Potential questions for Kibble proposal meeting 6/2/20

[alanb]

Just now, BuddieinEK said:

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.

Remember last time SMISA wanted to select new board rep only one guy stepped up and as such both Davids are still on the board ATM

So not a great endorsement so far

Board at moment is 6 including 2 SMISA. though all are claimed to be SMISA members

[BuddieinEK]

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 [emoji1787]

“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.

"the board will run the club – the fans won’t.”

So Baz...
The fans own the club.
The owners elect a board to run it.
GLS is worried that the people running the club won't know what they are doing... The people elected by the fans.

"They don't have the knowledge".

If that is your definition of risk management, how the hell do you manage to cross the road without getting knocked down?

[Lord Pityme]

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.

Seems Ann Budge doesn't share Scott's dim view of fan ownership

Hearts set to be fan owned by 'end of April' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51383726

 

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

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.

You're tripping over yourself here. Of course the board will run the club, why would anyone think any different? The board will in part be appointed by the fans. I have no issue with this or with the Kibble representatives. 

That is not what he said, you're completely spinning this. He's talking about the risk (worry) in fan ownership, not that he personally thinks we do not have the ability to run the club. 

I actually agree with this, in your head I bet you've thought this is what he has said. Yo have a deep-seeded need to be negative regarding GLS/ SMISA and I have no doubt that has caused you to believe your own spin. In reality he is discussing a risk that's present in all fan ownership models (he literally says ALWAYS). Risks exist, they should be discussed. 

I am worth your time, again remember we have confirmed this many, many times. It is not spin to reference what he actually said. You're claiming GLS DOES NOT think their is the ability in the fan-base. Where does he say that? His quote clearly says "with fan ownership is ALWAYS" Are you saying GLS doesn't think any fan of any football club in the world has the expertise to run a football club? 

You've been caught out lying and spinning yet again, accept it. 

[BuddieinEK]

Seems Ann Budge doesn't share Scott's dim view of fan ownership Hearts set to be fan owned by 'end of April' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51383726
 

Why do Hearts fans want to waste money on over 75% of the shares when 51% gives them ownership whilst saving money?

Poor deluded fools! [emoji850]

[BuddieinEK]

You're tripping over yourself here. Of course the board will run the club, why would anyone think any different? The board will in part be appointed by the fans. I have no issue with this or with the Kibble representatives. 
That is not what he said, you're completely spinning this. He's talking about the risk (worry) in fan ownership, not that he personally thinks we do not have the ability to run the club. 
I actually agree with this, in your head I bet you've thought this is what he has said. Yo have a deep-seeded need to be negative regarding GLS/ SMISA and I have no doubt that has caused you to believe your own spin. In reality he is discussing a risk that's present in all fan ownership models (he literally says ALWAYS). Risks exist, they should be discussed. 
I am worth your time, again remember we have confirmed this many, many times. It is not spin to reference what he actually said. You're claiming GLS DOES NOT think their is the ability in the fan-base. Where does he say that? His quote clearly says "with fan ownership is ALWAYS" Are you saying GLS doesn't think any fan of any football club in the world has the expertise to run a football club? 
You've been caught out lying and spinning yet again, accept it. 

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, BuddieinEK 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.

"the board will run the club – the fans won’t.”

So Baz...
The fans own the club.
The owners elect a board to run it.
GLS is worried that the people running the club won't know what they are doing... The people elected by the fans.

"They don't have the knowledge".

If that is your definition of risk management, how the hell do you manage to cross the road without getting knocked down?

Spin and semantics. Again a risk that ALWAYS exists in fan ownership. Not specific SMFC fan ownership. People jumping on GLS regarding this interview are right up there with the moans on honorary membership. 🤣

You picking and choosing parts of quotes that miss out the important bits that completely beat what you are saying. Yes or no, GLS was talking about a worry that's ALWAYS present in fan ownership?

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

6 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Why do Hearts fans want to waste money on over 75% of the shares when 51% gives them ownership whilst saving money?

Poor deluded fools!

She wouldn't have sold it otherwise.

