Jump to content

St Mirren FC - Officially Majority Fan Owned Football Club


bazil85
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Thursday's winner of the IRONY gold medal is.................:lol:

Please, you feel the need to jump in on practically every thread. You’re by far the worst on the website for this. The only irony is you moaning about how other people use BAWA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 7/28/2021 at 9:43 AM, bazil85 said:

As for not being run well.

- Stayed in the black five years in a row including during a pandemic, one of the only clubs in Scotland to achieve that 

Very good news indeed and a clear demonstration that St Mirren FC will not need "gifts" from its (51%) majority shareholders bank account.

Of course, who knows what the future holds but as a well run club, any unexpected cash flow issues can be supported by loans (repayable) from SMISA. Unless Kibble & all other shareholders are asked to "gift" funds to The Club, the SMISA membership should not either. No matter how it gets dressed up (presented).

The Club finances should continue to be run responsibly & The Club should consume its own costs.

Who knows what the future holds and if The Club continues to progress on & off the pitch, perhaps Tony Fitzpatrick' aims of top 6 gets achieved and sustained which results in plans for stadium expansion (corners filled in) or stadium reconfiguration like dividing the North stand to accommodate home fans when teams with smaller supports visit. Perhaps creating a divide in the main stand to accommodate larger visiting supports instead of relocating home supporters from the West Bank.

Loans from SMiSA would enable improvements/upgrades allowing the Club to benefit sooner from them but "gifting" monies to the Club should not be an option unless all other shareholders are contributing too. Otherwise, SMiSA funds could be being used to increase other (major) shareholdings values.

Long may the improvements on & off the pitch continue.

 

Edited by Kombibuddie
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2021 at 2:57 PM, bazil85 said:

You're so upset at a great moment for the club you "support" imagine still lashing out like this lol. 

Did you not "done it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

Very good news indeed and a clear demonstration that St Mirren FC will not need "gifts" from its (51%) majority shareholders bank account.

Of course, who knows what the future holds but as a well run club, any unexpected cash flow issues can be supported by loans (repayable) from SMISA. Unless Kibble & all other shareholders are asked to "gift" funds to The Club, the SMISA membership should not either. No matter how it gets dressed up (presented).

The Club finances should continue to be run responsibly & The Club should consume its own costs.

Who knows what the future holds and if The Club continues to progress on & off the pitch, perhaps Tony Fitzpatrick' aims of top 6 gets achieved and sustained which results in plans for stadium expansion (corners filled in) or stadium reconfiguration like dividing the North stand to accommodate home fans when teams with smaller supports visit. Perhaps creating a divide in the main stand to accommodate larger visiting supports instead of relocating home supporters from the West Bank.

Loans from SMiSA would enable improvements/upgrades allowing the Club to benefit sooner from them but "gifting" monies to the Club should not be an option unless all other shareholders are contributing too. Otherwise, SMiSA funds could be being used to increase other (major) shareholdings values.

Long may the improvements on & off the pitch continue.

 

Assuming you're talking about the SMISA 50% cash reserves pot (the other 50% is accounted for in an overwhelmingly agreed members vote). How do you suppose the money saved by our now owners eventually gets used if not to progress the football club? That "bank account" will just be getting larger and larger over the course of the years to come, surely it eventually has to get to a point where we are comfortable with the reserves and it has to go somewhere, why would it be anywhere else than back into progressing the club (or community)? I fully agree before we get to that stage we should be very cautious about replenishing if emergency cost usages come up, but if we take an example of 1,200 members paying £12 a month, it's being funded at a rate of around £86k a year. That's hardly a bad place to be in for an income source the vast majority of other clubs wont have. 

As for Kibble "gifting" money. They have stumped up a large sum to buy shares in the football club in exchange for expertise in multiple fields and providing of cheap/ free services. Should we really now be asking to change those conditions and expect more money out of the hands of a charity? I don't see the need for this under the proposed model. Kibble aren't taking profits from their ownership share out of the club & have a mutual interest in a strong St Mirren because of the community benefit, so that should align in my view. 

