Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)

[linwood buddie]

Its been written that Kibble want to train their young people in the day to day running of the club and ie Ralston and street stuff ( I could be wrong on this),Would we be under any obligation to give any jobs that become available to them.

And before it’s asked ,I don’t mean the manager.

[BuddieinEK]

Having just watched the press conference in the official site, despite the questions asked by the journalists (which were not penetrative), nothing came to light at all.

The press conference that tellingly started with these words...

"Basically we are here to ANNOUNCE this historic deal"!

[Lord Pityme]

The press conference that tellingly started with these words...

"Basically we are here to ANNOUNCE this historic deal"!

Whoops that's gonna hurt to playback soon!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I am also struggling to see the benefit of passing part of our expected shareholding to a 3rd party. 
From my attempts to understand the proposal the summary would be
1 GLS sells some shares early and receives cash early
2 Kibble get a shareholding that was not in original proposals 
3 Final SMISA shareholding on completion of buy out will be reduced
So how does the proposal benefit St Mirren or SMISA and what do Kibble really get for their cash ? 
 

Yes, however this may also be of benefit to SMFC and allow for increased turnover and bigger budget.
On Thursday this needs explained better than the general kibble gubbins we've had so far.

[slapsalmon]

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I think it definitely is. He has completely ignored any point regarding how the Kibble could benefit our community involvement and enhance it. 
It shows community was never his concern it was attacking GLS. We seen the same in his shameful approach to the Christmas Day event vote in 2018. 

Waste of time talking to you. His point was smisa should be doing it. Looks like they won't. He's been consistent but you want a dig. I'm out. As so many are when they talk to you. 

[bazil85]

8 hours ago, slapsalmon said:

Waste of time talking to you. His point was smisa should be doing it. Looks like they won't. He's been consistent but you want a dig. I'm out. As so many are when they talk to you. 

What you mean is, it’s a waste of time trying to change my opinion. That’s fine if that’s your view, it isn’t mine. My view will not be changed on this. I think it’s evident. 

[slapsalmon]

38 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

What you mean is, it’s a waste of time trying to change my opinion. That’s fine if that’s your view, it isn’t mine. My view will not be changed on this. I think it’s evident. 

Now that's your problem. I'm not trying to change your opinion. Your arguing something that isn't there.

His opinion was that smisa should be doing it. He seems to have issue with a third party doing it. Still seems to think smisa should be doing it, doesn't fit your agenda though so in your words "the context is irrelevant"

you're as bad if not worse than him but at the happy clapper sook GLS boaby end of the scale. I should know better than to reply again but hey ho. Reply to this. Take the last word as usual. I definitely won't be replying again. Honestly you really are a Pr1ck

[Lord Pityme]

 
How do you know SMiSA sought out anybody?  Maybe Kibble approached them and GLS with a proposal and they looked into it, found that (in their opinion) it was a decent proposal then ... well, everything else that we KNOW has happened.  Why are you assuming that SMiSA made the first move?

Maybe any of those scenarios happened?
The point is Smisa did not have a mandate from its members to reduce the shareholding in Smfc it had agreed, planned and was ahead of schedule to buy.
If any individual, or organisation approached smisa with a proposal that so fundamentally changed the mandate its members GAVE it..!
Then the duty of the smisa board is to canvass its members to see if THEY even want to consider such a proposal!
It's not the mandate of the smisa board to spend a year secretly trying to facilitate selling Scott's or anyones shares in Smfc, or indeed to help Kibble or any other to buy them.

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

Now that's your problem. I'm not trying to change your opinion. Your arguing something that isn't there.

His opinion was that smisa should be doing it. He seems to have issue with a third party doing it. Still seems to think smisa should be doing it, doesn't fit your agenda though so in your words "the context is irrelevant"

you're as bad if not worse than him but at the happy clapper sook GLS boaby end of the scale. I should know better than to reply again but hey ho. Reply to this. Take the last word as usual. I definitely won't be replying again. Honestly you really are a Pr1ck

It is there though. I am truly baffled to how anyone can't see it. Claiming SMISA should do it not a third party is just a pure cop out (again IMO).

If you don't believe this is true and that he doesn't have a vendetta against SMISA regardless of scenario, can you find a single point in the life of BTB where he's had something overlay positive to say? Just one. I can't, and that includes community benefits proposed by SMISA. His view changes in contrast with SMISA, very clear IMO. You'd have to show evidence that isn't true to change my mind.

As I have said before, it's a sorry state when St Mirren "supporters" think it's bad to be positive about the club and our chairman. St Moan loyal. Probably a good thing you don't response, you seem upset you can't change my opinion. I told you what would do it though... Evidence. 

