Jump to content

SMISA meeting 6/9/21


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

That's a matter of opinion, I fundamentally disagree that utilising a paid colleague from our ownership partners is a long-term concern. I think it's a fantastic idea assuming he has the experience and capability to perform the role, if he doesn't the financial risk is limited.

Another point where time will tell though. 

Dearie me, you'll just never, ever concede anything. Never have, never will.

It's a long-term concern because the mindset of 'free=good deal' is potentially ruinous.

If the person doesn't have the capability the financial risk isn't limited FFS, purely in terms of a wage? Yes. In terms of actively costing the club money in revenue? Someone not qualified will potentially actively cost the club more money than they'd be paying out in a wage. I mean, if these people didn't bring value to the running of clubs, why are they paid for their role?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


10 minutes ago, Slash said:

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.

You have the person hung before a trial. 

8 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Dearie me, you'll just never, ever concede anything. Never have, never will.

It's a long-term concern because the mindset of 'free=good deal' is potentially ruinous.

If the person doesn't have the capability the financial risk isn't limited FFS, purely in terms of a wage? Yes. In terms of actively costing the club money in revenue? Someone not qualified will potentially actively cost the club more money than they'd be paying out in a wage. I mean, if these people didn't bring value to the running of clubs, why are they paid for their role?

It's more you just won't accept other opinions. Regarding you, me or anyone else, we have absolutely no idea of the level of success this person will have in the job role long-term or their capability to complete their duties. Your view is there is significant risk in this approach, I don't agree with that. The person is still accountable to the Kibble as an employee and will have responsibilities in his role to meet. I don't think the fact he's coming from & paid by the Kibble automatically means he'll fail. 

IF he doesn't have the capability. Can you confirm the person does not? I agree with all the other risks in a person not competent in the role but why does the fact he's being paid by someone else automatically mean he'll fail? 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Dearie me, you'll just never, ever concede anything. Never have, never will.

It's a long-term concern because the mindset of 'free=good deal' is potentially ruinous.

If the person doesn't have the capability the financial risk isn't limited FFS, purely in terms of a wage? Yes. In terms of actively costing the club money in revenue? Someone not qualified will potentially actively cost the club more money than they'd be paying out in a wage. I mean, if these people didn't bring value to the running of clubs, why are they paid for their role?

Strategy 

You don’t need to be able to do the job

Just manage those that can do the job

Then the problem begins 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Dearie me, you'll just never, ever concede anything. Never have, never will.

It's a long-term concern because the mindset of 'free=good deal' is potentially ruinous.

If the person doesn't have the capability the financial risk isn't limited FFS, purely in terms of a wage? Yes. In terms of actively costing the club money in revenue? Someone not qualified will potentially actively cost the club more money than they'd be paying out in a wage. I mean, if these people didn't bring value to the running of clubs, why are they paid for their role?

I would go further that the role needs someone to take ownership of it. Not starting the role knowing that their paymasters are not the people that are making decisions on. Knowing that your salary depends on your capability in your job is a good motivator. 

Recipe for disaster. At least when it goes pear shaped the excuse “Well at least we were not paying for them to do the role” can be rolled out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JN was rightly taken to task over his statements about not being able to migrate successfully over to the new ticketing system. 
 

He was also in the dark about the car park issues at the last home game - with regards people not being able to purchase passes and also the opening up of a completely different exit protocol. 
 

Yet he meets with the CEO on a regular basis. Serious questions need to be asked why these issues occurred. 
 

To a VMS it would appear that the new stewarding company did not know that the standard protocol was to manage the release of the cars from the West Stand car park both ways onto Ferguslie Park Avenue, not onto Drums Avenue where the bulk of the St Mirren pedestrian support from West and Family stand decant.

That was a shambolic decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Slash said:

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.

This can happen, when the money being invested is not yours, happens all the time in Quangos and government departments. Unfortunately this is the area that Kibble operates within. They will require a good dose of reality salts before being given any further responsibilities within the club. 

784A3C96-F78F-4817-9A92-1AAB82BAEF1D.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You have the person hung before a trial. 

It's more you just won't accept other opinions. Regarding you, me or anyone else, we have absolutely no idea of the level of success this person will have in the job role long-term or their capability to complete their duties. Your view is there is significant risk in this approach, I don't agree with that. The person is still accountable to the Kibble as an employee and will have responsibilities in his role to meet. I don't think the fact he's coming from & paid by the Kibble automatically means he'll fail. 

IF he doesn't have the capability. Can you confirm the person does not? I agree with all the other risks in a person not competent in the role but why does the fact he's being paid by someone else automatically mean he'll fail? 

The GM is Lynsey McLean ( not a HIM)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Slash said:

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.

Is this still David Jamieson or has that changed now? I remember someone saying there had been a change in his role. 

You really need to let that go, how on earth is it fair to continuously hold someone to a project that didn't go exactly to plan? These things happen in business, would you be happy for your employer to hold you to a mistake you made for the rest of your career? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bazil85 said:

Is this still David Jamieson or has that changed now? I remember someone saying there had been a change in his role. 