SMISA as the new majority owners giving funding as loans seems a bit robbing Peter to pay Paul, they'd be ultimately loaning themselves and again it comes back to the point, what do we eventually do with this money? Do we just keep saving the bank account fund forever more? I think if something came up relatively early on (maybe in the next five years) we should be cautious, maybe interest free loans or part and part funding but ultimately SMFC and SMISA are now linked through the ownership. SMISA should do whatever is most appropriate for the football club as ultimately the goals are now fully aligned. 

Also IMO, other shareholders have no duty to contribute, we chose this model, we voted (overwhelmingly) for this model, why should that mean a change in money other shareholders have to cough up? Why should Kibble for example be providing services that a company could usually charge significantly for but also be expected to pay money out of their charity running costs as well? I wouldn't be comfortably personally demanding a comparable sum of money from a charity that supports vulnerable young people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

As for Kibble "gifting" money. They have stumped up a large sum to buy shares in the football club in exchange for expertise in multiple fields and providing of cheap/ free services. Should we really now be asking to change those conditions and expect more money out of the hands of a charity? I don't see the need for this under the proposed model. Kibble aren't taking profits from their ownership share out of the club & have a mutual interest in a strong St Mirren because of the community benefit, so that should align in my view. 

 

Could you be more precise as this term has been thrown around since day one and, as yet, there seems to be little/no evidence of any improvements to the running of the club? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Could you be more precise as this term has been thrown around since day one and, as yet, there seems to be little/no evidence of any improvements to the running of the club? 

No I couldn't at this time. I would say this is looking far too short-term which many St Mirren fans in my experience seem to be consistently guilty of.

There has been a lot of issues this summer, most short-term, many mitigating circumstances but I think the Kibble relationship benefits will be defined and apparent a lot more over the next few years than just a few months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No I couldn't at this time. I would say this is looking far too short-term which many St Mirren fans in my experience seem to be consistently guilty of.

There has been a lot of issues this summer, most short-term, many mitigating circumstances but I think the Kibble relationship benefits will be defined and apparent a lot more over the next few years than just a few months. 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Surprised you'd think I would know more than you... There was me thinking you might give some sensible conversation a go as well, oh well. :whistle

Confucius say....................Empty words do not make a sensible conversation ...................

I'll leave it at that, there's only so many "mitigating circumstances" one can take. :byebye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Confucius say....................Empty words do not make a sensible conversation ...................

I'll leave it at that, there's only so many "mitigating circumstances" one can take. :byebye

Like I say, short-term thinking is very common. Same reason people were writing off Brophy after a handful of appearances after his injury or are having breakdowns over limited crowd numbers at likely one league match. 

I think we've again proven you are incapable of just entering a conversation but against my better judgement I'll try again...

Kibble impacts I'm sure will become a lot more visible as the relationship goes on, no doubt their exposure has been hampered by the pandemic like so much else. Like I say, I can't (and don't think anyone could) give all the precise details on their contributions but from a quick google, despite the  pandemic they have already contributed in a number of areas:

- Additional skills & resources in our commercial operations 

- Additional staff support in catering, admin, IT, marketing, graphic design, PR 

- "Be in that number" campaign which seen very positive season ticket sales last summer

- Increase in online & billboard presence around town

- Supply of building material and labour for the ongoing work at Ralston 

- Additional General Manager support to Tony. 

As I said before, it's curious how some challenging points can erase ALL the good work at the club for some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Assuming you're talking about the SMISA 50% cash reserves pot (the other 50% is accounted for in an overwhelmingly agreed members vote).

Yes, you are assuming correctly. I was talking about the 50% cash reserves.

Quote

How do you suppose the money saved by our now owners eventually gets used if not to progress the football club? That "bank account" will just be getting larger and larger over the course of the years to come, surely it eventually has to get to a point where we are comfortable with the reserves and it has to go somewhere, why would it be anywhere else than back into progressing the club (or community)? 

I've already mentioned how the money could potentially be used. Who knows, stadium expansion in the future, could grow beyond filling in the corners or reconfiguring accessibility within the current stands (partitions/divides for accommodation of visiting supporters). If Tony Fitzpatricks aspirations for the club are matched by the majority shareholders (SMiSA) and minority shareholders (Kibble & all other shareholders (including myself)) and the home support continues to grow, who knows? There is a hope that St Mirren sell enough season tickets to support only giving rangers & celtic the North stand only. Why stop there? Enough season tickets to partition the North Stand to house home supporters too. 

