Jump to content

Lord Pityme

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

Recommended Posts


2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Any chance you could learn some better banter?

 

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Would it stop you getting so upset at my posts? 

Get a room, you two!  :   :)

 

 

 

 

 

Naw, seriously!

For all OUR sakes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2020 at 1:44 PM, Dickson said:

Its the first time since 1998 that St Mirren will have directors at the club who aren't St Mirren supporters. 

Strangely enough back then the majority of St Mirren shareholders voted to sell a controlling interest in the club to Reg Brearley rejecting the bid from a consortium led by Stewart Gilmour. 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12301534.brearley-gains-control-of-saints/

In 2012 also in a room full of passionate St Mirren supporters a vote to help a "Rangers" team stay in the top flight after liquidation passed with a majority of 11-2. 

St Mirren fans have a history of getting it spectacularly wrong. Lets hope, for the sake of the club that this time round the majority have shown good judgement in gifting away the power to run the club. 

Please don't tell me Messrs Atkinson, Stewart and Henderson were/are died in the wool supporters.

Naughty of you not to complete the story of Reg Brearley. Our white knight Stewart Gilmour won the day. The majority of shareholders did not vote to

sell a controlling interest in the  club but the Directors with majority shareholding power did. Sounds a bit like what the concern is now!!

Do not understand your statement " St Mirren fans have a history of getting it wrong. We have been in existence since 1876, so must have been doing something right.

 

 

Share this post


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

Jaybee, I watched the video again - admittedly with a few pints and a couple of drams in my system after a big family dinner - but I don't hear any mention of a guaranteed price. Jim Gillespie talks about how he might gift the shares to SMISA once the deal is concluded but no mention of a guaranteed price. On the SMISA website it says that if either side decides to sell off its shares the other would have first refusal, but again no mention of a price. 

If you've seen a price guarantee can you point me in the right direction? 

Price is guaranteed and you leave from Edinburgh at 6.45 in the morning and arrive in Kathmandu 19hr45m later - one way I'm afraid! 👋

Share this post


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


 

 


Your initial post never mentioned "financial" targets. It should have been interpreted as it was written, not as it was intended to be written, and it was. How, when you make an "additional point", can you be talking about something that you don't mention in your "additional point"?

Normal people wouldn't be looking for a pat on the back and claiming that they had done something "admirable" just for admitting they were wrong. It's others that decide if an action is admirable, not the person making the action. As I said, get over yourself. Nobody likes being wrong, but learning to admit when you are is a part of growing up.

I admitted I was wrong about Hector Nicol on another thread just yesterday. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I won't accept that I'm wrong when I'm not. That would just be silly.

This is your initial post that is under discussion. Can you show me where you mention finances? Do you want a clue?



What you meant to say is totally irrelevant if you didn't actually say it.

I'll now sit back and watch you wriggle.

 

My initial post could and should have been taken as BTB being over 120% of initial target which it is, the target equated to a financial one since ultimately we’re paying... money. thought it was perfectly clear given the simplistic nature of the percentages. Someone still failed to understand so I clarified. (Maybe I misjudged certain contributors capability to apply common sense) 
 

This will never change no matter how often you bring it up. It was absolutely what I meant & absolutely how it should have been interpreted. You not believing me is irrelevant. 

Share this post


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

Jaybee, I watched the video again - admittedly with a few pints and a couple of drams in my system after a big family dinner - but I don't hear any mention of a guaranteed price. Jim Gillespie talks about how he might gift the shares to SMISA once the deal is concluded but no mention of a guaranteed price. On the SMISA website it says that if either side decides to sell off its shares the other would have first refusal, but again no mention of a price. 

If you've seen a price guarantee can you point me in the right direction? 

I didn’t see any price guarantee chat if I’m honest but my feeling is we’re probably yet again getting down to semantics and very unlikely risk events. 
 

my interpretation of first refusal is just that, if the shares were to be sold SMISA would be the first option to buy them. (Already chat about reserves and the likes and the number of members that have said they’d willingly continue similar sub after the shares are bought, I imagine it’s pretty likely we’ll build them up) The only risk I can see in this, is if another party comes in with an offer higher than we could raise. It isn’t very likely at all someone will bid way over value for shares in a company like St Mirren to become a minority shareholder at the determinant of the club and the backing of kibble. 
 

We can discuss low risk events until the cow comes home, you could also do it with any company on the planet. You’ll never get any model where zero risk exists, including the original BTB proposal that you spent countless hours of your life referencing risks that never materialised. 

Share this post


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

And there she wriggles.

How your post "could" have been taken is totally irrelevant (I seem to have to use that word a lot when replying to you). Someone "could" have taken your post as meaning that you like to stick light bulbs up your arse.

Why "should" it have been taken that way? You said it was an "additional point", then mentioned members, didn't mention finance and then stuck in the 120% claim. I really don't understand why you just can't admit that you should have put the word "financial" before "target". All it needed was for you to say, "OK, I should have said "financial target" to be clearer". But no, you paint yourself into a corner, dig a hole and proceed to howl at the moon.

 

I know you have issue with being corrected but as I have said, This will never change. That was the point I was making, I clarified it and the wording of the original post (And the facts BTB  targets relate to financial goal) backs it up. You don’t need to believe me but you’ll need to accept this won’t change. 

Edited by bazil85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Listen, go and invest in whatever you like. It's not my money you are pissing away on this nonsense.

Everyone has a scheme. 

 

If you’ve got money invested in pensions then it is your money

 

Dividends are a major indicator of the profitability of a company. This isn’t up for discussion, it’s a fact.

