Jump to content

SMISA meeting 6/9/21


Recommended Posts

Just now, BuddieinEK said:

Not pedantic at all.

We are a majority fan owned club. NOT fan owned.

You are wrong. I thought being right was important to you? emoji23.png

"to become a fan-owned club"

Perfectly acceptable way to put it. As I have said many times I will challenge when people are just being pedantic on points. You do it out of desperation for a win, sad really. 

image.png.cbd2925a0bd2a20edc6de13527d6a0db.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, Maboza said:

So... was there any clarity to who actually has the contract now? 
 

Is it Asigura sub-contracting to SGL or did we have to cut Asigura out of the loop and go straight to SGL? 

I’m not in the know. Also it appears to have been brush under the carpet by the club in the hope the fans did not notice.

However if the situation is one man band Asigura subcontracting to a national company such as SGL then the tail is wagging the dog.

If that’s the case then that’s more questions on the procurement process.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brilliant Disguise said:

I’m not in the know. Also it appears to have been brush under the carpet by the club in the hope the fans did not notice.

However if the situation is one man band Asigura subcontracting to a national company such as SGL then the tail is wagging the dog.

If that’s the case then that’s more questions on the procurement process.

 

"I'm not in the know but here's a negative assumption for you" 😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

The veto that the very existence of was firstly denied, then doubted, and eventually defended by some!

But hey... You are overreacting.

It only applies to matters reserved for shareholders and who SMISA can appoint to the board.

Nothing important or potentially harmful! emoji850.png

To be fair the veto was always in the initial proposal. Don't think it was ever hidden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"to become a fan-owned club"
Perfectly acceptable way to put it. As I have said many times I will challenge when people are just being pedantic on points. You do it out of desperation for a win, sad really. 
image.png.cbd2925a0bd2a20edc6de13527d6a0db.png
51% owners, I believe that says .

Thank you for proving my point despite quoting from a "newspaper".

What percentage of Hearts, the largest fan-owned club in Britain iOS owned by their fans?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair the veto was always in the initial proposal. Don't think it was ever hidden
It wasn't initially.
It was actually a big talking point.
It became conveniently forgotten about though, to the point that it's existence was denied by some

Seems even our own Chairman got a bit "muddled up" on the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

It wasn't initially.
It was actually a big talking point.
It became conveniently forgotten about though, to the point that it's existence was denied by some

Seems even our own Chairman got a bit "muddled up" on the issue.

It was definitely talked about a lot at the time.

 

Something no one has picked up on is that kibble want 400k for their shares if they sell. How many shares did smisa buy and what did they cost, how does that compare to the kibbles shares for 400k

I said at the beginning I thought GLS was only bringing kibble in (and to an extent getting involved in fan ownership in the first place)because he'd be left with worthless shares (I'm sure it was 8% that wasn't included in the proposal) after a fan buy out so it was a way to guarantee value for them. It certainly didn't appear a benevolent act to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

51% owners, I believe that says .

Thank you for proving my point despite quoting from a "newspaper".

What percentage of Hearts, the largest fan-owned club in Britain iOS owned by their fans?

It also says St Mirren "become a fan owned club" as I say, completely acceptable terminology. 

I believe the purchase was 75.1% of shares this summer but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

"I'm not in the know but here's a negative assumption for you" 😅

"Asigura Facilities Management Ltd are delighted to have secured the stewarding contract at St Mirren Football Club. It is our aim to engage with the club, the fans and all interested parties to enhance the match day experience for all involved. 

 

Enlighten us to the positive spin on going from Asigura to SGL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

It was definitely talked about a lot at the time.

 

Something no one has picked up on is that kibble want 400k for their shares if they sell. How many shares did smisa buy and what did they cost, how does that compare to the kibbles shares for 400k

I said at the beginning I thought GLS was only bringing kibble in (and to an extent getting involved in fan ownership in the first place)because he'd be left with worthless shares (I'm sure it was 8% that wasn't included in the proposal) after a fan buy out so it was a way to guarantee value for them. It certainly didn't appear a benevolent act to me. 

 

I did the maths on this last night and it appears to check out albeit a marginally better deal for Kibble. 
 

Kibble got 27.5% for £400k. 
£14,454 per 1% (without knowing the no. of shares this equates to, but I’m sure someone will) 

SMISA got 22.7% for £331k. 
£14,581 per 1%. 
It was originally supposed to be £615k for 42% which would have taken SMISA to 71% shareholding in total. 

I can only assume that SMISA would have been willing to deal with GLS for the other 8% but were originally told he wanted to retain it. Which makes the current manufactured scenario all the more strange. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maboza said:

I did the maths on this last night and it appears to check out albeit a marginally better deal for Kibble. 
 

Kibble got 27.5% for £400k. 
£14,454 per 1% (without knowing the no. of shares this equates to, but I’m sure someone will) 

SMISA got 22.7% for £331k. 
£14,581 per 1%. 
It was originally supposed to be £615k for 42% which would have taken SMISA to 71% shareholding in total. 