Tony's aspirations should not be limited to filling our 8000 seat stadium, let's go 1 step at a time & maybe one day, building a bigger stand (as crowds increase).

Quote

I fully agree before we get to that stage we should be very cautious about replenishing if emergency cost usages come up, but if we take an example of 1,200 members paying £12 a month, it's being funded at a rate of around £86k a year. That's hardly a bad place to be in for an income source the vast majority of other clubs wont have.  

& that £86K per season doesn't need to be spent for the sake of spending it (I said this a few years ago at the SMISA AGM regarding the £2 pot)

Quote

As for Kibble "gifting" money. They have stumped up a large sum to buy shares in the football club in exchange for expertise in multiple fields and providing of cheap/ free services. Should we really now be asking to change those conditions and expect more money out of the hands of a charity?

I'm not saying Kibble should gift money, therefore not taking money out of the hands of a charity. Kibble done that all by themselves purchasing a 27% shareholding in a football club. As the majority shareholder, I am saying SMiSA shouldn't be gifting money or be expected to gift money without the other major shareholders being asked/expected too.

As you have pointed out many times, St Mirren is "well run", the profits generated by The Club should cover all the day to day running costs as well as covering anticipated maintenance costs etc. If St Mirren choose to sign X player from Whoever FC, the club should be budgeting for that, not banking (pardon the pun) on SMiSA' cash reserves to fund it.

 

Quote

I don't see the need for this under the proposed model. Kibble aren't taking profits from their ownership share out of the club & have a mutual interest in a strong St Mirren because of the community benefit, so that should align in my view. 

I respect your right to have that opinion. I don't share your opinion.

 

Quote

SMISA as the new majority owners giving funding as loans seems a bit robbing Peter to pay Paul, they'd be ultimately loaning themselves and again it comes back to the point, what do we eventually do with this money?

With a 51% stake in the club, SMiSA are the new Majority Shareholders not the new owners.

If me & you bought a house together and I owned 51% of it, am I the owner or with you owning 49%, would we be joint owners? Using this analogy, would you expect me to foot the bill for all costs? No. Of course you wouldn't and neither would I if the % of ownership was switched. If the house rose in value & we sold it for double what we bought it for, how would it be divied up? Would you want to give up 49% of the profit if it was only your money that maintained the property (as majority owner)? Can you find me anyone who would?

Quote

Do we just keep saving the bank account fund forever more?

It appears that is SMiSA' plan (for now)

Quote

I think if something came up relatively early on (maybe in the next five years) we should be cautious, maybe interest free loans or part and part funding but ultimately SMFC and SMISA are now linked through the ownership. SMISA should do whatever is most appropriate for the football club as ultimately the goals are now fully aligned.  

As 27% shareholders, is Kibble not linked through ownership? that aside, the goals should be aligned however, as a business, every company should be self sufficient. I favour lending the money, interest free supports the club whilst maintaining SMiSA' cash reserves for big ticket items in the future that the club will need support to fund.

SMiSA has a responsibility to it's members first & foremost. If the will of the members is to gift the money, that is what will happen. If the members will is to lend money, that is what should happen.

Quote

Also IMO, other shareholders have no duty to contribute, we chose this model, we voted (overwhelmingly) for this model, why should that mean a change in money other shareholders have to cough up? 

All previous majority shareholders lent The Club money & had it paid back. There were other shareholders who lent money & had it paid back (well documented over the years. Some even re-mortgaged to keep the club going, I believe. All were paid back)

Why do you think, as majority shareholders now, SMiSA should be gifting every penny to the club ("what else will it be spent on"? I don't agree with you on that

Quote

Why should Kibble for example be providing services that a company could usually charge significantly for but also be expected to pay money out of their charity running costs as well? I wouldn't be comfortably personally demanding a comparable sum of money from a charity that supports vulnerable young people.

Kibble' involvement was dressed up that both benefitted from each others services. Nothing has changed.,

The majority shareholders are SMiSA & Kibble, Kibble has a proportion of their representatives on The Club's board of Directors, they chose to buy a 27% shareholding. No one (not even you) should be expecting them to be absolved of the responsibility their 27% shareholding brings.

My opinion is, if St Mirren FC needs urgent funds, it could (subject to member approval) be provided by SMiSA by means of a loan. If it is suggested the funds required (or proportion of) are gifted, the other majority shareholders (Kibble or otherwise) should be contributing a proportionate amount according to their % of shareholding.