You really need to let that go, how on earth is it fair to continuously hold someone to a project that didn't go exactly to plan? These things happen in business, would you be happy for your employer to hold you to a mistake you made for the rest of your career? 

If it cost me £1.9m then yes.!!! Or i would just blame Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You have the person hung before a trial. 

It's more you just won't accept other opinions. Regarding you, me or anyone else, we have absolutely no idea of the level of success this person will have in the job role long-term or their capability to complete their duties. Your view is there is significant risk in this approach, I don't agree with that. The person is still accountable to the Kibble as an employee and will have responsibilities in his role to meet. I don't think the fact he's coming from & paid by the Kibble automatically means he'll fail. 

IF he doesn't have the capability. Can you confirm the person does not? I agree with all the other risks in a person not competent in the role but why does the fact he's being paid by someone else automatically mean he'll fail? 

You've gone way off course here as you tend to do.

The point being made - the statement 'They are not being paid by us so it's a good deal' is a hugely problematic mindset in itself to hold when running any business and certainly gives me long term concerns.

Those with that base mindset will be left behind running the club long after Kibble GM succeeds or fails. THAT is the long term concern I have alluded to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, alanb said:

The GM is Lynsey McLean ( not a HIM)

 

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Is this still David Jamieson or has that changed now? I remember someone saying there had been a change in his role. 

You really need to let that go, how on earth is it fair to continuously hold someone to a project that didn't go exactly to plan? These things happen in business, would you be happy for your employer to hold you to a mistake you made for the rest of your career? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alanb said:

The GM is Lynsey McLean ( not a HIM)

I wasn't sure if it was still David Jamieson, heard a few different things in regards to who is doing what. 

Lynsey credentials (according to Linkedin). Around 17 years experience in marketing and events, an honours degree in marketing and a member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Nothing in there that suggests to me she will automatically be a failure at St Mirren because she happens to be paid by Kibble. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Is this still David Jamieson or has that changed now? I remember someone saying there had been a change in his role. 

You really need to let that go, how on earth is it fair to continuously hold someone to a project that didn't go exactly to plan? These things happen in business, would you be happy for your employer to hold you to a mistake you made for the rest of your career? 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

I wasn't sure if it was still David Jamieson, heard a few different things in regards to who is doing what. 

Lynsey credentials (according to Linkedin). Around 17 years experience in marketing and events, an honours degree in marketing and a member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Nothing in there that suggests to me she will automatically be a failure at St Mirren because she happens to be paid by Kibble. 

 

 

 

I posted without opinion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

You've gone way off course here as you tend to do.

The point being made - the statement 'They are not being paid by us so it's a good deal' is a hugely problematic mindset in itself to hold when running any business and certainly gives me long term concerns.

Those with that base mindset will be left behind running the club long after Kibble GM succeeds or fails. THAT is the long term concern I have alluded to.

I disagree with you & agree with John Needham, you'll just have to accept that. I don't think it's a long-term concern that someone's salary comes from the other part owners of SMFC. 

Time will tell who is right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also love the dismissive attitude.

You literally asked 'Has anyone got any long-term concerns as I've not seen one?'

I posted one. One that in my opinion is a legitimate and potentially very costly long-term concern and you instantly went along the lines of 'Pffft that's not a long-term concern or even a concern at all' and then followed up by having a wee moan about how other people can't accept differing opinions without a shred or irony or self-awareness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slash said:

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

 

You could have had the best marketing team in the country working on “the experience” it was there costing model that hamstrung it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Slash said:

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

 

They believed that a viable business could operate in a competitive leisure market by staffing it with some experienced staff and Kibble trainees, here wait a minute? ..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I don’t dislike that at all. My view is, there’s been a lot completely blown out of proportion on this. 
 

Yes there have been problems over the summer & the transition hasn’t been plain sailing but an expectation it should have been with zero issues isn’t realistic. Fans going as far as wanting us to buy the Kibble out & fabricating concerns & conspiracy theory on every little decision is just a bit too far IMO. That’s it, I’m allowed that opinion like others are allowed the opinion that the Kibble is to blame for the feckin poor weather. 
 

I don’t for one second thing a ‘majority’ of St Mirren fans think everything is broken with the club & the Kibble partnership. Vocal minorities. 

Think you should have took more than a second before coming to that conclusion.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, linwood buddie said:

If I was a guest reading through this thread I would be of the impression that Baz is a high up member of the club and not just a fan. Remember but that this is only IMO.

Baz is a Superfan. He seems to think that everything is a bed of roses. The gentleman who drove 1000miles last night said the last time he felt as low about St Mirren was after the Hammarby game. I raise him the LC final 2010.

I felt angry and annoyed leaving the stadium last night. 
 

St Mirren have lost revenue  & experienced staff. But they have also lost long standing supporters as a result of the last few months. The first point area can be addressed over time, but losing supporters for ever is appalling. You can’t quantify how much of a loss that may be. Very sad.

Edited by Slash
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...