[BuddieinEK]

Spin and semantics. Again a risk that ALWAYS exists in fan ownership. Not specific SMFC fan ownership. People jumping on GLS regarding this interview are right up there with the moans on honorary membership. [emoji1787]
You picking and choosing parts of quotes that miss out the important bits that completely beat what you are saying. Yes or no, GLS was talking about a worry that's ALWAYS present in fan ownership?

[BuddieinEK]

She wouldn't have sold it otherwise.

Do you reckon they will just sell on 25% that they don't need to strengthen their position then?

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

You clearly don't have a comeback. Caught you out yet again, ouch 

[BuddieinEK]

You clearly don't have a comeback. Caught you out yet again, ouch 

For someone who was insistent he didn't care which way the vote went, your spin seems very one sided.

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

Just now, BuddieinEK said:

3 minutes ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

She wouldn't have sold it otherwise.

Do you reckon they will just sell on 25% that they don't need to strengthen their position then?

She just wanted, presumably, to get all her money back.  Can't think of anyone who would want to buy the 25% other than a big rich fan wanting to contribute at board level.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

For someone who was insistent he didn't care which way the vote went, your spin seems very one sided.
 

 

Again where you are wrong, does it ever get old?

I am not spinning in the slightest, I am calling out where you have lied. I would do the same if your lies were reversed regarding the proposal. 

[BuddieinEK]

Again where you are wrong, does it ever get old?
I am not spinning in the slightest, I am calling out where you have lied. I would do the same if your lies were reversed regarding the proposal. 

The only lies are yours, pants on fire boy. Always and forever the liar and synchophantic spin merchant.

[bazil85]

Just now, BuddieinEK said:

The only lies are yours, pants on fire boy. Always and forever the liar and synchophantic spin merchant.
 

 

 

 

But you've claimed GLS said he can't trust us to run the club. It turns out what he actually said was “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. 

GLS is clearly highlighting a risk that exists with fan ownership, it's the worry not the universal situation. He doesn't say anywhere that this risk will 100% materialise at SMFC because we can't trust our fans. I called you out on your spin, deal with it.

Imagine thinking it's a negative having the chairman talk about risks but using risks as a way to talk down a deal you don't agree with. Hypocrite levels through the roof! 🤣

[BuddieinEK]

But you've claimed GLS said he can't trust us to run the club. It turns out what he actually said was “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. 
GLS is clearly highlighting a risk that exists with fan ownership, it's the worry not the universal situation. He doesn't say anywhere that this risk will 100% materialise at SMFC because we can't trust our fans. I called you out on your spin, deal with it.
Imagine thinking it's a negative having the chairman talk about risks but using risks as a way to talk down a deal you don't agree with. Hypocrite levels through the roof! [emoji1787]

Has he called in Kibble reps to strengthen any other board?

Why does ours need "strengthened" by a third party outwith out fanbase?

[BuddieinEK]

Of course it's only my view Bazil and I've never tried to court popularity. 
There isn't much point in commenting on the rest of this diatribe. You're strategy has always been to throw as much muck around as possible to try to discredit your opponent and to detract from the point. You've done it here, again, you get yourself to the point where you start to make claims about your opponent that have no basis in reality. I have never tried to stop BtB's or fan ownership of the football club. Most forum members on here have been around long enough to know just how ridiculous that claim is. 

Correct.
Very measured response too, all things considered.

As an example of Bazterdised spin, he says, and I quote,

"we had people moaning about honorary memberships and benefits of a Sports Scientist."

I can't recall a single person moaning about the benefits of a Sports Scientist.

Happy to apologise if anyone can prove otherwise.

People did certainly question whether a Sports Scientist was a benefit to the community and questioned the funding source.

In a democracy though, such questioning is good.

I know this. Baz told me! [emoji12]

[bazil85]

24 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Has he called in Kibble reps to strengthen any other board?

Why does ours need "strengthened" by a third party outwith out fanbase?

Question for the meeting tomorrow. They clearly see mutual benefits in this arrangement, some covered in the updates. If you want to know more, ask. 

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Sorry, but I can't resist......

but how desperate is that attention seeking line. 

😂

Been proven time and time again. He begs to be left alone by me, I leave him alone then like a puppy he's right back at my side. Cute really. 