Back to me & you buying that house analogy. One day, Kibble might decide, their investment in St Mirren FC has run it's course but SMiSA has bankrolled St Mirren from now until then and Kibble decide to sell. Do they sell at their purchase price? What their shares are worth on takeover day or do they ask for market value and ask for 27% of what St Mirren is worth at the time they decide to sell?

Bottom line is, I am all in favour of SMiSA supporting St Mirren develop & grow. But not in favour of SMiSA as being treated like a cash cow.

Enjoy your day Bas.

 

Edited by Kombibuddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Yes, you are assuming correctly. I was talking about the 50% cash reserves.

I've already mentioned how the money could potentially be used. Who knows, stadium expansion in the future, could grow beyond filling in the corners or reconfiguring accessibility within the current stands (partitions/divides for accommodation of visiting supporters). If Tony Fitzpatricks aspirations for the club are matched by the majority shareholders (SMiSA) and minority shareholders (Kibble & all other shareholders (including myself)) and the home support continues to grow, who knows? There is a hope that St Mirren sell enough season tickets to support only giving rangers & celtic the North stand only. Why stop there? Enough season tickets to partition the North Stand to house home supporters too. 

Tony's aspirations should not be limited to filling our 8000 seat stadium, let's go 1 step at a time & maybe one day, building a bigger stand (as crowds increase).

& that £86K per season doesn't need to be spent for the sake of spending it (I said this a few years ago at the SMISA AGM regarding the £2 pot)

I'm not saying Kibble should gift money, therefore not taking money out of the hands of a charity. Kibble done that all by themselves purchasing a 27% shareholding in a football club. As the majority shareholder, I am saying SMiSA shouldn't be gifting money or be expected to gift money without the other major shareholders being asked/expected too.

As you have pointed out many times, St Mirren is "well run", the profits generated by The Club should cover all the day to day running costs as well as covering anticipated maintenance costs etc. If St Mirren choose to sign X player from Whoever FC, the club should be budgeting for that, not banking (pardon the pun) on SMiSA' cash reserves to fund it.

 

I respect your right to have that opinion. I don't share your opinion.

 

With a 51% stake in the club, SMiSA are the new Majority Shareholders not the new owners.

If me & you bought a house together and I owned 51% of it, am I the owner or with you owning 49%, would we be joint owners? Using this analogy, would you expect me to foot the bill for all costs? No. Of course you wouldn't and neither would I if the % of ownership was switched. If the house rose in value & we sold it for double what we bought it for, how would it be divied up? Would you want to give up 49% of the profit if it was only your money that maintained the property (as majority owner)? Can you find me anyone who would?

It appears that is SMiSA' plan (for now)

As 27% shareholders, is Kibble not linked through ownership? that aside, the goals should be aligned however, as a business, every company should be self sufficient. I favour lending the money, interest free supports the club whilst maintaining SMiSA' cash reserves for big ticket items in the future that the club will need support to fund.

SMiSA has a responsibility to it's members first & foremost. If the will of the members is to gift the money, that is what will happen. If the members will is to lend money, that is what should happen.

All previous majority shareholders lent The Club money & had it paid back. There were other shareholders who lent money & had it paid back (well documented over the years. Some even re-mortgaged to keep the club going, I believe. All were paid back)

Why do you think, as majority shareholders now, SMiSA should be gifting every penny to the club ("what else will it be spent on"? I don't agree with you on that

Kibble' involvement was dressed up that both benefitted from each others services. Nothing has changed.,

The majority shareholders are SMiSA & Kibble, Kibble has a proportion of their representatives on The Club's board of Directors, they chose to buy a 27% shareholding. No one (not even you) should be expecting them to be absolved of the responsibility their 27% shareholding brings.

My opinion is, if St Mirren FC needs urgent funds, it could (subject to member approval) be provided by SMiSA by means of a loan. If it is suggested the funds required (or proportion of) are gifted, the other majority shareholders (Kibble or otherwise) should be contributing a proportionate amount according to their % of shareholding.

