Jump to content

Kibble/SMiSA Partnership Proposal (Merged)


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:


As you wrote a shareholder may have inherited a share from a fan, then surely you cannot categorical guarantee they are fans. So the wording with 100% figure is misleading for the intent it was posted.

 

 

 

 

Awright it’s no exact but not gonnae mislead anybody - there are about 500 minority shareholders with about 20% in total - I think it’s fair to assume that most are Saints supporters - a few either way’s no goantae mislead anybody - stop muddying the waters

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Gordon gets all his money back and stays as chairman. Meanwhile, as things stand Smisa members get none of their money back, indeed many will feel deceived having subscribed to a proposal to buy 71% of the club, to now find over a quarter of the club will belong to a third party!

The only individual or group losing out on what was proposed, agreed and backed in numbers is the Smisa membership!
Think of the I interest the Smisa membership could have earned if they'd kept their money In the bank. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I think it’s fair for someone to mention the actual nature of GLS in this deal given the contributors that come out multiple times (certainly far more than I have noted the reality) with spun comments regarding him “profiting” These people have shown many times in the past they hold personal grudges against the man and these narrow comments going unchecked isn’t right IMO. GLS has done (and continues to do) a great thing for our football club, why do a small minority see it as a negative acknowledging that? I don’t forget that at all, This isn’t something I would be mentioning at all if not for the previously mentioned contributors. My posts are purely in response to their view on him “profiting” I’m also sure it does have its benefits.

The team people support is not an issue in this deal or any deal. The issue would be if they were using SMFC as a way to benefit another team at the detriment of our club or if that support would impact their decision making. As said, that’s tinfoil hat stuff to me, I see no evidence that’ll be an issue.

Personally and seemingly others see benefit in this team, including people much closer to it than you and me. I choose to trust their take and that’s why I was a yes. Others can choose not to, that’s their choice. I think there’s enough information now to see this is the best interest of the club.

They’ve hit a brick wall? We have progressed as a club on and off the park every season since they’ve taken over and we have done so while continuing to record a profit. That might be your opinion but I would be interested to know what you possibly could base it on, given where we are right now compared to where we were. I think there’s plenty of manoeuvre for further growth, I’m not seeing signs of slowing down but… Does that really impact the Kibble deal? I guess addressing your point, can you see the Kibble as maybe helping against this “brick wall” you see?

That’s fine, I think it’s been answered but it’s your vote. We’ll stick with your brick wall lol.

That's not what am saying am saying,  With this deal they're giving that impression,,  Am with happy the way things are read it again 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

That's not what am saying am saying,  With this deal they're giving that impression,,  Am with happy the way things are read it again 

Bazil knows that the profit recorded has largely been on the back of deals for players that were created by the previous board, but for those we would have recorded losses in most if not all years.  the previous regime also set up the youth system that produced those players.  No lies, just not a full representation of the truth (or spin, as other know it to be)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.. I am not a SMISA member and as such have no say on the vote as such. The main issue, it seems to me, rests on why SMISA were buying the majority of shares in the first place. I guess that was to achieve Fan Ownership and Control. My simple question is.. Does the proposed deal achieve these two aims? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Again.. I am not a SMISA member and as such have no say on the vote as such. The main issue, it seems to me, rests on why SMISA were buying the majority of shares in the first place. I guess that was to achieve Fan Ownership and Control. My simple question is.. Does the proposed deal achieve these two aims? 

Total control no 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Bazil knows that the profit recorded has largely been on the back of deals for players that were created by the previous board, but for those we would have recorded losses in most if not all years.  the previous regime also set up the youth system that produced those players.  No lies, just not a full representation of the truth (or spin, as other know it to be)

Which is what you would expect, it's very unrealistic to expect a brand new crop of players attributed completely to a board that's been in place less than four years to be visible already. We won't be able to judge the continued progress of our academy under new board for some amount of years yet. (although a good few lads in and around the Scotland youth set-ups is a good sign)

My point is we have ran at a profit, saying we would have recorded losses is probably more spin because we can't possibly know they would spend money they didn't have. What we can say though, is the new BOD have utilised the money available to them to have us in a continuously more progressive position year on year, I don't think we can ask much more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Again.. I am not a SMISA member and as such have no say on the vote as such. The main issue, it seems to me, rests on why SMISA were buying the majority of shares in the first place. I guess that was to achieve Fan Ownership and Control. My simple question is.. Does the proposed deal achieve these two aims? 

So now you have the answer, be interesting to know what you think, am sure you have a opinion Ricky,  don't be shy faraway's at the bookies 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awright it’s no exact but not gonnae mislead anybody - there are about 500 minority shareholders with about 20% in total - I think it’s fair to assume that most are Saints supporters - a few either way’s no goantae mislead anybody - stop muddying the waters

I am one of those 500, and can confirm I am a supporter.
It’s also one of the few individual assets in my will where it stipulates the shares transfer to x, y or z, all known supporters, upon my demise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Au contraire! Mange tout, mange tout..

