Jump to content

Potential questions for Kibble proposal meeting 6/2/20


Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

In the press conference to announce the done deal which you can access from the website.

One of the reasons for bringing the "expertise" of the Kibble on board is his concern about the fans lack of expertise or ability to run the club!

Can't see that can you send a link/ copy and paste his actual quote?

What done deal? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a simple yes or no question. The duty of SMISA is to let it's members decide if the new proposal receives a democratic mandate. 
Supplementary question therefore irrelevant. 
Third question, Duty to consider such proposals and put it to our members, we're a democracy not the dictatorship you seem to want them to be. 
final question. SMISA member. 
Then SMISA should not be steering its members to vote Yes or No.

They shouldn't be giving an opinion of "we think...."

As you said
"The duty of SMISA is to let it's members decide if the new proposal receives a democratic mandate"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see that can you send a link/ copy and paste his actual quote?
What done deal? 
Intro to press conference...

"Basically we're here to ANNOUNCE this historic deal between SMISA, St Mirren and Kibble".

GLS, " Have you all got the timeline of how this WILL happen?"

Done deal... They will spin tomorrow to make sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

He can't won't trust us to run the club.

Sorry mate, fixed it for you.

 

36 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:



Are you calling him a liar?

ps... Only sociopaths refer to themself in the third person! emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

quality question. Kombibuddie agrees with you :lol:lol:lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Then SMISA should not be steering its members to vote Yes or No.

They shouldn't be giving an opinion of "we think...."

As you said
"The duty of SMISA is to let it's members decide if the new proposal receives a democratic mandate"

That isn't the question he was asking. The deal is a yes or no question. 

Arguments for and against giving opinion. Personally I not only welcome it, I would seek it. Others will be different. 

That doesn't mean they can't advise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

That isn't the question he was asking. The deal is a yes or no question. 

Arguments for and against giving opinion. Personally I not only welcome it, I would seek it. Others will be different. 

That doesn't mean they can't advise. 

SMISA putting this proposal forward stating "Kibble expertise is needed to run the club" (or however they worded it) is the same as

Boris Johnston sticking "£350 Million for the NHS" on the side of a bus

It's absolute horseshite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Intro to press conference...

"Basically we're here to ANNOUNCE this historic deal between SMISA, St Mirren and Kibble".

GLS, " Have you all got the timeline of how this WILL happen?"

Done deal... They will spin tomorrow to make sure.

Which part of that is supposed to say he doesn't trust fans to run the club? 

It's not a done deal, that is you spinning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which part of that is supposed to say he doesn't trust fans to run the club? 
It's not a done deal, that is you spinning. 
That was in reference to the done deal, which they obviously believe it is.

It wasn't a reference to the trust issue.

Do your own homework there... You seem to have little else to do and my time is too valuable to waste on you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

That was in reference to the done deal, which they obviously believe it is.

It wasn't a reference to the trust issue.

Do your own homework there... You seem to have little else to do and my time is too valuable to waste on you.

So what that tells me is you're likely making it up. Why would you reference one part (that was wrong) and not the other, even after I've said I can't see it? 

Happy for you to provide this to back-up your own claim. I won't hold my breath. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

SMISA putting this proposal forward stating "Kibble expertise is needed to run the club" (or however they worded it) is the same as

Boris Johnston sticking "£350 Million for the NHS" on the side of a bus

It's absolute horseshite

What do you base that on? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

So what that tells me is you're likely making it up. Why would you reference one part (that was wrong) and not the other, even after I've said I can't see it? 

Happy for you to provide this to back-up your own claim. I won't hold my breath. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/st-mirren-chairman-gordon-scott-21392008.amp

 

The thicko St Mirren Fans are mentioned here..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what that tells me is you're likely making it up. Why would you reference one part (that was wrong) and not the other, even after I've said I can't see it? 
Happy for you to provide this to back-up your own claim. I won't hold my breath. 
Please feel free to hold your breath. 15 minutes should do it!

Funny that others have picked up on it yet you refuse to believe it could be true.

Exactly why you are not worth my time. You are not willing to listen or consider any viewpoint but your own.

Now stop doing your usual and polluting an important thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HSS said:

Is it this bit??

 

“The worry with fan ownership is always that you get people running the club who don’t know what they’re doing, they don’t have the knowledge. There’s no point in throwing away the knowledge we have.

“As it stands, the current board will be supplemented by two Kibble members and the board will run the club – the fans won’t.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely when GLS said “The worry with fan ownership is always that you get people running the club who don’t know what they’re doing, they don’t have the knowledge",

he was saying he had absolute faith in the fans as he had from day one... After all, anyone "running the club" would be democratically elected to do so, and Baz is a great fan of democracy!

This will be interesting!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Please feel free to hold your breath. 15 minutes should do it!

Funny that others have picked up on it yet you refuse to believe it could be true.

Exactly why you are not worth my time. You are not willing to listen or consider any viewpoint but your own.

Now stop doing your usual and polluting an important thread.

