Jump to content

The Stewards


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

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

 

What are these good deals that a Club like St Mirren, with nearly 150 years of trading could not get themselves, that need the Kibble to suddenly bring an eureka moment to the procurement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just now, Brilliant Disguise said:

What are these good deals that a Club like St Mirren, with nearly 150 years of trading could not get themselves, that need the Kibble to suddenly bring an eureka moment to the procurement.

We all know you were anti-Kibble from day one on this. If you genuinely don't think partnering up with another business can have contractual benefits, through existing relationships and ties, fine. For example if companies already hold relationships with Kibble and through the introduction for more business to St Mirren they give a preferential rate. Absolutely no issues with that, it happens all the time in business. 

I would wager this is more just your overwhelming negative outlook on life and bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 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.  

 

Read the accounts background and see possibly why the company was nearly wrapped up. I suspect it was nothing to do with an “admin error” and more a financial liability issue linked to a court case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

Read the accounts background and see possibly why the company was nearly wrapped up. I suspect it was nothing to do with an “admin error” and more a financial liability issue linked to a court case

Over two years ago, you would surely agree performing due-dilligence only on the information you have isn't a very smart thing to do?

With small companies you'll often get stuff like this during their existence. It isn't a reason not to give a contract. If that was the case, this company would be better just closing all together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bazil85 said:

We all know you were anti-Kibble from day one on this. If you genuinely don't think partnering up with another business can have contractual benefits, through existing relationships and ties, fine. For example if companies already hold relationships with Kibble and through the introduction for more business to St Mirren they give a preferential rate. Absolutely no issues with that, it happens all the time in business. 

I would wager this is more just your overwhelming negative outlook on life and bias.

I think you have me mistaken with one someone else. I am not anti kibble. The Kibble like SMFC have a long standing business. There involvement with SMFC can bring synergy, if tailored to the correct disciplines. 

However back to my original question. What are these great deals and betterment that Kibble are bringing. At the moment i am not seeing the benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Over two years ago, you would surely agree performing due-dilligence only on the information you have isn't a very smart thing to do?

 

Mystic Meg might be available to assist you with your idea of due diligence. 

What other information should be used for your version of due diligence. Mates Rates, Nepotism, best price, knows a man who can or “they have got to be better than the ones doing. Just now”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
And how do you know these things weren't looked at?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brilliant Disguise said:

I think you have me mistaken with one someone else. I am not anti kibble. The Kibble like SMFC have a long standing business. There involvement with SMFC can bring synergy, if tailored to the correct disciplines. 

However back to my original question. What are these great deals and betterment that Kibble are bringing. At the moment i am not seeing the benefit.

Early days and impacted by the pandemic no doubt but from what I understand

- They supported in changing our organisational strategy including HR, funding, marketing & external relations

-  Filling of a General Manager role

- Support on work completed and ongoing at Ralston & the stadium

- Staff & player mental health support 

I feel now we are getting back to BAU, we will start to see (and there will be more we wont see behind the scenes) more benefits in the Kibble tie-up. This Stewarding contract possibly being one of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Slarti said:
17 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:
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.

And how do you know these things weren't looked at?

I don’t. Nor do i know any thing about the companies selected or how they were selected or whether they are connected to the Kibble or the cleaner.

It’s with the Club whether the companies selected are the correct ones. Time will tell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

Mystic Meg might be available to assist you with your idea of due diligence. 

What other information should be used for your version of due diligence. Mates Rates, Nepotism, best price, knows a man who can or “they have got to be better than the ones doing. Just now”

I deal with customer due diligence (CDD) and Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) a lot for my company. 

St Mirren should be considering (among other things.) 

- There financial relationship (banking) 

- Their business plan 

- Are they who they claim to be?

- any additional third party support for the business

- Proposed contract funding

- Terms and legality of any contract

- KYC information. 