Back to me & you buying that house analogy. One day, Kibble might decide, their investment in St Mirren FC has run it's course but SMiSA has bankrolled St Mirren from now until then and Kibble decide to sell. Do they sell at their purchase price? What their shares are worth on takeover day or do they ask for market value and ask for 27% of what St Mirren is worth at the time they decide to sell?

Bottom line is, I am all in favour of SMiSA supporting St Mirren develop & grow. But not in favour of SMiSA as being treated like a cash cow.

Enjoy your day Bas.

 

Excellent  response 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Yes, you are assuming correctly. I was talking about the 50% cash reserves.

I've already mentioned how the money could potentially be used. Who knows, stadium expansion in the future, could grow beyond filling in the corners or reconfiguring accessibility within the current stands (partitions/divides for accommodation of visiting supporters). If Tony Fitzpatricks aspirations for the club are matched by the majority shareholders (SMiSA) and minority shareholders (Kibble & all other shareholders (including myself)) and the home support continues to grow, who knows? There is a hope that St Mirren sell enough season tickets to support only giving rangers & celtic the North stand only. Why stop there? Enough season tickets to partition the North Stand to house home supporters too. 

Tony's aspirations should not be limited to filling our 8000 seat stadium, let's go 1 step at a time & maybe one day, building a bigger stand (as crowds increase).

I thought you were meaning this money should be given as loans, I'm more making the point about the end goal for this money (retaining a set pot of funds that we're comfortable with). Surely we'll get to a stage where we're happy with SMISA reserves and the money should be funded back into the club without a need to repay the pot? 

I don't imagine that' Tony's aspirational limits tbh. 

& that £86K per season doesn't need to be spent for the sake of spending it (I said this a few years ago at the SMISA AGM regarding the £2 pot)

I know you did and there just wasn't anywhere near enough interest for it. I'm not talking about saving for the sake of saving, at the last accounts we had cash in bank of over £1.4 million at St Mirren, I'm not sure how the pandemic would have continued to impact or what has happened to that since the ownership change. What I'm saying is, surely it'll get to a stage where we are happy with the cash the club & SMISA hold, given the ownership model now there is a direct linked interest. 

When we get to that stage, surely we start investing back into the club without the need to "loan"

I'm not saying Kibble should gift money, therefore not taking money out of the hands of a charity. Kibble done that all by themselves purchasing a 27% shareholding in a football club. As the majority shareholder, I am saying SMiSA shouldn't be gifting money or be expected to gift money without the other major shareholders being asked/expected too.

Kibbles contribution sounds like it'll be non-financial but still valuable. There is surely a counter-balance here, for future investment, SMISA provide cash, Kibble provide services. If Kibble are also expected to stump-up cash, surely SMISA should be expected to give comparable professional support, services, materials and man-power that Kibble have committed to providing or pay a fair price to Kibble for them? I think the reality will be, Kibble are more capable of providing this stuff cheap/ free than SMISA would be. As such there shouldn't be the same expectation for them to give comparable cash. 

We can use Ralston as an example here. Say there is the equivalent of £10,000 of work needing done (if we went through a private company). Instead SMISA provide £5,000 for materials and other planning & Kibble then perform the work through their colleagues and contacts for free. I don't think it's then fair to say, "Kibble should be providing the equivalent of 27% of that £5,000 cost"

As you have pointed out many times, St Mirren is "well run", the profits generated by The Club should cover all the day to day running costs as well as covering anticipated maintenance costs etc. If St Mirren choose to sign X player from Whoever FC, the club should be budgeting for that, not banking (pardon the pun) on SMiSA' cash reserves to fund it.

I'm not seeing any indication that will happen with the 50% but if it did, I would agree it isn't a sound approach (situation consideration excluded of course). Again my point is more when we are comfortable with the reserves built up through the 50% it's really a question of "then what" 

I respect your right to have that opinion. I don't share your opinion.

You don't think SMISA, Kibble & St Mirren have a mutually beneficial relationship? That's fine if it's your opinion, can you elaborate on why though? 

With a 51% stake in the club, SMiSA are the new Majority Shareholders not the new owners.

If me & you bought a house together and I owned 51% of it, am I the owner or with you owning 49%, would we be joint owners? Using this analogy, would you expect me to foot the bill for all costs? No. Of course you wouldn't and neither would I if the % of ownership was switched. If the house rose in value & we sold it for double what we bought it for, how would it be divied up? Would you want to give up 49% of the profit if it was only your money that maintained the property (as majority owner)? Can you find me anyone who would?