[BuddieinEK]

Question for the meeting tomorrow. They clearly see mutual benefits in this arrangement, some covered in the updates. If you want to know more, ask. 

So if I don't answer you then you say I can't or I lie... yet in another display of total hypocrisy, you redirect my answer to your question to someone else.

We have the hattrick!
Lies, spin and misdirection!
Baz Bingo house is called!

[bazil85]

23 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Of course it's only my view Bazil and I've never tried to court popularity. 

There isn't much point in commenting on the rest of this diatribe. You're strategy has always been to throw as much muck around as possible to try to discredit your opponent and to detract from the point. You've done it here, again, you get yourself to the point where you start to make claims about your opponent that have no basis in reality. I have never tried to stop BtB's or fan ownership of the football club. Most forum members on here have been around long enough to know just how ridiculous that claim is. 

I make no apology for my positive outlook on SMISA/ St Mirren. I can understand how it comes across as muck throwing to those contributors that only ever post the negative, you being one over your several accounts.

 I would consider your stance to try and discredit the fan buyout on several occasions and a complaint regarding regulatory wrongdoing as attempts to stop BTB. Unsuccessful of course.  

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

So if I don't answer you then you say I can't or I lie... yet in another display of total hypocrisy, you redirect my answer to your question to someone else.

We have the hattrick!
Lies, spin and misdirection!
Baz Bingo house is called!

You made a point, I questioned it, you refuse to provide, someone else provided ref point. It showed your point was a lie. 

All this time later and you have found zero for the above. No wonder you keep coming back for more. One day maybe. 

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

When Smisa emerged I enthusiastically joined thinking here was a transformation, an underlining of what a community club really means - a democratic input opportunity for rank and file fans.  But as time wore on I lost that vision so I pulled out of Smisa owing to the lack of invitation in the decision making process of simple events and issues which should have been given to fans.  I'm thinking of, for example, the design of the strip; the family stand being given over to the OF and recently, the renaming of the family stand.  These are issues in which the fans should have had a say and BTW, the £2 pot for me is just delegated tokenism.

So, this managerial culture of the 'fans don't know any better' by the Board I fear may well continue.   You'd think in the run up to 'fan ownership' that the Board would have set up a system of offering fans greater input would have been indicative of things to come, but I'm doubtful and hope I'm proved wrong.

The understandable aim of any affluent individual buying a club and running it the way he or she sees fit is fine.  They have taken the financial plunge and deserve that control.  In our case, GS is getting his money back, is still in control and given the dedicated fan that he is, its a admirable piece of business acumen.  Presumably, GS anticipates after Smisa takes over, he will still be Chairman and it will have cost him nothing.  So, my concern is; will the input of fans be limited as it is now?  Things will have to change.  Fan ownership should mean fan decision making.

 

[Lord Pityme]

When Smisa emerged I enthusiastically joined thinking here was a transformation, an underlining of what a community club really means - a democratic input opportunity for rank and file fans.  But as time wore on I lost that vision so I pulled out of Smisa owing to the lack of invitation in the decision making process of simple events and issues which should have been given to fans.  I'm thinking of, for example, the design of the strip; the family stand being given over to the OF and recently, the renaming of the family stand.  These are issues in which the fans should have had a say and BTW, the £2 pot for me is just delegated tokenism.
So, this managerial culture of the 'fans don't know any better' by the Board I fear may well continue.   You'd think in the run up to 'fan ownership' that the Board would have set up a system of offering fans greater input would have been indicative of things to come, but I'm doubtful and hope I'm proved wrong.
The understandable aim of any affluent individual buying a club and running it the way he or she sees fit is fine.  They have taken the financial plunge and deserve that control.  In our case, GS is getting his money back, is still in control and given the dedicated fan that he is, its a admirable piece of business acumen.  Presumably, GS anticipates after Smisa takes over, he will still be Chairman and it will have cost him nothing.  So, my concern is; will the input of fans be limited as it is now?  Things will have to change.  Fan ownership should mean fan decision making.
 

Didn't the current board tell us we already had fan ownership, because they are fans who became the board?
Mibbaes when the talk about mismanagement etc they are talking about themselves?