[BuddieinEK]

1. That's my point, none of us know but you are (again) stating things as if they are fact, when they are only your opinions.
2. They haven't done that.  They are putting a proposal to their members for a vote to get that mandate that you claim they don't have.
3. They have to know what to present to their members.  Did you expect them to just say "Kibble want 27.5%, whit dae ye think o' that?"  Why do you seem to be annoyed about them looking into the details before presenting it?
4. I would imagine that it's the mandate of the SMiSA board to do what they believe is in the best interests of SMiSA/BtB/SMFC.  Just because you don't agree with the way they went about doing that, is totally irrelevant.  Personally I would prefer that someone had done all/most of the due diligence before even letting me know about a proposal as something that appears bad on the surface can have underlying benefits, and vice versa.

They said in the press conference that this had been getting worked on for a year.

Personally, I think that is far too long for elected representatives of any organisation to be working on a fundamental change without informing nor consultant the membership.

[BuddieinEK]

It is there though. I am truly baffled to how anyone can't see it. Claiming SMISA should do it not a third party is just a pure cop out (again IMO).

If you don't believe this is true and that he doesn't have a vendetta against SMISA regardless of scenario, can you find a single point in the life of BTB where he's had something overlay positive to say? Just one. I can't, and that includes community benefits proposed by SMISA. His view changes in contrast with SMISA, very clear IMO. You'd have to show evidence that isn't true to change my mind.

As I have said before, it's a sorry state when St Mirren "supporters" think it's bad to be positive about the club and our chairman. St Moan loyal. Probably a good thing you don't response, you seem upset you can't change my opinion. I told you what would do it though... Evidence. 

And there he goes again with the anti St Mirren fan labelling usually reserved for opposition fans who hate us!

 

You really cannot see the irony of using the term St Moan? Not even to moan? [emoji850]

 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

And there he goes again with the anti St Mirren fan labelling usually reserved for opposition fans who hate us!

Still pains me it's relevant 

You really cannot see the irony of using the term St Moan? Not even to moan?

Moaning at the moaners... 

 

[Lord Pityme]

1. That's my point, none of us know but you are (again) stating things as if they are fact, when they are only your opinions.
2. They haven't done that.  They are putting a proposal to their members for a vote to get that mandate that you claim they don't have.
3. They have to know what to present to their members.  Did you expect them to just say "Kibble want 27.5%, whit dae ye think o' that?"  Why do you seem to be annoyed about them looking into the details before presenting it?
4. I would imagine that it's the mandate of the SMiSA board to do what they believe is in the best interests of SMiSA/BtB/SMFC.  Just because you don't agree with the way they went about doing that, is totally irrelevant.  Personally I would prefer that someone had done all/most of the due diligence before even letting me know about a proposal as something that appears bad on the surface can have underlying benefits, and vice versa.

Again you are fundamentally wrong!
The smisa board are prevented by the constitution to take actions that profit its members (or member).
It should not have even taken a proposal by a.n. other forward before asking the membership "do you want to drop your planned shareholding in smfc, and see more than a quarter of the club fall into the hands of a third party?"

To fail to understand that this is exactly what the smisa board is mandated to do, is to fail to understand the rules and legislation a Community Benefit society must operate in. It's not my opinion, it law.

Scott, Kibble and the Smisa board know they need to get this through before Smisa has the funds to complete the deal, as again the legislation governing Smisa dictates that it cannot break its asset lock. Therefore cant dispose of its assets ( shares in smfc) to a body like Kibble.
If you dont agree with me, hey I am happy to live with that. But at least check the relevant legislation before coming to a decision.

[Lord Pityme]

See below: Makes the cockamamie dogs dinner, third party ownership of a clusterf**k we are now being offered by Scott's Smisa look like a big turd in comparison.
And that was a club in Administration!
Hearts set to be fan owned by 'end of April' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51383726

[portmahomack saint]

50 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It is there though. I am truly baffled to how anyone can't see it. Claiming SMISA should do it not a third party is just a pure cop out (again IMO).

If you don't believe this is true and that he doesn't have a vendetta against SMISA regardless of scenario, can you find a single point in the life of BTB where he's had something overlay positive to say? Just one. I can't, and that includes community benefits proposed by SMISA. His view changes in contrast with SMISA, very clear IMO. You'd have to show evidence that isn't true to change my mind.

As I have said before, it's a sorry state when St Mirren "supporters" think it's bad to be positive about the club and our chairman. St Moan loyal. Probably a good thing you don't response, you seem upset you can't change my opinion. I told you what would do it though... Evidence. 

