Jump to content

SMISA meeting 6/9/21


Recommended Posts


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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 

C46C8E72-28C5-4D4A-A3B2-99DC9F9F3085.thumb.png.794f92017f5921aa137e663db3efd5be.png

 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 

C46C8E72-28C5-4D4A-A3B2-99DC9F9F3085.thumb.png.794f92017f5921aa137e663db3efd5be.png

 

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 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
 

C46C8E72-28C5-4D4A-A3B2-99DC9F9F3085.thumb.png.794f92017f5921aa137e663db3efd5be.png

 

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 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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… 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 
 

36E15C0A-25E6-4D26-9738-D71186E4E194.thumb.jpeg.786a3938084692682d5d37107fd61e69.jpeg

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by bazil85
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...