The funny bit is you not being willing to take the 10 seconds to post a link/ copy a quote. You're like a child sitting in the corner yelling "I know something you don't know" 

I am worth your time, we have covered this. That's incorrect, I fully take people's viewpoints this deal isn't in our best interest, doesn't mean I have to agree with it. 

Could have cut this communication down to three posts if you had sent the requested link. Need to communicate on your side maybe? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it this bit??
 

“The worry with fan ownership is always that you get people running the club who don’t know what they’re doing, they don’t have the knowledge. There’s no point in throwing away the knowledge we have.

“As it stands, the current board will be supplemented by two Kibble members and the board will run the club – the fans won’t.”

It is entirely right that the board runs the club, not the fans.

The fans own the club and elect members to run it.

However... The new proposal sees fewer fans on the board and ergo, having a lesser voice on how the club is run.

Still... We get to pay our way as owners!

If only we had enough members out of our 1,200 membership with as much ability as two members of a third party who will "run our club".

What would the chances of that be though?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Surely when GLS said “The worry with fan ownership is always that you get people running the club who don’t know what they’re doing, they don’t have the knowledge",

he was saying he had absolute faith in the fans as he had from day one... After all, anyone "running the club" would be democratically elected to do so, and Baz is a great fan of democracy!

This will be interesting! emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji12.png

So as I thought, your claim was inaccurate. GLS is talking about the risks involved with fan ownership. There are risks presented with any ownership structure (or do you genuinely think fan ownership is risk free?). He isn't saying all St Mirren fans don't know what they're doing and couldn't be trusted to run a football club.

FFS now it's a negative for our chairman to discuss risk management 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

It is entirely right that the board runs the club, not the fans.

The fans own the club and elect members to run it.

However... The new proposal sees fewer fans on the board and ergo, having a lesser voice on how the club is run.

Still... We get to pay our way as owners!

If only we had enough members out of our 1,200 membership with as much ability as two members of a third party who will "run our club".

What would the chances of that be though? emoji850.png

I'm pretty undecided about this going forward......I do accept that this is a massive sea-change and I really don't like the way that that the SMiSA board have gone around this. What we are basically getting from them is a sales pitch all about the benefits and absolutely no mention of potential pitfalls, it should never have been done this way imo. That said I will wait until after Thursday and hearing the different questions and answers, I may even ask a few questions myself, before I decide which way to vote.

The potential for disagreement and fallout between SMiSA and other "block" shareholders (their priorities in some areas will be different) has increased and the knock on effect from that could be huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

The Chairman doesn't give St Mirren fans the credit they deserve to make informed decisions.

He can't trust us to run the club.

He openly said as much when he expressed concerns about our ability to run the club.

Are you calling him a liar?

ps... Only sociopaths refer to themself in the third person! emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

The fans dont need to "run" the club they can remove Gus and replace him with a qualified CEO to run it on a daily basis. Make TF the Director of Football ,so you only need fans input at Directors meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as I thought, your claim was inaccurate. GLS is talking about the risks involved with fan ownership. There are risks presented with any ownership structure (or do you genuinely think fan ownership is risk free?). He isn't saying all St Mirren fans don't know what they're doing and couldn't be trusted to run a football club.
FFS now it's a negative for our chairman to discuss risk management 
As he clearly says the board will run the club, not the fans, you are talking absolute shite.

He is concerned there is not the ability among the fans to run the club properly and hence welcomes the two Kibble reps on board.

I don't think it could be any clearer if only you were willing to read it properly rather than just to form your next defence.

This is exactly why you are not worth anyone's time. Spin every time to suit your little bubble world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

The fans dont need to "run" the club they can remove Gus and replace him with a qualified CEO to run it on a daily basis. Make TF the Director of Football ,so you only need fans input at Directors meetings.

Why would we be removing someone that’s done a brilliant job since his return to the club??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The support for this deal has totally changed from the day it was announced to now and I think GLS has a big role to play in that.

When I first signed up to BTB, David Nicol said “Our bid came about because we believed there could be no better owners for our club than it's own supporters"

And now you've got Gordon Scott on STV saying "The worry with fan ownership is always that you get people running the club who don’t know what they’re doing, they don’t have the knowledge. There’s no point in throwing away the knowledge we have"

So you started up the Buy the Buds campaign as you believe the best future owners of St Mirren Football Club will be the ones who love this club the most but now your saying your worried about fan ownership as we wouldn't know what we're doing?

If the bid gets rejected, blame will land firmly at the door of the chairman for these kind of arrogant comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fans dont need to "run" the club they can remove Gus and replace him with a qualified CEO to run it on a daily basis. Make TF the Director of Football ,so you only need fans input at Directors meetings.
Fair enough. My choice of language there was poor.

The board will run the club.

The board will be elected by the membership.

I feel he doesn't trust us to elect people with the appropriate skills.

Personally, with a 1,200 membership or thereabouts, I find it hard to believe the necessary skills are not available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...