Neither you or I have access to this level of detail (I assume) so your due-diligence conclusion seems quite flawed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t. Nor do i know any thing about the companies selected or how they were selected or whether they are connected to the Kibble or the cleaner.
It’s with the Club whether the companies selected are the correct ones. Time will tell
So why did you say:

"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."?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

So what benefits does the new stewarding contract bring over the old one.

Who knows, possibly 

- Cheaper

- Better long-term stability (depending on clauses) 

- Maybe there is some tie-in work experience with people under Kibbles care

The point is though, we don't know and I don't think an expectations we get granular details on such a contract would be fair.

Based on your posts, you have jumped to the negative though, not good business practice, conclusions only on what Companies house say, haven't met the new level of professionalism. This is all negative baseless assumption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Slarti said:

So why did you say:

"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."?

I don’t know anything about the company. Never heard of either of them, never had dealings with them and there is limited information about them.

As stated there are a few red flags from the limited due diligence that was available to me. However Bazil and the Club are fine with these “admin errors”

Also I don’t run the club. It is the club to decide that its better to take the security contract off the existing company and give it to a company with no track record that is there prerogative. If something goes wrong its the club that have to face the consequences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know anything about the company. Never heard of either of them, never had dealings with them and there is limited information about them.
As stated there are a few red flags from the limited due diligence that was available to me. However Bazil and the Club are fine with these “admin errors”
Also I don’t run the club. It is the club to decide that its better to take the security contract off the existing company and give it to a company with no track record that is there prerogative. If something goes wrong its the club that have to face the consequences. 
So, to paraphrase, you have nothing to back up your assertions. That was easy, wasn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Based on your posts, you have jumped to the negative though, not good business practice, conclusions only on what Companies house say, haven't met the new level of professionalism. This is all negative baseless assumption. 

Where as you have jumped on the opposite side known as the Denis Norden approach. It will be all right on the night. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slarti said:
4 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:
I don’t know anything about the company. Never heard of either of them, never had dealings with them and there is limited information about them.
As stated there are a few red flags from the limited due diligence that was available to me. However Bazil and the Club are fine with these “admin errors”
Also I don’t run the club. It is the club to decide that its better to take the security contract off the existing company and give it to a company with no track record that is there prerogative. If something goes wrong its the club that have to face the consequences. 

So, to paraphrase, you have nothing to back up your assertions. That was easy, wasn't it?

I only have the information that is available on the public forum that the said companies lodged and what other companies have lodged against them. Other than that i have nothing to back up my assertions. 

I’m sorry i should have asked to read the lovely business plan, reviewed their woolly KYC policy, met with their third party funders and took their bank manager out for lunch. 

Quack Quack !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Yep and my point stands. They still filled 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? 

I can only answer for myself: 

I would actively encourage the club to do deals with small business - where it can be assured that the club will get the required level of service at the right cost. 
 

Btw... I don’t think anyone was saying that SMFC ‘should completely avoid doing deals with small business’. It’s a rather bizarre style to twist the debate on such emotive terms. I really don’t see what you get out of that style but I see it’s not uncommon for some reason. 
 

For me, the question is this - we’re seeing companies spring out of nowhere, presumably driven by Kibble, winning contracts with St.Mirren - are those decisions being made with the interests of St.Mirren at heart as the single priority? 
 

I hope so, and I hope that it all goes perfectly well. Time will tell. 
 

However, it’s worth recognising that as long as we have a 27.5% stakeholder who have their own priorities then it will remain the case that people have the right to question to what extent that is impacting the club’s decision-making. Maybe that will fade into obscurity if business operations improve but initially there will be a fear that the tail is wagging the dog - particularly with allegations of cronyism, etc. 

Good thing is, we’ve just under 2 weeks to wait until a normal crowd at St.Mirren Park. That will allow us to assess the capacity, stewarding and catering on the day and to see what extent the club is successfully managing these transitions. I guess the financial side of said activities may or may not come out in AGM or accounts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

Where as you have jumped on the opposite side known as the Denis Norden approach. It will be all right on the night. 

