an undisclosed site in Ibrox as part of an existing previous agreement. This is due to the high number of non St Mirren supporting supporters on the board now...…….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhoo

as a wee aside, i mentioned my request some weeks ago that Kibble furnish me with a copy of the original trust deed document which, according to their own group website, provides the basis for their values and governance.  

I got a reply from their information officer on Wednesday, who told me that he was out of office and that he would deal with my request on his return next week.  Conveniently, well after the close of the vote.

I wait to see if they do indeed share that document...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a dividend would be the most likely scenario. That would mean they'd only get a small percentage of the overall value. 

More likely would be an insistence that the £1m be used to develop or expand in the facilities that Kibble want to use to enable their ROI. 

 

I don’t think a dividend would be the most likely scenario either

 

Hence why I didn’t use that scenario in the post you’ve quoted

 

[emoji12]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:


 

 


Your initial post only referenced members, not financial targets, therefore your claim of 120% in that post was factually incorrect. Again, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said that you try to claim that it is others that don't understand when, in reality, it is your use of language that has been incorrect.

You’re wrong, my initial post was about the financial targets. That’s the way it should have been interpreted, I thought it was clear given the obvious percentage calculation. Someone misunderstood so I clarified. Again I don’t need you to believe me, it won’t stop it being true. Why’s it so important to you to keep going on about it? 

Putting hands up to a mistake is just what normal people do, they don't go around claiming to have done something "admirable" like they are trying get a pat on the back. Get over yourself.

What normal people would do is drop the subject, you seem incapable of doing it even after I put my hands up. This is the only reason I brought it up. Also worth noting you have been wrong countless times, I don’t recall you once admitting it.

Your initial point was not misinterpreted, it was incorrectly worded and, in reality, meant something totally different to what you intended. That is the fact of the matter, but you just seem unable to grasp it.

again you’re wrong, I don’t need you to accept that you’re wrong or believe me when I say it but it won’t stop it being true. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...