Jump to content

Who is the Stadium manager


Recommended Posts


  • 3 weeks later...
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 🙄.  
 

DD1DF869-EE1F-4A22-A1B9-CE7AD6907C91.jpeg

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! emoji850.pngemoji26.pngemoji174.png

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:


 

 


I suppose after your hillarious drunken post the other night, that might sound like a sentence making sense! emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

 

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 by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 
"Veto is blown out of proposition"!

Another classic.

Keep drinking.

It makes you funnier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"


A fan owned club with the fans not in control.

They model (sic) is certainly unique.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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...