Guest Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 Baz has truly been handed his arse on a plate tonight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 21 hours ago, bazil85 said: For me it is very unrealistic to think the transition to fan ownership and new ways of working would be all sunshine & rainbows with no bumps on the way. To think some points of frustration which are mainly short-term or legacy issues has eroded five years + of trust in the fan buyout is OTT for me and I think we should be fully trusting these people, give them months/ years to make the club better not shoot them down in days/ weeks as some fans have done. But it's of course opinion. The lack of transparency is quite contentious as well, we've had several statements, updates from various parties, a feedback session, another on the way and opportunity for fans to give their concerns in writing. It's really now at the point for me, what more can they possibly do to satisfy these fans? If you think a better approach is just giving applicants and letting members decide, fine. I think it is reasonable to trust the people appointed to take our club forward. They will ultimately live or die at SMFC based on their performance. It's quite clear in the constitution that any member can put themselves forward for election to the committee and it's the members to decide if they are successful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 It's quite clear in the constitution that any member can put themselves forward for election to the committee and it's the members to decide if they are successful Stop being so factual! No place for that here. Best bunker down now! [emoji23][emoji12]Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 12 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: It's quite clear in the constitution that any member can put themselves forward for election to the committee and it's the members to decide if they are successful So there’s no merit in an interview & vetting process by people trusted to run our club? Okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 So there’s no merit in an interview & vetting process by people trusted to run our club? Okay. So there is no point in a constitution? Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 2, 2021 Report Share Posted October 2, 2021 9 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: So there is no point in a constitution? Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk I don’t consider this approach breaching the wording of any constitution or communications. Of course someone for whom St Mirren can do no right like you, obviously will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 15 hours ago, bazil85 said: So there’s no merit in an interview & vetting process by people trusted to run our club? Okay. Some one putting themselves forward to be elected to the Smisa board will of course , as has been the case in the past , put together a short resume and his/her ideas and plans for the trust. The members can then use this information to gauge if the member deserves their support. It's the members that decide who is on the committee for the trust. As to who represents Smisa on the St Mirren board it should be ONLY an elected board member of the trust ,ie maintaining the members choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, waldorf34 said: Some one putting themselves forward to be elected to the Smisa board will of course , as has been the case in the past , put together a short resume and his/her ideas and plans for the trust. The members can then use this information to gauge if the member deserves their support. It's the members that decide who is on the committee for the trust. As to who represents Smisa on the St Mirren board it should be ONLY an elected board member of the trust ,ie maintaining the members choice SMISA members overwhelmingly backed this approach. Every St Mirren fan had the opportunity to be a member & to vote on this choice. You might not like it but democracy is king & it’s hardly a bad approach for any St Mirren fan with trust in the people running the club. To think a more informed choice can be made from a ‘short resume’ than an in-depth interview process by people in-trusted to run the club is strange to say the least. Edited October 3, 2021 by bazil85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 2 hours ago, bazil85 said: SMISA members overwhelmingly backed this approach. Every St Mirren fan had the opportunity to be a member & to vote on this choice. You might not like it but democracy is king & it’s hardly a bad approach for any St Mirren fan with trust in the people running the club. To think a more informed choice can be made from a ‘short resume’ than an in-depth interview process by people in-trusted to run the club is strange to say the least. You are confused as usual ,read my comments again ,I refer to the election of members to the Smisa board. My personal comments about a rep going on the St Mirren board ,despite what has been agreed currently ,are that only an elected member of the Smisa board should be considered ,not someone unelected by the members but approved by a committee ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALBIONSAINT Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 Recent photo of the contributors to this thread 😂👏 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALBIONSAINT Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 Baz bottom right......EK top left and FS centre back row 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 1 hour ago, waldorf34 said: You are confused as usual ,read my comments again ,I refer to the election of members to the Smisa board. My personal comments about a rep going on the St Mirren board ,despite what has been agreed currently ,are that only an elected member of the Smisa board should be considered ,not someone unelected by the members but approved by a committee ! Oh well, we’ve decided democratically to do it this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendo Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 7 hours ago, bazil85 said: SMISA members overwhelmingly backed this approach. Every St Mirren fan had the opportunity to be a member & to vote on this choice. You might not like it but democracy is king & it’s hardly a bad approach for any St Mirren fan with trust in the people running the club. To think a more informed choice can be made from a ‘short resume’ than an in-depth interview process by people in-trusted to run the club is strange to say the least. So the decision to move to a recruitment style process, rather than an election, happened as part of the deal for Kibble to become involved. Now, at one level i understand Kibbles reasons for wanting this - they are a business and wouldnt want to be associated with some undesirable type whom they have no say in the appointment of. Better for them to have control of the outcome. The legitimate worry is this may also be used to stop someone being appointed who may challenge Kibbles apparently increasing influence. And yes Baz, i do know that technically its the SMISA committee who make the appointment recommendation, with absolutely no influence from the St Mirren board or any lf its representatives. I'm sure none of this at any time will be ran past McMillan or Gillespie 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maboza Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 50 minutes ago, Hendo said: So the decision to move to a recruitment style process, rather than an election, happened as part of the deal for Kibble to become involved. Now, at one level i understand Kibbles reasons for wanting this - they are a business and wouldnt want to be associated with some undesirable type whom they have no say in the appointment of. Better for them to have control of the outcome. The legitimate worry is this may also be used to stop someone being appointed who may challenge Kibbles apparently increasing influence. And yes Baz, i do