BuddieinEK Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 I didn't. I was against it from the start, and thought it looked a bad deal. Nothing so far has changed my mind. If anything, I'm more solidly against it. It smells.As was and am I...I use "we" in the democratic majority sense. [emoji850][emoji26] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 I’ll nail my colours to the mast here. I voted yes for Kibble involvement, I didn’t vote for a coup !! Becoming increasingly disenchanted and suspicious of their actions and motives . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonysaintee65 Posted August 21, 2021 Report Share Posted August 21, 2021 On 8/5/2021 at 9:08 AM, Callum Gilhooley said: We already have someone like that from Kibble and look at how that has dramatically improved things in the last almost 18 months 🙄. Mark McMillan, was,of course, forced out of his position at Renfrewshire council for his, ahem, consultancy work with kibble, a conflict of interest apparently, although luckily for him, he was soon employed by said kibble and swiftly promoted to his £80k a year position, luckily enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted August 22, 2021 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 On 8/5/2021 at 5:50 PM, BuddieinEK said: We made our bed when we overwhelmingly supported the deal to allow Kibble all that power. Even though it was a done deal before being presented to fans... Even though TV was reporting on it as a done deal before SMISA had even seen the presentation far less voted. We, the fans, failed to do due diligence and voted with hearts in support of a flowery presentation. We forfeited the right to complain there and then. We could make some proposals via SMISA on the board... and hope that Kibble don't use their right to veto! By "we" you mean the small number of Smisa members that actually vote ,which represents 25%of the St Mirren supporters. Smisa are the majority shareholders but do not represent the majority of supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 7 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: By "we" you mean the small number of Smisa members that actually vote ,which represents 25%of the St Mirren supporters. Smisa are the majority shareholders but do not represent the majority of supporters. The overwhelming support in voting members strongly suggests it’s the will of SMISA members. People choosing not to use their vote is not a sign they are against. People not being SMISA members is also not an indication they’re against the kibble deal. Seems much more likely it’s a vocal, tiny minority. The deal on paper looks very good for St Mirren and now, over 18 months since it’s original announcement I haven’t seen anything that suggests it’s a miss step, have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 By "we" you mean the small number of Smisa members that actually vote ,which represents 25%of the St Mirren supporters. Smisa are the majority shareholders but do not represent the majority of supporters. Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 22 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: 34 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: By "we" you mean the small number of Smisa members that actually vote ,which represents 25%of the St Mirren supporters. Smisa are the majority shareholders but do not represent the majority of supporters. Yup. Certainly don't represent me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 Certainly don't represent me!Nor the majority of Saints fans but they were democratically elected and had a democratic vote which led us to where we are. In the eyes of some, that is the will of the people and all is well. Not a view I subscribe to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 12 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Nor the majority of Saints fans but they were democratically elected and had a democratic vote which led us to where we are. In the eyes of some, that is the will of the people and all is well. Not a view I subscribe to. St Mirren have one of the strongest mandates for an ownership model in Scotland. The only clubs that can rival us are the other fan owned ones. If that level of support isn’t enough to pass the proposal, the level of opposition certainly wasn’t enough to reject it. Majority votes, not voting levels is often how democratic process has to work. What’s the alternative here, no change at all unless we make voting mandatory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: The overwhelming support in voting members strongly suggests it’s the will of SMISA members. People choosing not to use their vote is not a sign they are against. People not being SMISA members is also not an indication they’re against the kibble deal. Seems much more likely it’s a vocal, tiny minority. The deal on paper looks very good for St Mirren and now, over 18 months since it’s original announcement I haven’t seen anything that suggests it’s a miss step, have you? so you've seen the ACTUAL deal on paper? I'll have to be reassured by that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 26 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: so you've seen the ACTUAL deal on paper? I'll have to be reassured by that. The deal was published, if you’re talking about the granular detail, no I haven’t and nor would I expect to. Would you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 St Mirren have one of the strongest mandates for an ownership model in Scotland. The only clubs that can rival us are the other fan owned ones. If that level of support isn’t enough to pass the proposal, the level of opposition certainly wasn’t enough to reject it. Majority votes, not voting levels is often how democratic process has to work. What’s the alternative here, no change at all unless we make voting mandatory? Talking to me?Second day in a row you have done that whilst claiming never to do so.Fan ownership was the deal I signed up to.At the 11th hour, a completely new proposal was presented as a done deal, allowing non fans two seats on the board of directors and a right to veto any proposal made by the elected representatives of the supporters.That was queried.If no big deal, why was the veto not dropped from the proposal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 St Mirren have one of the strongest mandates for an ownership model in Scotland. The only clubs that can rival us are the other fan owned ones. I suppose after your hillarious drunken post the other night, that might sound like a sentence making sense! