Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts


Just now, Dickson said:

Oh right! 

Well I better sack my stock broker. After all who wants to be tax efficient when I could listen to Oaksofts crash and burn guide to share buying. 

If you believe considering the underlying stability of the company before buying shares is "crash and burn" then that's your funeral.

It is of absolutely no surprise that you consider yourself superior to everyone else in this area. :lol:

Seriously. Narcissism. Check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

Pension companies buy into companies for dividends ie. income to pay their clients.  How many pension companies have gone burst?  The pension industry is immense and for those who buy shares solely on the share price are speculators who buy and sell shares as the market fluctuates.

Some but not many.

And that is because they spend a lot of time analysing the underlying strength of the business instead of solely relying on the dividend payouts.

f**k me, you guys are winding me up today aren't you? :lol:

Share this post


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

I'm going to be polite here and simply refer to you two as dumb and dumber, primarily because in your little world 27% outvotes 51%............................however HERE in the REAL world it DON'T.  😎

As I've repeatedly pointed out in the UK the legal status of a 25% +1 share shareholder is absolutely clear. 

Quote

25% of the company’s shares +1 share

To pass a special resolution, 75% of shareholders must vote in favour of it. Therefore, a special resolution cannot be passed if a minority shareholder owning 25% +1 voting shares in the company opposes the resolution. Special resolutions are required to be passed (amongst other things) to implement the following:

  • alteration of articles of association; 
  • offer to issue shares in the company to existing shareholders other than on a pro-rata basis by disapplying pre-emption rights; 
  • reduction of share capital (also subject to confirmation by the court); 
  • to give, revoke, renew or vary the authority for the company to purchase shares in itself; 
  • change of name; 
  • re-registration of private company to public company; 
  • to redeem or purchase own shares out of capital; and
  • voluntary liquidation.

SMISA and Gordon Scott have enhanced those rights by putting into the agreement that Kibble's shareholding gives them enhanced rights allowing them to veto - in the words used to date - "any major decisions at the club". SMISA can't just bluster through any resolution they want. If it doesn't have Kibbles support they will be able to block absolutely anything they want. That is what the SMISA committee and membership have given away and the supporters only recourse now in this "fan ownership" model is to hope that Kibble play nice, and to how that the break clause is cast iron in the legal agreement including the maximum price per share SMISA would have to pay to get Kibbles shares back off them. 

I'll take the claims that I'm bitter or angry or whatever - not because I am but I know it will look that way. I'm just not at the point yet where I shrug my shoulders and say "ah well, its' the St Mirren way. Had it all wrapped up and f**ked it". 

The right to veto  "any major decisions at the club". in my view; and that of many others I would imagine, is a safeguard that precludes knee jerk reactions to potential future events within the club.  I welcome an organisation with a history of surviving and prospering (in difficult times) and whilst I appreciate that Kibble is not here primarily to aid St MIrren; in my opinion it is not here to do it any harm either.  As many have pointed out the Kibble directors have a duty of care to their organisation and it would be ludicrous to imagine they bought their way into a football club simply to sabotage it.  The scenario that they outlined in respect of adding to their training options for their clients through being partners with the club would appear to be win win for both parties, if they can reduce costs and improve output  / quality through their training programmes and bring their expertise in business management to the club, ultimately it should make St Mirren a leaner and meaner business, maximising resources is and has been at the heart of Kibbles operational management for many years.  Will they interfere in 'football business'? why would they?  Would they have issues should the current board wish to mortgage the club / stadium to banks? (hypothetical scenario here, so don't go ballistic).  Yes I rather think they would, and such a scenario is why I think they are a good partner.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

People don#t have an issue with you saying the grass is green FFS.

Sigh!

People have a problem with you saying that it's green 500 times over 9 months though.

That's the point.

Hmm, that went right over your head eh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say that consideration of dividends didn't happen and I didn't say that you shouldn't do it at all.

I am saying that it's lunacy to rely on dividends alone.

I can assure you that pension companies do not look at dividends in isolation. They are risk averse and want to identify stable companies. You can't tell that from dividend payments alone.

OK I've said my piece on this and I've nothing to add.

 

Instead of doubling down on your stupidity oaksoft, take the advice you gave baz and just hold your hands up and admit you’re wrong

 

It’s fine you know. Everyone already knew that you didn’t know what you were talking about

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but I am not about to carry on arguing against the wall of stupidity you are presenting to me. 
Invest your money as you wish.
I'll leave you to talk to others about this.


Do you have the same illness as baz?