Unsurprisingly I disagree with you ,  When BTB kicked off,  LPM was the biggest advocate on here along with Buddicat who I believe was on the SMISA committee at the time,  No one promoted the buy the buds campaign on this site more than these 2 guys,  Don't think even YOU can disagree with that, but then again  (I've probably took that to far) 

 

[BuddieinEK]

Unsurprisingly I disagree with you ,  When BTB kicked off,  LPM was the biggest advocate on here along with Buddicat who I believe was on the SMISA committee at the time,  No one promoted the buy the buds campaign on this site more than these 2 guys,  Don't think even YOU can disagree with that, but then again  (I've probably took that to far) 
 

He can and will.
You did.
[emoji12]

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, portmahomack saint said:

Unsurprisingly I disagree with you ,  When BTB kicked off,  LPM was the biggest advocate on here along with Buddicat who I believe was on the SMISA committee at the time,  No one promoted the buy the buds campaign on this site more than these 2 guys,  Don't think even YOU can disagree with that, but then again  (I've probably took that to far) 

 

Wonder what changed that eh... Cough 

[Ayrshire Saints]

SMISA has 1300 members. Probably about 5% of them at most contribute on here. Given how every other SMISA vote has gone, regardless of what is said tomorrow (again only a small fraction of the membership will attend) I fully expect any proposal to be approved with a fairly large majority. I'm not saying for a minute whether that would be right or wrong, it's just what I expect will happen.  You just need to look at the majority in favour of each £2 pot proposal or the loan. I'd actually like to be wrong on this as it would show for once a level of engagement from the members but I suspect we won't see that. 

[portmahomack saint]

8 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

SMISA has 1300 members. Probably about 5% of them at most contribute on here. Given how every other SMISA vote has gone, regardless of what is said tomorrow (again only a small fraction of the membership will attend) I fully expect any proposal to be approved with a fairly large majority. I'm not saying for a minute whether that would be right or wrong, it's just what I expect will happen.  You just need to look at the majority in favour of each £2 pot proposal or the loan. I'd actually like to be wrong on this as it would show for once a level of engagement from the members but I suspect we won't see that. 

If the members don't pipe up on this one they never will,  I think they will 

[BuddieinEK]

SMISA has 1300 members. Probably about 5% of them at most contribute on here. Given how every other SMISA vote has gone, regardless of what is said tomorrow (again only a small fraction of the membership will attend) I fully expect any proposal to be approved with a fairly large majority. I'm not saying for a minute whether that would be right or wrong, it's just what I expect will happen.  You just need to look at the majority in favour of each £2 pot proposal or the loan. I'd actually like to be wrong on this as it would show for once a level of engagement from the members but I suspect we won't see that. 

I concur.

[Lord Pityme]

If the members don't pipe up on this one they never will,  I think they will 

That's the groundswell this time, enough is enough.

[alanb]

Vote – Sat 8 Feb to Fri 21 Feb

Your invitation to vote will be sent out on Saturday 8 February and the voting period will run until Friday 21^st. This longer-than-usual voting period is intended to give time for members to digest the contents of the meeting and for any additional questions to be answered.

Voting will take place online using the Very Connect system so any members who have not yet registered should do so as soon as they can. Email [email protected] if you need any support to do this. The vote will be decided by a simple majority of those voting.

We thank everybody for their contributions to this hugely important issue for our club’s future.

 

SMISA voters labelled Simple.... Outrageous

[Lord Pityme]

Interpreting things the way you are, SMiSA are not allowed to buy GLS's shares at all if he is a member, as he would profit, so BtB can't happen. Is that what you are saying?

No, smisa were set a clear mandate to BUY those shares on behalf of its membership, to benefit the community.
Not facilitate the SALE of those shares to benefit one individual.
I get you are finding this hard to argue against and coming up with ever weaker lines.
But hey dont take it from me, take it from the society's constitution.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

SMISA has 1300 members. Probably about 5% of them at most contribute on here. Given how every other SMISA vote has gone, regardless of what is said tomorrow (again only a small fraction of the membership will attend) I fully expect any proposal to be approved with a fairly large majority. I'm not saying for a minute whether that would be right or wrong, it's just what I expect will happen.  You just need to look at the majority in favour of each £2 pot proposal or the loan. I'd actually like to be wrong on this as it would show for once a level of engagement from the members but I suspect we won't see that. 

I would probably air on the side of caution that just because members aren't on BAWA or going to meetings, they aren't fully engaging and giving serious consideration to this or any other proposal. 

[Lord Pityme]

There's nothing weak about anything, stop trying to be insulting, it just makes me laugh at you and people in the office are looking at me. [emoji14]
 
According to you the SMiSA constitution states that a member cannot benefit.  You say that if the members agree to this proposal that GLS (a member) will be benefiting due to being able to sell his shares - who to is totally irrelevant.  If SMiSA, through BtB, purchase the shares from GLS then he will be benefiting in the same way so, according to you, SMiSA cannot buy the shares if GLS is a member.  It's your argument, not mine.  It doesn't matter if there was a vote to allow SMiSA to buy those shares, according to your logic that vote was against the SMiSA constitution as it allowed a member to benefit.
 
Simple solution is that GLS stops being a member of SMiSA and then, according to you, there is no issue.  Maybe he already isn't a member, who knows., not me - or you, for that matter.

Comedy gold at it's best. Lol