I think this is tiny bit nit picking tbh but fine. SMISA are joint owners of St Mirren, I'm not sure how that progresses anything because we know that but there you are.

Regarding the house analogy, SMFC isn't under a comparable ownership structure to people buying a house together and having to decide who pays bills. If we bought a house together and rented it out to cover the costs of having a home, that would probably be a closer analogy. Should emergency and one off costs occur, that is a different scenario and one that should be treated in isolation. The 50% savings is surely designed to support such instances though, the Kibble relationship is not necessarily financially but it is from many infrastructure related points. In saying that, I'm sure circumstances exist where Kibble would have to take part responsibility as the only other majority share holder. 

It appears that is SMiSA' plan (for now)

As 27% shareholders, is Kibble not linked through ownership? that aside, the goals should be aligned however, as a business, every company should be self sufficient. I favour lending the money, interest free supports the club whilst maintaining SMiSA' cash reserves for big ticket items in the future that the club will need support to fund.

I imagine that won't be far off what will happen if the money is required, hopefully it never is and it can be used in the future for the clubs growth/ peace of mind. 

SMiSA has a responsibility to it's members first & foremost. If the will of the members is to gift the money, that is what will happen. If the members will is to lend money, that is what should happen.

History probably tells us here, the members will do what SMISA propose. I think they have earned that trust over what has been nothing short of a hugely successful fan purchase approach.

All previous majority shareholders lent The Club money & had it paid back. There were other shareholders who lent money & had it paid back (well documented over the years. Some even re-mortgaged to keep the club going, I believe. All were paid back)

We aren't and hopefully never will be again in the same situation. As long as we stay away from that situation, any additional funding or release of funds will come down to SMISA as you have already mentioned. 

Why do you think, as majority shareholders now, SMiSA should be gifting every penny to the club ("what else will it be spent on"? I don't agree with you on that

Not what I said, again it's after we get to a point where we are comfortable with the collective reserves. I think we personally should always set a minimum we want to hold in reserves, anything over that, it goes to progressing the football club without the need to pay back. 

Kibble' involvement was dressed up that both benefitted from each others services. Nothing has changed.,

Disagree, I shared a number of changes with FS in my last post. Again I think this is very short-term thinking to have concluded on this. I also think it's extremely unfair not to consider the situation with the pandemic limiting Kibbles impact. Some St Mirren fans have pre-held views on the Kibble and have been waiting to criticise wherever they can. It's exactly like they are desperate for Kibble to fail. If people can rise above that and look at the situation as is, Kibble have contributed in someways' and been hampered by circumstances outside their control. 

The majority shareholders are SMiSA & Kibble, Kibble has a proportion of their representatives on The Club's board of Directors, they chose to buy a 27% shareholding. No one (not even you) should be expecting them to be absolved of the responsibility their 27% shareholding brings.

I haven't remotely suggested that. 

My opinion is, if St Mirren FC needs urgent funds, it could (subject to member approval) be provided by SMiSA by means of a loan. If it is suggested the funds required (or proportion of) are gifted, the other majority shareholders (Kibble or otherwise) should be contributing a proportionate amount according to their % of shareholding.

I've already addressed this with the other documented benefits Kibble have committed to provide. You can choose only to look at the financials but if that is the case, Kibble would be well within their rights (IMO) to demand fair payment for labour and other costs. If they did so, it would likely be counter productive to SMISA and ultimately St Mirren. Them not doing that must be factored into any financial asks. 

Back to me & you buying that house analogy. One day, Kibble might decide, their investment in St Mirren FC has run it's course but SMiSA has bankrolled St Mirren from now until then and Kibble decide to sell. Do they sell at their purchase price? What their shares are worth on takeover day or do they ask for market value and ask for 27% of what St Mirren is worth at the time they decide to sell?

I would need to look into this but I remember something about SMISA retaining first option at purchase price should they decide to sell (can anyone confirm)? There would also need to be approval from the BOD on any new shareholder coming in. It's a risk but I think it would be considered a very small and reasonable to accept one. Even in worst case scenario, why would anyone buy 27% of the club and not retain an interest in their success? 