 

It’s not the sole driver of share prices. Only you have mentioned that. But to think that dividends play no part in the demand for shares or are only a “nice” to have highlights that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

I suggest you take up your issue with the market

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

 

 

Whether or not it is a fact, it is still a claim.

 

I agree, you have no obligation to provide any evidence. Evidence does, however, support a claim and tends to only to be withheld by those who are either being untruthful, guessing or just repeating something they heard.

 

I wouldn't suppose that a "return of capital" would be done as a "dividend" as they are two entirely different things.

 

A return of capital is a B share scheme and is not, according to the company itself, what happened in the example you cite.

 

A return of capital did happen at a later date in relation to another sale but it also involved a share consolidation which meant that each new standard share plus the cash payout equaled the value of the old standard share, so essentially no profit was made.

 

That doesn't sound like a good way for Kibble to "get their share" of a transfer fee, even if they could get it board approval.

 

It also shows why you didn't want to provide any evidence to back up your "fact".

 

Deary me

 

Your frantic googling obviously hasn’t helped your understanding

 

Obviously there was no profit made. I didn’t suggest there was a profit made.

 

The Standard Life example wasn’t an example of profit being made. It was purely an example of a company returning capital to shareholders.

 

The sale of the Canadian subsidiary wasn’t a cash windfall. They had an asset and they sold it for cash. The value of the company stayed the same.

 

They decided to give the cash to shareholders and so the value of the company would have dropped by a corresponding amount.

 

They therefore did a share consolidation in order to keep the share price the same. They didn’t really need to do this but share price drops aren’t a good look. So they reduced the number of shares in circulation.

 

In the Kibble scenario I’ve highlighted, a large transfer fee is a cash windfall. It inflates the value of the company, it’s a profit.

 

This profit could be taken out the company as a return of capital.

 

You really haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about here, do you?

 

You’re are clueless as oaksoft!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing here is that slarti has obviously spent his Saturday night reading up on the Standard Life return of capital, failed to understand how it relates to a Kibble transfer windfall scenario and then made a very lengthy irrelevant post

Quality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? 

Apples, bananas and oranges in the catering kiosks instead of greasy pies and E12345 Hot Dogs on Match Days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? 

Hopefully the closing of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? 

I would suggest that's a total unknown as nobody has actually set in stone what "major decisions" actually encompass. It could well be poison fruit.

Share this post


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

Wriggle, wriggle.

I have absolutely no issue with being corrected, don't be so ridiculous. Aye many examples of this lol. 

You never "clarified it", you claimed that others were mistaken and incorrectly interpreting your post.

Even so, if you had clarified it, then it would be an admission that the original post wasn't clear but you continue to say that it was. Make your mind up. emoji38.png

I’m not sure why you’re getting so upset about this. 😂

my claim was correct, I clarified what I meant. That’s not going to change no matter how many times you bang your keyboard in utter rage at still not being able to get one over on me 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m not sure why you’re getting so upset about this.
my claim was correct, I clarified what I meant. That’s not going to change no matter how many times you bang your keyboard in utter rage at still not being able to get one over on me


At least you knew what you meant.
1 is better than none.



Have a good day bud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

So.... What will be the first visible fruits of the deal that ordinary supporters like me will see? 

For me I hope we’ll see a bump in BTB members with the tie up with such a reputable charity. That will be fruitful in the £2 quarter let spend for starters. I think other benefits will be a bit further down the line as the deal gets completed. 

Share this post


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

I would suggest that's a total unknown as nobody has actually set in stone what "major decisions" actually encompass. It could well be poison fruit.

Or maybe passion fruit to whet the appetite for what is to come. Let me rephrase it... What would you like to see now that it is going ahead as a tangible and positive sign? 

Share this post


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

Happy to clarify 👍

You can bang on your keyboard all day long from here to eternity, the situation is still the same.

Your statement didn't add up, you changed your tune ("clarifying" as you state) & you're spinning round & round trying to make yourself feel better with your nonsense about being misunderstood.

What's that new catchphrase you have? "you must be ragin" :lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Or maybe passion fruit to whet the appetite for what is to come. Let me rephrase it... What would you like to see now that it is going ahead as a tangible and positive sign? 

You to stop typing p!sh for a start. As the above  pseudonym or W6er.

Edited by stlucifer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, St.Ricky said:

Simple question. Why not answer it. PS. I don't use any alias other than my screen name. 

Simple  is certainly something you do.

As for the question. I will wait to find out IF this IS a positive as far as Saint Mirren is concerned. As I already stated. What's included in "major decisions" is, as it stands, not quantified so could mean almost anything.

Share this post


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

From what I have read and heard in the video there is a requirement inserted into the agreement that mandates that St Mirren get first refusal on Kibbles shares should they wish to sell them AND at the price paid for them.  I would think that is as as good a guarantee as is possible to get.  Although I will admit that if anyone is going to get shafted through believing what people say...... it will always be me.  I watch, listen and weigh up what has been said and then decide, mostly I am correct, but unfortunately NOT always. Nevertheless I would rather be this way than an out and out cynic. 

Jaybee, I watched the video again - admittedly with a few pints and a couple of drams in my system after a big family dinner - but I don't hear any mention of a guaranteed price. Jim Gillespie talks about how he might gift the shares to SMISA once the deal is concluded but no mention of a guaranteed price. On the SMISA website it says that if either side decides to sell off its shares the other would have first refusal, but again no mention of a price. 

If you've seen a price guarantee can you point me in the right direction? 

I thought I had seen it on the video of the session, so I can't remember; it is entirely possible I read it on someone else's post of course, if I find it again I will post it, meanwhile another wee dram and you will be fine. 🙂

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...