Jump to content

The Stewards


Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Tears everywhere. GOW still crying from our last engagement. 😂😂😂

Had actually blocked it but made mistake of looking at it's post. Making a total fool of it's self now and is to be pitied, blocked again as it's better of ignored to continue it's ramblings like fool it is...no doubt the fool will post back this is a victory or somebody's greeting.....await with baited breath....hurry up fool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, God of war said:

Had actually blocked it but made mistake of looking at it's post. Making a total fool of it's self now and is to be pitied, blocked again as it's better of ignored to continue it's ramblings like fool it is...no doubt the fool will post back this is a victory or somebody's greeting.....await with baited breath....hurry up fool!

The BAWA steps to blocking. 

1. Tell everyone you’re going to block.

2. Proceed to block. 

3. Continue to obsess over the person you blocked, referencing them several times in posts & waiting anxiously for someone to quote them.  

4. Unblock them. 

5. Rant about how you unblocked them.

6. Repeat all steps. 

 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BAWA steps to blocking. 

1. Tell everyone you’re going to block.
2. Proceed to block. 
3. Continue to obsess over the person you blocked, referencing them several times in posts & waiting anxiously for someone to quote them.  
4. Unblock them. 

5. Rant about how you unblocked them.
6. Repeat all steps. 
 
Number 3 [emoji818]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2021 at 1:07 PM, Maboza said:

Not any sort of expert in employment contracts so I’ll ask a daft question. 

I know of certain instances where TUPE applies to transfer of business operations from one company to another. 
 

https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers

 

Is this not something that could have been done to retain the existing experienced, long-standing stewards?  Rather than scrambling around for new stewards after the season has kicked off? 

The protections of TUPE only apply to employees. The definition of an employee under TUPE is wider than normal and will include an individual who works under a contract of employment or apprenticeship. If you are a worker, an agency worker or self-employed TUPE will not apply to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2021 at 8:31 PM, Maboza said:

I would argue that being overly trusting of essentially external parties who have influence in our club is a risk. Although I do also recognise that this is balanced with the fact that fans can’t expect to be privy to the behind the scenes aspects of the club finances and contracts. 


I don’t know anything about family connections that others have posed. It would seem however, if the mention of appointed companies is correct, we have a Darren Baillie at Asigura, a Liam Baillie at Renderworks - both winning contracts with SMFC. Both from Airdrie. Are any of our Directors from there? 

And here is the real question.

It would appear that SMFC are appointing companies that not only have Kibble connections but are family related.

We don't know if the tender process was above board and fair but coincidences like this will invite legitimate questions.

    

Edited by alwaysabuddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may have been referenced before but there is no obligation in the private sector to offer goods and services to tender.  Compulsory competitive tendering only applies in the public sector, being introduced Thatcher in 1980.  Essentially the club can negotiate with whosoever it likes. If shareholders don't like the way work is handed out that's what AGM's are for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rabuddies said:

This may have been referenced before but there is no obligation in the private sector to offer goods and services to tender.  Compulsory competitive tendering only applies in the public sector, being introduced Thatcher in 1980.  Essentially the club can negotiate with whosoever it likes. If shareholders don't like the way work is handed out that's what AGM's are for.

There may be no obligation on a company to tender for goods and services, but surely it's only good business practice to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rabuddies said:

This may have been referenced before but there is no obligation in the private sector to offer goods and services to tender.  Compulsory competitive tendering only applies in the public sector, being introduced Thatcher in 1980.  Essentially the club can negotiate with whosoever it likes. If shareholders don't like the way work is handed out that's what AGM's are for.

This is a valid point. 

23 minutes ago, saint in exile said:

There may be no obligation on a company to tender for goods and services, but surely it's only good business practice to do so?

I guess it comes down to a number of factors.

Do SMFC have a good feel for the marketplace in order to determine they are getting best value? 

If not, Do SMFC have the skills to run a competitive procurement exercise? 

How does the procurement effort (time/people/cost) sit against any time pressures and is the effort worthwhile in terms of the expected savings it would generate (by making the exercise a competitive tender). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, saint in exile said:

There may be no obligation on a company to tender for goods and services, but surely it's only good business practice to do so?

SMFC practice in the past appears to not necessarily apply good business practice but keep it to someone, someone knows. 

The 2 companies mentioned appear to fall also in to this category with the new regime.

A quick due diligence check would indicate that neither company has the relevant background or financial standing to undertake the duties they have been asked to do. 

Renderworks have been threatened to be struck off companies house in the past, a winding up order placed on them separately, by HMRC and lodged the exact same annual accounts with companies house 2 years running. This company was previous run by the same Director or the new Security & FM company who also just started a new company called Renderworks (Scotland) Ltd. That is usually a sign that the old company will disappear soon.

Good to see that new level of professionalism that was promised working out well.

Edited by Brilliant Disguise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, saint in exile said:

There may be no obligation on a company to tender for goods and services, but surely it's only good business practice to do so?

One of the main benefits of a business relationship with the Kibble is their contacts and capability to get good deals for the club.