Bottom line is, I am all in favour of SMiSA supporting St Mirren develop & grow. But not in favour of SMiSA as being treated like a cash cow.

For me we always need to come back to the ultimate goal, progress SMFC, not hoard funds in SMISA bank accounts (beyond reasonable safety measures). The biggest issue for me is people treating this as us vs them when it comes to SMISA & St Mirren or SMISA & Kibble. The reality is we all have aligned goals and need to be treated as one in the same regarding progressing the football club.  

Enjoy your day Bas.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

Can some enlighten me ,are the people in care at the Kibble paid for their labour or is it  classed as free training ?

The Kibble doesn't pay them. Generally it's work placements and skill learning courses which are unpaid. They're funded through the Kibble though via charitable donations. The placements and job experience can and does lead to paid employment for many who wouldn't have had the opportunities otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I thought you were meaning this money should be given as loans, I'm more making the point about the end goal for this money (retaining a set pot of funds that we're comfortable with). Surely we'll get to a stage where we're happy with SMISA reserves and the money should be funded back into the club without a need to repay the pot? 

I was & the day for gifting The Club funds is many years away. Shouldn't be on the table now.

Quote

I don't imagine that' Tony's aspirational limits tbh. 

We agree & hopefully, all his aspirations are realised.

Quote

I know you did and there just wasn't anywhere near enough interest for it. I'm not talking about saving for the sake of saving, at the last accounts we had cash in bank of over £1.4 million at St Mirren, I'm not sure how the pandemic would have continued to impact or what has happened to that since the ownership change. What I'm saying is, surely it'll get to a stage where we are happy with the cash the club & SMISA hold, given the ownership model now there is a direct linked interest. 

When we get to that stage, surely we start investing back into the club without the need to "loan"

Who had £1 400 000 cash in hand? SMiSA or St Mirren?

If SMiSA, hasn't a fair chunk of that been spent in the past 2 weeks completing the share purchase from GLS?If St Mirren, did I miss that in the accounts?

Under the model "overwhelmingly" accepted, we will be investing substantially in The Club with the %'s going to the Youth Academy & Charitable Foundation. The point I am making is, if the Club is well run (as you have declared many times & I am not disputing), there is no need to ask any of its shareholders for a money. The Club should be self sufficient and pay its own way. I have explained usage of SMiSA money previously.

Quote

Kibble' involvement was dressed up that both benefitted from each others services. Nothing has changed.,

Disagree, I shared a number of changes with FS in my last post. Again I think this is very short-term thinking to have concluded on this. I also think it's extremely unfair not to consider the situation with the pandemic limiting Kibbles impact. Some St Mirren fans have pre-held views on the Kibble and have been waiting to criticise wherever they can. It's exactly like they are desperate for Kibble to fail. If people can rise above that and look at the situation as is, Kibble have contributed in someways' and been hampered by circumstances outside their control. 

I am not criticising Kibble. I hope Kibble's involvement is beneficial to both, The Club & Kibble. Replace "dressed up" with "presented as" & you may have understood my point better.

 

Quote

The majority shareholders are SMiSA & Kibble, Kibble has a proportion of their representatives on The Club's board of Directors, they chose to buy a 27% shareholding. No one (not even you) should be expecting them to be absolved of the responsibility their 27% shareholding brings.

I haven't remotely suggested that. 

That's fine then. Kibble bought into The Club and it is not unreasonable to expect Kibble to fulfil their responsibilities of a 27% Major shareholder. Happy days.

Quote

I'm not saying Kibble should gift money, therefore not taking money out of the hands of a charity. Kibble done that all by themselves purchasing a 27% shareholding in a football club. As the majority shareholder, I am saying SMiSA shouldn't be gifting money or be expected to gift money without the other major shareholders being asked/expected too.

Kibbles contribution sounds like it'll be non-financial but still valuable. There is surely a counter-balance here, for future investment, SMISA provide cash, Kibble provide services. If Kibble are also expected to stump-up cash, surely SMISA should be expected to give comparable professional support, services, materials and man-power that Kibble have committed to providing or pay a fair price to Kibble for them? I think the reality will be, Kibble are more capable of providing this stuff cheap/ free than SMISA would be. As such there shouldn't be the same expectation for them to give comparable cash. 