Instead of doubling down on your stupidity, just hold your hands up and admit you don’t know what you’re talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some but not many.
And that is because they spend a lot of time analysing the underlying strength of the business instead of solely relying on the dividend payouts.
f**k me, you guys are winding me up today aren't you? :lol:


The ONLY person here who has mentioned the word “solely” is you

And the only idiot here who has stated that dividends are only a “nice” to have is you

I already knew you were an idiot

You’ve just gone above and beyond the call of duty proving it on this thread

As did slarti and TPAFKATS

Here’s laughing at all 3 of you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let’s leave aside oaksoft s complete lack of understanding how business operates, there remains the issue that when St Mirren get their hands on a large windfall of cash again, do folk really think kibble aren’t going to want their 25%

 

Maybe slarti can provide them with the brown envelopes

 

default_1eye.gif

 

Share this post


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

The right to veto  "any major decisions at the club". in my view; and that of many others I would imagine, is a safeguard that precludes knee jerk reactions to potential future events within the club.  I welcome an organisation with a history of surviving and prospering (in difficult times) and whilst I appreciate that Kibble is not here primarily to aid St MIrren; in my opinion it is not here to do it any harm either.  As many have pointed out the Kibble directors have a duty of care to their organisation and it would be ludicrous to imagine they bought their way into a football club simply to sabotage it.  The scenario that they outlined in respect of adding to their training options for their clients through being partners with the club would appear to be win win for both parties, if they can reduce costs and improve output  / quality through their training programmes and bring their expertise in business management to the club, ultimately it should make St Mirren a leaner and meaner business, maximising resources is and has been at the heart of Kibbles operational management for many years.  Will they interfere in 'football business'? why would they?  Would they have issues should the current board wish to mortgage the club / stadium to banks? (hypothetical scenario here, so don't go ballistic).  Yes I rather think they would, and such a scenario is why I think they are a good partner.  

At last - a post full of common sense and reasonable logic.  👏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SMISA and Gordon Scott have enhanced those rights by putting into the agreement that Kibble's shareholding gives them enhanced rights allowing them to veto - in the words used to date - "any major decisions at the club". SMISA can't just bluster through any resolution they want. If it doesn't have Kibbles support they will be able to block absolutely anything they want. That is what the SMISA committee and membership have given away and the supporters only recourse now in this "fan ownership" model is to hope that Kibble play nice, and to how that the break clause is cast iron in the legal agreement including the maximum price per share SMISA would have to pay to get Kibbles shares back off them. 
I'll take the claims that I'm bitter or angry or whatever - not because I am but I know it will look that way. I'm just not at the point yet where I shrug my shoulders and say "ah well, its' the St Mirren way. Had it all wrapped up and f**ked it". 
Thanks Stuart...
Saves me stating the obvious to Thicko!

Share this post


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

Well you'd hope so but the fact that you, as a SMISA member, are asking that question at all shows just how rash the 91% appear to have been. 

SMISA were reportedly paying for the drafting of the legal agreement from membership funds yet they didn't publish it for their members to look over before recommending the deal to their members and opening the vote. 

On that count, your totally wrong. Was never convinced enough to join the bandwagon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 


Do you have the same illness as baz?

Instead of doubling down on your stupidity, just hold your hands up and admit you don’t know what you’re talking about

 

I put my hands up when wrong. I won’t when I’m right. If that’s an illness a lot of people on here are clear because they’re completely incapable of admitting when they’re wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 

Instead of doubling down on your stupidity oaksoft, take the advice you gave baz and just hold your hands up and admit you’re wrong

 

It’s fine you know. Everyone already knew that you didn’t know what you were talking about

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Hiram Abiff said:

 


Do you have the same illness as baz?

Instead of doubling down on your stupidity, just hold your hands up and admit you don’t know what you’re talking about

 

Are you doubling up. :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

 

Fair enough Pod. 

I was. Fool me once and all that, but I really was foolish enough to do it twice. My name on that wall is so much of an embarrassment I refuse to walk past it these days. 

There's no fool like an old fool. :wink: 

Share this post


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

 

Fair enough Pod. 

I was. Fool me once and all that, but I really was foolish enough to do it twice. My name on that wall is so much of an embarrassment I refuse to walk past it these days. 

Eh? Pretty much all your concerns regarding the initial scheme have came out as wrong and you’ve been campaigning to keep it for weeks now. 😅

I completely agree St Mirren having your name on that wall is an embarrassment though. One of our most counterproductive fans in history with his name on the boards of supporters that gave/ will give us fan ownership. Cringed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of that first paragraph is relevant because that's not the point I was raising.
You think everyone is stupid except you.
You think everyone is incompetent except you.
You believe both of these things are true across multiple disciplines.
Classic narcissism.
Yes I think you have an illness.
Or he just does it because he's bored. He's admitted as much to a mutual acquaintance who asked him why he takes extreme contrary positions on everything. This was about 15 years ago and he's still at it. I have no idea what satisfaction anyone would get from it.

Share this post


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

 What you are describing amounts to nothing more than speculative gambling.

All exercises in stocks and shares is a form of speculative gambling.   There is no guaranteed way to make money in the market. 

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

You think everyone is stupid except you.

You think everyone is incompetent except you.

You believe both of these things are true across multiple disciplines.

Classic narcissism.

Oh wad some poo'er the gifti gie us...

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

It is of absolutely no surprise that you consider yourself superior to everyone else in this area. :lol:

Seriously. Narcissism. Check it out.

Deja vu.

 

btw Yesterday afternoon, I cashed out a slab of shares I'd held for several years, with reasonable annual dividends.   But I still cashed in to cut my losses.    Successful company, expanding worldwide with impunity it seems, but the share price is now  worse than when I bought in.   I have lost confidence in its expansion. 

I could well be wrong.

It is all just gambling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Dickson said:

My memory might be fading but I don't remember ever having been asked that question but 15 years ago would place me on Pie and Bovril. Not on this website. 

Surely not Law Stud?

It's only in recent years that you faded from view on here...

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...