 

Where have I done that? Feel I've been pretty up-front that these are unknowns. It's just typical of a vocal minority on here, the club can do no right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Where have I done that? Feel I've been pretty up-front that these are unknowns. It's just typical of a vocal minority on here, the club can do no right. 

It’s a forum. Not a blow smoke up the arse of the club meeting. The club have hardly been squeaky clean since the start of the pandemic. As fans we have a right to debate and discuss these issues.

The forum is more alive when these issues are being debated. Or maybe its better to be a YES person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maboza said:

I can only answer for myself: 

I would actively encourage the club to do deals with small business - where it can be assured that the club will get the required level of service at the right cost. 
 

Btw... I don’t think anyone was saying that SMFC ‘should completely avoid doing deals with small business’. It’s a rather bizarre style to twist the debate on such emotive terms. I really don’t see what you get out of that style but I see it’s not uncommon for some reason. 
 

For me, the question is this - we’re seeing companies spring out of nowhere, presumably driven by Kibble, winning contracts with St.Mirren - are those decisions being made with the interests of St.Mirren at heart as the single priority? 
 

I hope so, and I hope that it all goes perfectly well. Time will tell. 
 

However, it’s worth recognising that as long as we have a 27.5% stakeholder who have their own priorities then it will remain the case that people have the right to question to what extent that is impacting the club’s decision-making. Maybe that will fade into obscurity if business operations improve but initially there will be a fear that the tail is wagging the dog - particularly with allegations of cronyism, etc. 

Good thing is, we’ve just under 2 weeks to wait until a normal crowd at St.Mirren Park. That will allow us to assess the capacity, stewarding and catering on the day and to see what extent the club is successfully managing these transitions. I guess the financial side of said activities may or may not come out in AGM or accounts. 

Forgive me but I was making a point on Companies House regarding the gazette filing and you jumped right to the differing sizes of the companies which wasn't the relevant part of my post. My take was if there is this activity for smaller companies (which is very common in the early years of a small business & isn't necessarily a red flag) we should avoid doing business with them but that doesn't apply to bigger companies. If this wasn't your point, I do struggle to see the relevance in bringing up the company size if I'm honest? 

I agree people can and should question, my point though is it's relentless from some & completely geared to the negative. I genuinely can't picture a scenario to come out of St Mirren where we wouldn't get one of the usual suspects moaning on here. I mean Steward contracts that none of us have any great idea of the details? I'm obviously not the only one to think the negativity is a tiny bit OTT. 

Yep two weeks, you'd think it would be within some peoples capability to hang fire on the witch hunt but oh well. I imagine this will just be the way it goes now. Development at St Mirren "Kibble bad" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

It’s a forum. Not a blow smoke up the arse of the club meeting. The club have hardly been squeaky clean since the start of the pandemic. As fans we have a right to debate and discuss these issues.

The forum is more alive when these issues are being debated. Or maybe its better to be a YES person.

My point is more it doesn't matter the situation, there are a handful of people on here that will automatically jump to the negative. Which you've admitted to doing in this scenario without fully knowing the details. St Mirren are a business, we won't get, nor can we expect to get every single detail of every single agreement they undertake to operate. That doesn't mean we need to be pessimistic about everything, miserable way to be.  

Compared to you, Scrooge was a "Yes person"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Forgive me but I was making a point on Companies House regarding the gazette filing and you jumped right to the differing sizes of the companies which wasn't the relevant part of my post. My take was if there is this activity for smaller companies (which is very common in the early years of a small business & isn't necessarily a red flag) we should avoid doing business with them but that doesn't apply to bigger companies. If this wasn't your point, I do struggle to see the relevance in bringing up the company size if I'm honest? 

 

You made the point using the companies house link as a justification. You did not review the companies house information that the catering company were in massive debt, had a court case hanging over them before they were bought by Sodexo. Sodexo only have revenue of circa 20 billion euros. Hardly the same as the size of companies we are debating. My point was that the Winding up order you portrayed was not an admin issue it was a real liquidity issue.

But hey this stuff happens in businesses all the time

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...