I can only assume that SMISA would have been willing to deal with GLS for the other 8% but were originally told he wanted to retain it. Which makes the current manufactured scenario all the more strange. 

IIRC SMiSA also had to pay the legal fees associated with the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

"Asigura Facilities Management Ltd are delighted to have secured the stewarding contract at St Mirren Football Club. It is our aim to engage with the club, the fans and all interested parties to enhance the match day experience for all involved. 

 

Enlighten us to the positive spin on going from Asigura to SGL.

 

Enlighten me on the negatives? It's a stewarding contract, hardly end of the world that it's taken some time to get it right. For me this subject sums up the St Moan fan in our support perfectly. Let it go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The role is General Manager. I don’t believe the current incumbent has held such a role before. 
The previous Kibble incumbent who was placed oversaw the doomed “Experience” project. £1.9M just written off. So yes he did have experience of being a General Manager prior to being St Mirren GM, but it could be argued that he was not successful at that.
Not like you to not have your finger on the pulse. He no longer works for St Mirren.
It is this lady. She also was Head of The Experience for 4 years.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynsey-mclean-2584b630/?originalSubdomain=uk
 
Reading the job description for Head of The Experience, looks like it in encompassed the role of General Manager.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Enlighten me on the negatives? It's a stewarding contract, hardly end of the world that it's taken some time to get it right. For me this subject sums up the St Moan fan in our support perfectly. Let it go. 

This is another of your tactics to diminish ANY point that any other supporter see's as important.

Away and gies fecking piece, you'd give an aspirin a headache. :byebye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cookie Monster said:

Reading the job description for Head of The Experience, looks like it in encompassed the role of General Manager.

And that was exactly why I had a follow up comment. Given both GM’s ran a facility that had £1.9M written off is alarming. Yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Enlighten me on the negatives? It's a stewarding contract, hardly end of the world that it's taken some time to get it right. For me this subject sums up the St Moan fan in our support perfectly. Let it go. 

I would say it was a win win. We now have a stewarding company with a good reputation in working in this environment. They have a sound business plan, good financial backing and resources to pull from.

 

HOWEVER to does not take away from the fact that someone at the clubs thought that awarding the contract to a 2 bob outfit was a good sound business decision.

Your rights its only a stewarding company. But hey its only a season ticket. but hey its only a shirt sponsor. But hey its only replica shirts. But hey its only a carpark.

What does it all matter. Minor issues. move along. Nothing to see here. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

This is another of your tactics to diminish ANY point that any other supporter see's as important.

Away and gies fecking piece, you'd give an aspirin a headache. :byebye

Incorrect, it's amazing how often you get this stuff wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

I would say it was a win win. We now have a stewarding company with a good reputation in working in this environment. They have a sound business plan, good financial backing and resources to pull from.

 

HOWEVER to does not take away from the fact that someone at the clubs thought that awarding the contract to a 2 bob outfit was a good sound business decision.

Your rights its only a stewarding company. But hey its only a season ticket. but hey its only a shirt sponsor. But hey its only replica shirts. But hey its only a carpark.

What does it all matter. Minor issues. move along. Nothing to see here. 

 

7EA237DA-9A8C-4787-80C8-0284C51F6971.gif.736b303bb03b1d97603e2aab814e1e39.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

I would say it was a win win. We now have a stewarding company with a good reputation in working in this environment. They have a sound business plan, good financial backing and resources to pull from.

HOWEVER to does not take away from the fact that someone at the clubs thought that awarding the contract to a 2 bob outfit was a good sound business decision.

Your rights its only a stewarding company. But hey its only a season ticket. but hey its only a shirt sponsor. But hey its only replica shirts. But hey its only a carpark.

What does it all matter. Minor issues. move along. Nothing to see here. 

 

Reminds me of when you had a near breakdown over an existing member of staff sourcing Digby Brown as the sponsor at short notice to help us by the Skyview issue. You only see and dwell on negatives. No matter the positive resolution "yeah but how bad was that" 

That's your choice, I think it's telling that I get attacked way more for looking at the positive side on here than people like you do looking at the negatives. 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Reminds me of when you had a near breakdown over an existing member of staff sourcing Digby Brown as the sponsor at short notice to help us by the Skyview issue. You only see and dwell on negatives. No matter the positive resolution "yeah but how bad was that" 

That's your choice, I think it's telling that I get attacked way more for looking at the positive side on here than people like you do looking at the negatives. 🤷‍♂️

Chris Stewart is not a member of staff. He is a Director of SMFC. 

I’m sure he took the sponsorship deal to avoid the embarrassment of a member of staffs fck up at not properly renewing the Skyview contract..Smoke and mirrors

You see yourself as the clubs saviour by having a go at people that point out issues. You see no wrongs in the club. I take the positives out of the negatives and realise that the club have a lot to learn and the fans are there to help them.

I had you on a very high pedestal as a Business guru. You went and burst my bubble telling us you worked for RBOS during its crash. Explains a lot. 

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...