Jump to content

The capacity debacle


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Maboza said:

From my perspective it looks like Kibble managed to get far more power than their 27% investment merits.
 

I can see a case for 2 board members being argued but then you add a veto to that, giving Kibble equal weighting to the 51% majority shareholder? Really??! 
 

I asked earlier in the thread if anyone knew the breakdown of the board. A couple of people mentioned numbers/people but not the full picture. Here it is according to the official site if anyone is interested, assuming it is accurate: 

 

Chairman: John Needham

Vice Chairman: Jim Gillespie (Kibble)

Directors: Tony Fitzpatrick, Gordon Scott, Alan Wardrop, David Riley, Mark MacMillan (Kibble)

 

 

 

 

I quoted and replied with board members to your earlier post 

There are more board members,11 in total I think.

what’s done is done deal suited all interests of GLS and SMISA and vote passed 

May never ever see a veto invoked 

more to be concerned about 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


10 hours ago, jaybee said:

That's down to the voters my friend, if they don't like who is in power, then campaign for someone who you would like to be in power............ I think it's called Democracy

You can only vote for councillors, I was referring to heads of department and such. They are employed not voted into office. What we need is an employment policy that is weighted towards employing local people into these posts, it’s the only way the service from the council will improve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

The elected leaders don’t make these sorts of decisions. It’s the paid employees of RDC that do. I think the poster is making the point that the people at the head of RDC, that command a huge council tax payers salary, don’t necessarily stay in Renfrewshire. Therefore they don’t give two hoots.

Spot on 👍🏻

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maboza said:

From my perspective it looks like Kibble managed to get far more power than their 27% investment merits.
 

I can see a case for 2 board members being argued but then you add a veto to that, giving Kibble equal weighting to the 51% majority shareholder? Really??! 
 

I asked earlier in the thread if anyone knew the breakdown of the board. A couple of people mentioned numbers/people but not the full picture. Here it is according to the official site if anyone is interested, assuming it is accurate: 

 

Chairman: John Needham

Vice Chairman: Jim Gillespie (Kibble)

Directors: Tony Fitzpatrick, Gordon Scott, Alan Wardrop, David Riley, Mark MacMillan (Kibble)

 

Edit :

Just discovered a SMISA article detailing there are 8 board members. Club Secretary, Chris Stewart, is the 8th Director.
 

4x SMISA nominated: Needham, Scott, Wardrop, Riley

2x Kibble nominated: Gillespie, MacMillan

2x other: Fitzpatrick, Stewart

 

 

Theres not a lot of diversity on that board - 8 white middle aged men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

Lives are at risk by attending a football match,do you really believe that ?

Which planet do you live on? because on this one, whilst not dying at the rate they were earlier, people are still dying, so to answer your question, yes absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

You can only vote for councillors, I was referring to heads of department and such. They are employed not voted into office. What we need is an employment policy that is weighted towards employing local people into these posts, it’s the only way the service from the council will improve. 

I can't argue with that, but at the end of the day if you gain enough momentum politically you can alter policy and change the way things work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jaybee said:

Which planet do you live on? because on this one, whilst not dying at the rate they were earlier, people are still dying, so to answer your question, yes absolutely.

How many, exactly, are dying from attending football matches? 

Bringing in people that "are still dying" is way out of context and, again, needless emotional attacks on people who are simply wanting to get back to a normal life within the rules that other clubs seem to be able to manage. 

If football matches are the deadly killers you're insinuation there must be an awful lot of football fans who will not be attending after the Euros. 

Edited by faraway saint
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

I don’t suppose anyone at the club can explain why Falkirk ( a League One side) are allowed 3 times the amount that St Mirren are allowed?

Traditionally, Falkirk’s stadium has always been a shining beacon of perfection in its capacious stands offering solid terracing, spacious seating, good sight lines and total dedication to create a perfect fan experience….  often meaning that they invested more money in that, than in expensive, flashy foreign players!

 

 

(warning: I may have a slightly faulty memory. My recall may not be utterly accurate.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JJ McG said:

A league 1 outfit with 3 stands allowed more than us too 🤣

Or to put it another way , Falkirk FC will have more fans in any one of its Three stands than we can manage in our whole stadium .  
That is f**king crackers 🤪

Both grounds are modern all seated stadiums 

Both have plenty of room around stadium to avoid overcrowding 

Both have a similar amount of turnstiles ( Falkirk main stand has two more.) 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rangers confirming full capacity on Tuesday for the visit of Malmo, 51000 at that game.

76 hours previously, 7.5 miles away, we are supposed to stomach getting 12% capacity at our stadium?

Do me a favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Has the Chairman statement not clarified why the situation is what it is? I'm not sure what more the club can or is expected to do on this. Thankfully it's just one more game and hopefully this is all behind us for good. 

image.thumb.png.87d0f39311a1eaf079f0ffd59acd24bb.png

I don’t think it answered it in any way shape or form.  To simply say it’s not like for like does not cut it .

  What are the long-standing infrastructure issues ?

what about the reply posted elsewhere from R Council ( I’ll try to find it ) from Stewart Gilmour which appeared to infer the club hadn’t prepared / applied correctly ? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, alanb said:

It will be interesting to see when or if the need for a " Red Zone " bubble continues and what happens to Main Stand ST holders for the next home game to St J and beyond.

Fingers crossed the Main stand will be available for use at Saintees game,  if it isn’t ……..

gonna be an interesting forum 🤯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

I don’t think it answered it in any way shape or form.  To simply say it’s not like for like does not cut it .

  What are the long-standing infrastructure issues ?

what about the reply posted elsewhere from R Council ( I’ll try to find it ) from Stewart Gilmour which appeared to infer the club hadn’t prepared / applied correctly ? 
 

Fair enough, I understand it's really annoying some fans and they want a more detailed explanation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Has the Chairman statement not clarified why the situation is what it is? I'm not sure what more the club can or is expected to do on this. Thankfully it's just one more game and hopefully this is all behind us for good. 

image.thumb.png.87d0f39311a1eaf079f0ffd59acd24bb.png

Away!!! That statement is utter dug shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jaybee said:

Which planet do you live on? because on this one, whilst not dying at the rate they were earlier, people are still dying, so to answer your question, yes absolutely.

Covid is not going away. It’s here for eternity. There will always be deaths linked to Covid At what point is it deemed to be safe.

Flu is a killer. Do you stay in when someone sneezes. 

While many things have a potential to cause death, people have to have a level of responsibility to make their own decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A councillor and the club have stated why the Partick and Hearts  were/are 1039 and its not going to change now for the first home game. I admit i put a fair few posts out qbout the 1039 how did it come about? Did we just lie down and accept it? Did we request more as clubs are allowed too? I put it on here also contacted the SLO and the club didnt get much traction. I have came to the conclusion it is what it is and we will get no proper clarity do not see the point of this continued asking questioning demanding answers our club has shafted its loyal supporters and have pretty much put a blanket ban in answering except a small statement not really saying much

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...