know that technically its the SMISA committee who make the appointment recommendation, with absolutely no influence from the St Mirren board or any lf its representatives. I'm sure none of this at any time will be ran past McMillan or Gillespie 😂 The Kibble, of course, can use their veto so in effect have the power to reject any Smisa nominated appointment. Doesn’t take much to join the dots as to the change of process happening to coincide with the 2020 proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rascal Posted October 3, 2021 Report Share Posted October 3, 2021 Interesting stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 4 hours ago, Hendo said: So the decision to move to a recruitment style process, rather than an election, happened as part of the deal for Kibble to become involved. Now, at one level i understand Kibbles reasons for wanting this - they are a business and wouldnt want to be associated with some undesirable type whom they have no say in the appointment of. Better for them to have control of the outcome. The legitimate worry is this may also be used to stop someone being appointed who may challenge Kibbles apparently increasing influence. And yes Baz, i do know that technically its the SMISA committee who make the appointment recommendation, with absolutely no influence from the St Mirren board or any lf its representatives. I'm sure none of this at any time will be ran past McMillan or Gillespie 😂 Where is this apparent increasing influence? Sounds a wee bit conspiracy theory to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 3 hours ago, Maboza said: The Kibble, of course, can use their veto so in effect have the power to reject any Smisa nominated appointment. Doesn’t take much to join the dots as to the change of process happening to coincide with the 2020 proposal. This won’t happen, the veto is a red herring. This is why it was eye rolling stuff when questioned at the last meeting. It’s extremely unlikely that the interests of the Kibble & other directors will diverge to the point where they veto recommendations. Even if they did, they can’t force through who they want as they have no additional approval power over SMISA regarding board decisions, it would be impossible with 51% shares. The veto is a protection mechanism & that sort of thing is standard regarding voting rights on a BOD with two or more significant controlling parties. The very worst case scenario would mean deadlock negotiations, not Kibble getting some way that was detrimental to St Mirren. As usual, something that’s relatively straightforward & fair has been entirely blown out of proportion by some on here. All power still sits with SMISA members (not the Kibbke), if they don’t say yes it’s curtains to any would be applicant. A detrimental Kibble veto is probably on par regarding possible risk with an earthquake taking down the stadium. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 3 hours ago, Slash said: I believe there is only one person capable of taking this Kibble-SMiSA partnership to even greater heights and that is our very own @bazil85 This man is so positive about all aspects of St Mirren that he puts Tony the mad man in the shade. If Baz does not put himself forward for election it’s because of his shy and retiring demeanour. As a result our club will be less successful on and off the park. We must actively encourage Baz to apply. Our club needs him to succeed. All hail Baz! I’m only scunnered that my application appears to have been rejected. Well the actual message I received back said that “The recipient mail box is full”, but we all know that’s bollocks. I did try ringing the club, but I got no answer and the answer machine was full of messages. It sounds like the start of a movie this. The villain (you) who secretly despises the organisation (St Mirren) makes an attempt at power, our reluctant hero (me) has to come in and save the day. I’d watch it… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antrin Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 5 minutes ago, bazil85 said: It sounds like the start of a movie this. The villain (you) who secretly despises the organisation (St Mirren) makes an attempt at power, our reluctant hero (me) has to come in and save the day. I’d watch it… Knowing your propensity for unremitting tedium, I suspect there would be more rehashes and remakes of the original boring plot, than Halloween or Bond fillums…. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 15 hours ago, Hendo said: So the decision to move to a recruitment style process, rather than an election, happened as part of the deal for Kibble to become involved. Now, at one level i understand Kibbles reasons for wanting this - they are a business and wouldnt want to be associated with some undesirable type whom they have no say in the appointment of. Better for them to have control of the outcome. The legitimate worry is this may also be used to stop someone being appointed who may challenge Kibbles apparently increasing influence. And yes Baz, i do know that technically its the SMISA committee who make the appointment recommendation, with absolutely no influence from the St Mirren board or any lf its representatives. I'm sure none of this at any time will be ran past McMillan or Gillespie 😂 But who vets the Smisa committee who vets the member who wishes to join the board ,and what happens if Kibble reject the applicant. And if the majority of Smisa members instruct the Smisa committee to reject the Kibble directors re election at the AGM , can the Kibble veto that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 24 minutes ago, Slash said: I’m the Wolf of Love Street if it means drugs, hookers and a rock and roll lifestyle. Given one of the directors has been investing club funds in the stock market maybe there’s some mileage in someone like me being involved. Playing the stock market… reminds me of you trying to spin the changes at the Experience as negative failures of Kibble senior management to the extent they should be solely judged on the point for the rest of their careers 🤣 I would say you’d be the single worst choice for SMFC on this but that’s a very competitive group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 26 minutes ago, waldorf34 said: But who vets the Smisa committee who vets the member who wishes to join the board ,and what happens if Kibble reject the applicant. And if the majority of Smisa members instruct the Smisa committee to reject the Kibble directors re election at the AGM , can the Kibble veto that? That will never happen. It’s just people dramatising the worst possible case scenario of the BOD. Even if it did, no the Kibble can’t veto the will of the SMISA members, the Kibble would have to elect someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 Just now, Slash said: Are you in denial that a director of St Mirren invested club funds in the stock market? Go on then, what are you on about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Monster Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 Are you in denial that a director of St Mirren invested club funds in the stock market?I hope the lot was invested in Morrisons months ago [emoji857][emoji857][emoji857] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted October 4, 2021 Report Share Posted October 4, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Slash said: Oh dear Baz. I thought you were informed of the inner workings of the club. Clearly I was wrong. I wonder whether the recent Government grant was used in a similar way. I will need to wait for the next accounts and AGM to find out the answer to that. Yep you were wrong. Never have I claimed to be or have I given any indication I am involved or privy to internal workings. Your mistake, I’m not sure how you could make it if I’m honest. So again, go on what are we supposedly doing? I feel even more eye rolling at that AGM is on the agenda. Edited October 4, 2021 by bazil85 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.