If it's looking at ways to better the existing deal then why, oh why have Smiswa not sought this partnership with Kibble and let them pay £300k to smisa to access the facilities, and opportunities they see at the club?

Then smisa would be in a position to take its majority shareholding in jig time..?

Now that's what I call fan ownership, partnering with an organisation to each other's benefit, and that of the community.

Gordon would still get paid off sooner, but lose his grip on the club as a small shareholder.

Edit... the above is all possible with the existing Smisa/Scott agreement!

Kibble are a separate entity. I could understand your argument if a fan paid 300k to SMISA.

I don't claim to know the whole ins and outs though surely it makes logical sense, that Kibble taking a percentage to go on the board is more beneficial, as this is a long-term commitment for them, for what they propose to provide in resources to the club?

Remember...51% is a majority and that is what SMISA will have if Kibble agreement goes through. In my personal opinion, it is more appealable to have an experienced organisation join the board, especially when they have resources there to help build the clubs future.

Whatever your opinion, this has not been an overnight proposal.

 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I think it’s fair for someone to mention the actual nature of GLS in this deal given the contributors that come out multiple times (certainly far more than I have noted the reality) with spun comments regarding him “profiting” These people have shown many times in the past they hold personal grudges against the man and these narrow comments going unchecked isn’t right IMO. GLS has done (and continues to do) a great thing for our football club, why do a small minority see it as a negative acknowledging that? I don’t forget that at all, This isn’t something I would be mentioning at all if not for the previously mentioned contributors. My posts are purely in response to their view on him “profiting” I’m also sure it does have its benefits.

The team people support is not an issue in this deal or any deal. The issue would be if they were using SMFC as a way to benefit another team at the detriment of our club or if that support would impact their decision making. As said, that’s tinfoil hat stuff to me, I see no evidence that’ll be an issue.

Personally and seemingly others see benefit in this team, including people much closer to it than you and me. I choose to trust their take and that’s why I was a yes. Others can choose not to, that’s their choice. I think there’s enough information now to see this is the best interest of the club.

They’ve hit a brick wall? We have progressed as a club on and off the park every season since they’ve taken over and we have done so while continuing to record a profit. That might be your opinion but I would be interested to know what you possibly could base it on, given where we are right now compared to where we were. I think there’s plenty of manoeuvre for further growth, I’m not seeing signs of slowing down but… Does that really impact the Kibble deal? I guess addressing your point, can you see the Kibble as maybe helping against this “brick wall” you see?

That’s fine, I think it’s been answered but it’s your vote. We’ll stick with your brick wall lol.

I assume since you replied to me I am one of quote "these people"  either retract this or point out where I have mention GLS profiting many times.

The current board only recorded a profit as the previous board had a sell on clause inserted in John McGinn's transfer to Hibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Surely that would be a decision for the SMISA membership, therefor not something that you can personally guarantee?

Unless you know something that the rank and file SMISA membershio don't

That is correct, it will be for the SMiSA members to decide on subscription levels post completion of the takeover, being guided by the SMiSA committee.

The membership subscriptions after BTB would be to fund the operating infrastructure of SMiSA, and I guess to continue with the very successful discretionary spend pot, plus perhaps something for a "rainy day fund".

I don't expect that to run to £20K a month.

The subscription fee will reduce, because we won't be saving up to buy a football club. It's really that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Iamhammer said:

I assume since you replied to me I am one of quote "these people"  either retract this or point out where I have mention GLS profiting many times.

The current board only recorded a profit as the previous board had a sell on clause inserted in John McGinn's transfer to Hibs

Nope, I haven’t noticed you being negative towards him although granted I could have missed it. You weren’t one of the people I was referencing though, I think the people will very much know who they are.

Still managed that money. It’s all down to money management and they have recorded profit every year, that’s just one slice of money we’ve gotten over their term, looking at that in isolation doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have recorded a profit otherwise. We don’t know what there spending would have been like if the money hadn’t come in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kibble are a separate entity. I could understand your argument if a fan paid 300k to SMISA.

I don't claim to know the whole ins and outs though surely it makes logical sense, that Kibble taking a percentage to go on the board is more beneficial, as this is a long-term commitment for them, for what they propose to provide in resources to the club?

Remember...51% is a majority and that is what SMISA will have if Kibble agreement goes through. In my personal opinion, it is more appealable to have an experienced organisation join the board, especially when they have resources there to help build the clubs future.

Whatever your opinion, this has not been an overnight proposal.

 

 

They could give the £300k to smisa, and subject to a vote of the membership be given two places on the board, achieve all their aims without taking control of over a quarter of the club.

Especially since they intimate they might gift the shares to smisa anyway.