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 Just now, BuddieinEK said: Talking to me? Second day in a row you have done that whilst claiming never to do so. Fan ownership was the deal I signed up to. At the 11th hour, a completely new proposal was presented as a done deal, allowing non fans two seats on the board of directors and a right to veto any proposal made by the elected representatives of the supporters. That was queried. If no big deal, why was the veto not dropped from the proposal? You clearly haven’t understood. I absolutely am engaging with you given you welched on the deal a long time ago. If you want to go back to it, we can but you know what you would have to do, it’s clearly beyond your capability. And fans democratically agreed to it in a vote. It’s where we draw the line. SMISA members, season ticket holders, all St Mirren fans? They chose SMISA members & I think that’s reasonable enough. I also think it’s very likely the deal would have passed given any of those parameters given the extreme minority of people that are vocally against it. Veto is blown out of proposition IMO, happens with lots of ownership models where no one party has full control, generally a good thing for business decisioning because no one party has complete control. Yet to hear a reasonable scenario where it would be a problem. The goals of Kibble & St Mirren would have to drastically skew with no conflict/ stalemate resolution by the board. Surely you accept this is extremely unlikely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said: I suppose after your hillarious drunken post the other night, that might sound like a sentence making sense! You not being able to accept I owned up to a mistake says more about you than me. Imagine not being able to let it go. 😂 I guess you not being able to understand I didn’t say I wouldn’t engage with you shows your capability to get simple posts. Edited August 22, 2021 by bazil85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 You not being able to accept I owned up to a mistake says more about you than me. Imagine not being able to let it go. [emoji23] I guess you not being able to understand I didn’t say I wouldn’t engage with you shows your capability to get simple posts. "Veto is blown out of proposition"!Another classic.Keep drinking.It makes you funnier. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 You clearly haven’t understood. I absolutely am engaging with you given you welched on the deal a long time ago. If you want to go back to it, we can but you know what you would have to do, it’s clearly beyond your capability. And fans democratically agreed to it in a vote. It’s where we draw the line. SMISA members, season ticket holders, all St Mirren fans? They chose SMISA members & I think that’s reasonable enough. I also think it’s very likely the deal would have passed given any of those parameters given the extreme minority of people that are vocally against it. Veto is blown out of proposition IMO, happens with lots of ownership models where no one party has full control, generally a good thing for business decisioning because no one party has complete control. Yet to hear a reasonable scenario where it would be a problem. The goals of Kibble & St Mirren would have to drastically skew with no conflict/ stalemate resolution by the board. Surely you accept this is extremely unlikely? So fan ownership with the fans not having control is a good thing?Thank you. My case made... In your own words! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 Just now, BuddieinEK said: So fan ownership with the fans not having control is a good thing? Thank you. My case made... In your own words! Yeah, I think they model will make St Mirren stronger long term, great to have such experience on the board/ connected to the club to give another dimension of expertise Lol you’re just raging it got voted through & you have failed to show why it’s a bad thing. No luck from the St Moan loyal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 4 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: "Veto is blown out of proposition"! Another classic. Keep drinking. It makes you funnier. So no realistic scenario eh? Thought not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 Yeah, I think they model will make St Mirren stronger long term, great to have such experience on the board/ connected to the club to give another dimension of expertise Lol you’re just raging it got voted through & you have failed to show why it’s a bad thing. No luck from the St Moan loyal. "they model"[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]A fan owned club with the fans not in control.They model (sic) is certainly unique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 Just now, BuddieinEK said: "they model" A fan owned club with the fans not in control. They model (sic) is certainly unique. Oooh burn. Oh well you lost hahahahaha. 😀😀😀😀 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Monster Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 At the 11th hour, a completely new proposal was presented as a done deal, allowing non fans two seats on the board of directors and a right to veto any proposal made by the elected representatives of the supporters.That was queried.If no big deal, why was the veto not dropped from the proposal?When did the Kibble get the veto powers for any proposal as you've described? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 When did the Kibble get the veto powers for any proposal as you've described?It was in the original proposal that was voted through. It was questioned at the time but was dismissed with "it will never be used".My question was then why not simply remove it. Never did get a satisfactory answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 22, 2021 Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said: It was in the original proposal that was voted through. It was questioned at the time but was dismissed with "it will never be used". My question was then why not simply remove it. Never did get a satisfactory answer. To protect the Kibbles interests from situation against their interests, regardless of how unlikely. There you go, job done. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted August 22, 2021 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2021 7 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: It was in the original proposal that was voted through. It was questioned at the time but was dismissed with "it will never be used". My question was then why not simply remove it. Never did get a satisfactory answer. How many people actually voted for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.