We can use Ralston as an example here. Say there is the equivalent of £10,000 of work needing done (if we went through a private company). Instead SMISA provide £5,000 for materials and other planning & Kibble then perform the work through their colleagues and contacts for free. I don't think it's then fair to say, "Kibble should be providing the equivalent of 27% of that £5,000 cost"

& when Kibble cannot provide the service? SMISA foots 100% of the bill??

This well run club should be able manage it's finances prudently to ensure it can pay its way and not need to go cap in hand to its major shareholders.

Quote

My opinion is, if St Mirren FC needs urgent funds, it could (subject to member approval) be provided by SMiSA by means of a loan. If it is suggested the funds required (or proportion of) are gifted, the other majority shareholders (Kibble or otherwise) should be contributing a proportionate amount according to their % of shareholding.

I've already addressed this with the other documented benefits Kibble have committed to provide. You can choose only to look at the financials but if that is the case, Kibble would be well within their rights (IMO) to demand fair payment for labour and other costs. If they did so, it would likely be counter productive to SMISA and ultimately St Mirren. Them not doing that must be factored into any financial asks. 

The current deal with Kibble is beneficial to both Kibble & The Club. That is not changing. My previous response is there. No worries if you do not agree.

Quote

Back to me & you buying that house analogy. One day, Kibble might decide, their investment in St Mirren FC has run it's course but SMiSA has bankrolled St Mirren from now until then and Kibble decide to sell. Do they sell at their purchase price? What their shares are worth on takeover day or do they ask for market value and ask for 27% of what St Mirren is worth at the time they decide to sell?

I would need to look into this but I remember something about SMISA retaining first option at purchase price should they decide to sell (can anyone confirm)? There would also need to be approval from the BOD on any new shareholder coming in. It's a risk but I think it would be considered a very small and reasonable to accept one. Even in worst case scenario, why would anyone buy 27% of the club and not retain an interest in their success? 

Have you misread or deliberately misunderstood? Read it again. If you still don't get it, fine. If you disagree, fine. If you get it & agree.. Happy Days.

Quote

Bottom line is, I am all in favour of SMiSA supporting St Mirren develop & grow. But not in favour of SMiSA as being treated like a cash cow.

For me we always need to come back to the ultimate goal, progress SMFC, not hoard funds in SMISA bank accounts (beyond reasonable safety measures). The biggest issue for me is people treating this as us vs them when it comes to SMISA & St Mirren or SMISA & Kibble. The reality is we all have aligned goals and need to be treated as one in the same regarding progressing the football club.  

My argument is not an us v's them in any way. We agree on the ultimate goal but disagree on financial prudence with SMISA' funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kombibuddie said:

 

My argument is not an us v's them in any way. We agree on the ultimate goal but disagree on financial prudence with SMISA' funds.

Baz has an innate need to simply disagree - whatever merits or flaws you may offer in explanation.

 

Lovely of you trying so hard, but your work here, Kombi, is never going to be done.  :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, antrin said:

Baz has an innate need to simply disagree - whatever merits or flaws you may offer in explanation.

 

Lovely of you trying so hard, but your work here, Kombi, is never going to be done.  :)

 

 

I know. Been on BAWA holiday for about 2 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, antrin said:

Baz has an innate need to simply disagree - whatever merits or flaws you may offer in explanation.

 

Lovely of you trying so hard, but your work here, Kombi, is never going to be done.  :)

 

 

As I have said before, the issue with many on here (including you) is if don’t change my opinion it’s just me being argumentative. 

I have my opinion, he has his & he hasn’t presented anything that has made me change my mind. 👍

Surely you get a lot of his issues are doomsday scenarios & hypotheticals that don’t appear anywhere on the horizon? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

As I have said before, the issue with many on here (including you) is if don’t change my opinion it’s just me being argumentative. 

I have my opinion, he has his & he hasn’t presented anything that has made me change my mind. 👍

Surely you get a lot of his issues are doomsday scenarios & hypotheticals that don’t appear anywhere on the horizon? 

 

🤣🤣🤣

If nothing else, you still make me laugh Baz but you're still spouting Utter shite

"Doomsday scenarios" 🤣🤣🤣

you've not changed one bit. 

You'll keep believing the pish you spout & many will keep thinking 'utter pish' at what you post.

And the wheel will keep on turning.

Edited by Kombibuddie
Typo
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...