Why aren't the smisa committee all over this as a more common sense and palatable proposal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

still can't get my head around the fact that Kibble are wiling to spend 300k and then be willing to give it away

they are duty bound as a charity to at in the best way to deliver the aims on which the charity is built, so a 300k giveaway must be buying them something much more valuable

 

they are just not saying what it is

I don't think £300K is a huge investment for a company with a £30m annual turnover. They spent £3m building a go-kart track for example.

Kibble get to utilise the infrastructure and brand of the football club and it's reach into the community to benefit the young people it is looking after.

I'm sure that must be saving them some money along the way as well as improving the experiences they can provide those kids with.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

They could give the £300k to smisa, and subject to a vote of the membership be given two places on the board, achieve all their aims without taking control of over a quarter of the club.

Especially since they intimate they might gift the shares to smisa anyway.

Why aren't the smisa committee all over this as a more common sense and palatable proposal?

You would still find cause for concern and to go against the deal, let's be honest. 

Sounds like the SMISA committee and all major stakeholders in the deal have been over it, seems pretty much consensus that this is right for the club. Just because you think a different approach is more palatable doesn't make it true. You've been hammering SMISA for years now and consistently been wrong. My money is on that streak continuing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, div said:

I don't think £300K is a huge investment for a company with a £30m annual turnover. They spent £3m building a go-kart track for example.

Kibble get to utilise the infrastructure and brand of the football club and it's reach into the community to benefit the young people it is looking after.

I'm sure that must be saving them some money along the way as well as improving the experiences they can provide those kids with.

 

 

Indeed.

To the ordinary football fan £300K seems a huge amount.

However, to Kibble it's less than 1% of their yearly turnover over £32 Million. That's a relatively small amount to get guaranteed access to what Div has detailed above.

IMO Kibble will look at their financial contribution and think that they're getting a lot for their relatively small outlay, considering this is going to be a long term partnership.

That's what's in it for them IMO.

In fact I'd charge them more for what they're getting access to.:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The veto clause is as much to protect SMiSA, and the club, as it is to protect the interests of Kibble.

It only affects the following explicit decisions;

  • appointments or removals of a director of the club
  • the sale of the stadium, changes to the club’s name, colour or badge, changing the club’s grass pitch to astroturf, and the appointment of major sponsors;
  • any major borrowings, major contracts outwith the normal course of business, and approval of the club’s business plan;
  • any major structural changes to St Mirren as a company, such as any reorganisation of its share capital, or changes to the club’s articles of association.

I think that's all pretty fair.

The major sponsors one is the only one I'd have any concerns about but again I'd assume the clause is in there to protect SMiSA and the club as much as it is to protect Kibble. Be very easy to email SMiSA and ask for clarification.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dickson said:

Ok. Fair enough. 

So what you are both alluding to is that Kibble are getting good value from the club for their investment. Is that correct? 

If so, do you think it is morally right that Gordon Scott should be able to offer this "good value" from the club to facilitate his personal shares in the club for £300k which goes straight into his personal bank account? 

Is that not the very definition of asset stripping?  

If Kibble wasn't giving Gordon £300K then SMiSA would be.

The only real tangible benefits I see Gordon getting out of this is;

1) He is getting his money earlier than he thought
2) He's shifting the 8% of shares he'd have been left with in the original proposal

The shares he is selling to the Kibble are not an asset of the company, they are an asset of Gordon Scott.

The assets that Kibble are getting access to WILL benefit them, but they WILL also benefit St.Mirren Football Club.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, div said:

The veto clause is as much to protect SMiSA, and the club, as it is to protect the interests of Kibble.

It only affects the following explicit decisions;

  • appointments or removals of a director of the club
  • the sale of the stadium, changes to the club’s name, colour or badge, changing the club’s grass pitch to astroturf, and the appointment of major sponsors;
  • any major borrowings, major contracts outwith the normal course of business, and approval of the club’s business plan;
  • any major structural changes to St Mirren as a company, such as any reorganisation of its share capital, or changes to the club’s articles of association.

I think that's all pretty fair.

The major sponsors one is the only one I'd have any concerns about but again I'd assume the clause is in there to protect SMiSA and the club as much as it is to protect Kibble. Be very easy to email SMiSA and ask for clarification.

 

Don't get how it protects SMISA, they will be the major shareholder, that already gives them veto surely? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Iamhammer said:

Don't get how it protects SMISA, they will be the major shareholder, that already gives them veto surely? 

Not during the transition phase when there will be no clear majority shareholder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, div said:

I don't think £300K is a huge investment for a company with a £30m annual turnover. They spent £3m building a go-kart track for example.

Kibble get to utilise the infrastructure and brand of the football club and it's reach into the community to benefit the young people it is looking after.

I'm sure that must be saving them some money along the way as well as improving the experiences they can provide those kids with.

 

 

Yes but the go karting is ran as a social enterprise which gives them all sorts of access to a variety of Grants.  What access to grants will their 300k get them?

The bit in bold, then why not let the membership know where these savings will be?  Will it cost the club money? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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