Stewarding costs and contacts aren't a new thing for St Mirren, there will be people at the club that can compare previous deals to this one. For me there is a lot of assumption that things have not been considered by fans with very little to no experience of securing a contract for a business, of people that we can reasonably assume have quite a lot of experience in the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

SMFC practice in the past appears to not necessarily apply good business practice but keep it to someone know. 

The 2 companies mentioned appear to fall also in to this category with the new regime.

A quick due diligence check would indicate that neither company has the relevant background or financial standing to undertake the duties they have been asked to do. 

Renderworks have been threatened to be struck off companies house in the past, a winding up order placed on them separately, by HMRC and lodged the exact same annual accounts with companies house 2 years running. This company was previous run by the same Director or the new Security & FM company who also just started a new company called Renderworks (Scotland) Ltd. That is usually a sign that the old company will disappear soon.

Good to see that new level of professionalism that was promised working out well.

None of what you have said is just reason not to go with this company. It ranges between assumption to points in their past that may not be relevant today (or necessarily a bad thing). Another one with them hung before a trial. 

Companies House only ever gives a very limited snapshot of a company. The filing of accounts will be relevant to the company size and requirements, by your standards few small companies would ever win contracts. To perform due diligence based on that and ignore the additional information St Mirren will very likely have to make the decision makes no sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

SMFC practice in the past appears to not necessarily apply good business practice but keep it to someone know. 

The 2 companies mentioned appear to fall also in to this category with the new regime.

A quick due diligence check would indicate that neither company has the relevant background or financial standing to undertake the duties they have been asked to do. 

Renderworks have been threatened to be struck off companies house in the past, a winding up order placed on them separately, by HMRC and lodged the exact same annual accounts with companies house 2 years running. This company was previous run by the same Director or the new Security & FM company who also just started a new company called Renderworks (Scotland) Ltd. That is usually a sign that the old company will disappear soon.

Good to see that new level of professionalism that was promised working out well.

to further evidence why due diligence based on Companies House makes little sense. Here is Hibs & Celtic's catering partner. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04242557/filing-history

They've had a first Gazette listing in 2019 which was also struck off. This is often part and parcel of small business and it's often more to do with administrative filing than a red flag. First one I looked at but I wager if someone provided me with a few contracts held by other SP clubs, I would be able to find "issues" using your Due Diligence approach.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



SMFC practice in the past appears to not necessarily apply good business practice but keep it to someone, someone knows. 
The 2 companies mentioned appear to fall also in to this category with the new regime.
A quick due diligence check would indicate that neither company has the relevant background or financial standing to undertake the duties they have been asked to do. 
Renderworks have been threatened to be struck off companies house in the past, a winding up order placed on them separately, by HMRC and lodged the exact same annual accounts with companies house 2 years running. This company was previous run by the same Director or the new Security & FM company who also just started a new company called Renderworks (Scotland) Ltd. That is usually a sign that the old company will disappear soon.
Good to see that new level of professionalism that was promised working out well.


Ok, I'll bite. Exactly what relevant background and financial standing would be required?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

to further evidence why due diligence based on Companies House makes little sense. Here is Hibs & Celtic's catering partner. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04242557/filing-history

They've had a first Gazette listing in 2019 which was also struck off. This is often part and parcel of small business and it's often more to do with administrative filing than a red flag. First one I looked at but I wager if someone provided me with a few contracts held by other SP clubs, I would be able to find "issues" using your Due Diligence approach.  

 

You’ve just linked to a company that has a turnover of over £34m and record back to 2001. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Maboza said:

You’ve just linked to a company that has a turnover of over £34m and record back to 2001. 

Yep and my point stands. They still filed a gazette, it was still discounted. I'm actually surprised by some on here. Are we saying St Mirren should completely avoid doing deals with small business? 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, saint in exile said:

There may be no obligation on a company to tender for goods and services, but surely it's only good business practice to do so?

Not necessarily.  John Glenn once said "As I hurtled through space, one thought kept crossing my mind - every part of this rocket was supplied by the lowest bidder".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Slarti said:


 

 


Ok, I'll bite. Exactly what relevant background and financial standing would be required?

 

Look every company deserves a chance. When starting up its difficult and some one needs to take a chance on you. The company that is taking that chance need to understand and respect the risks associated with this route.

Things I would look for

1. Previous experience. (For a new company i would take references of work done with previous companies)

2. Trading history (A gazette for admin issues i can accept. A gazette by HMRC suggests liquidity issues. HMRC tends to be the last person that companies that are struggling pay. However they are the first to wrap it up)

3. D&B check (While this looks at trends from trading history, it does tell me how much credit you will get from suppliers. Gives me an idea of your liquidity. New businesses need a good credit line)

4. Quote and specification for the works (Are they doing it at market rates. If higher or lower then i would be suspicious)

When doing a quick background check I would be looking for any red flags. Namely numerous companies with the Directors that no longer trade, duplicate accounts submitted to Companies House, Directors registered to different companies with different dates of birth and new companies recently registered with similar names to name but a few red flags.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...