Jump to content

SMISA meeting 6/9/21


Doakes
 Share

Recommended Posts


4 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

 

image.png.49c789dc1a132f346eeb0117eb3d6345.png

 

This. This is a long-term concern. It definitely should be to everyone who has read/heard this comment and digested it fully. The appraisal that if you are getting someone or something for no outlay it makes it a good deal.

This is an absolutely f**king mental mindset to take and really concerns me in the long term that instead of actually paying money for someone who will be good in the role, we'll happily take whatever's on the go if we're getting it for nothing.

 

To be fair, I think assuming what you have is a bit of a jump.  i would assume from that quote, though I may be wrong, that it is basically saying "a competent person has been appointed as GM and it isn't costing the club a penny, so a good deal for us".

3 hours ago, alanb said:

The GM is Lynsey McLean ( not a HIM)

You shouldn't just go assuming someone's preferred pronouns these days. :whistle

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

You are the one that likes to pull out random quotes from elsewhere.

How many times has he complained about others "clinging to the past" etc, and then he goes and admits to doing that?  Very strange.  As if it's one rule for him ...

56 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You don’t need to admit it, I just find it strange that someone shown to be wrong would not. 

Irony at its best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its ridiculous  that Kibble can veto Smisa appointments to the board
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!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ford prefect said:

I see a lot of talk about the veto, who was vetoed as a director? Sorry I missed the meeting last night.

No one has been vetoed yet. As far as we know

Suspect that an organisation such as Kibble are just protecting themselves in case a Jimmy Saville or Al Capone type character is appointed to the board. 

Some people are wrapped up in this veto. Worry is that the Chairman had to be corrected on it at the meeting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Slarti said:

Irony at its best.

I am generally fine with admitting when I am wrong. What I won't do is bow down to pedantry/ semantics as I have told you many times before (given how bad you are for it). 

Welcome to step five. :clapping

  1. Say you're going to stop responding and arguing with the person
  2. Keep responding and arguing with them a bit longer
  3. Put the person on ignore (make sure you announce it to everyone)
  4. Still follow almost every response to the person and bring the person up in completely unrelated topics, often bringing up long dead argument points you already said you’d stop arguing with them over
  5. Take the person off ignore and repeat from step one

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

Ref the idea of buying out Kibble ,surely  that's up to the Smisa members if they want to raise the cash.

Also surely  Smisa can remove all Kibble directors at the St Mirren AGM or can Kibble veto that?

Assume the Kibble would have to want to sell their share but there may be contingency in place that allows SMISA to buy out. Bit moot in my opinion given SMISA voting members backed it around the 90% mark & it's surely too early for any reasonable person to conclude on the partnership. 

The arrangement allows for Kibble directors on the BOD, SMISA can't stop that but they could raise a vote to remove a specific director on reasonable grounds (as you can in any similar ownership model). They would need to be replaced with Kibble nominees though & I imagine the removal would need to get backed by the Kibble. They couldn't just vote to remove kibble having directors completely. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Maboza said:

 when they attempted to employ Asigura for the job.
 

Considering they seemingly got binned and replaced with SGL for the next game. 

One question and answer that came up which i found strange was that they tendered the Stewarding as the original term contract had expired. Understandable.

1. They never asked the incumbent company to tender. (At least JN did not know)

2. They awarded the contact to a business that was formed in March that lasted one match and now they are working with a huge organisation that specialises in this type of work.

Makes a mockery of the procurement process adopted and almost suggest that it was destined to fail from the beginning. No comments or clarifications on why a company was awarded the project who were obviously not up to the job. Nor who put them on the original tender list and who selected them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slash said:

I also found it very strange that the previous stewarding contract ended during a season, rather than the end of one. 

Maybe they predicted a pandemic. Or it was to give the club sufficient time to procure the replacement in time for the new season.

Forward thinking…………………..no wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I’ve said multiple times that this summer has been frustrating & the fan backlash is understandable. It’s the excessive points that I disagree with.

My question was how many f ups would the club have to make before you decided to complain. 

At this time, it is hard to think of anything positive that had came out of the ground recently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, djchapsticks said:

Don't be stupid - this isn't a concern whatsoever. Baz told us so.

Why would it be? Most BOD's that have different shareholders have contingency plan and levels of voting requirements. Why is it a concern that the Kibble protect their interests against very unlikely but damaging scenarios? The veto has bene blown out of proportion as well IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tommy said:

My question was how many f ups would the club have to make before you decided to complain. 

At this time, it is hard to think of anything positive that had came out of the ground recently. 

Depends on the level of the f up but for some context, FAR more than what we have seen this summer which I see as pretty much teething problems or legacy issues we need to fix instead of attaching blame. 

- Fourth season in a row we have improved our league position

- Completion of fan ownership

- Recognition of several young talents at international level (youth and senior)

- Continued to stay in the black during the pandemic (up to last reporting)

- No debt beyond the pandemic loan that all other clubs bar one took out

- A very encouraging model of funding going forward that will provide a nest egg, club and community funding

Just off the top of my head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the level of the f up but for some context, FAR more than what we have seen this summer which I see as pretty much teething problems or legacy issues we need to fix instead of attaching blame. 
- Fourth season in a row we have improved our league position
- Completion of fan ownership
- Recognition of several young talents at international level (youth and senior)
- Continued to stay in the black during the pandemic (up to last reporting)
- No debt beyond the pandemic loan that all other clubs bar one took out
- A very encouraging model of funding going forward that will provide a nest egg, club and community funding
Just off the top of my head. 
We did not complete fan ownership.

We have non fans owning a large percentage of shares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BuddieinEK said:

We did not complete fan ownership.

We have non fans owning a large percentage of shares.

Pedantic, we are a fan owned club.

Perfectly acceptable way to put it. I know you are obsessed and need to be involved but please don't channel your inner Slarti in stifling the thread with pedantic drivel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pedantic, we are a fan owned club.
Perfectly acceptable way to put it. I know you are obsessed and need to be involved but please don't channel your inner Slarti in stifling the thread with pedantic drivel. 
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

One question and answer that came up which i found strange was that they tendered the Stewarding as the original term contract had expired. Understandable.

1. They never asked the incumbent company to tender. (At least JN did not know)

2. They awarded the contact to a business that was formed in March that lasted one match and now they are working with a huge organisation that specialises in this type of work.

Makes a mockery of the procurement process adopted and almost suggest that it was destined to fail from the beginning. No comments or clarifications on why a company was awarded the project who were obviously not up to the job. Nor who put them on the original tender list and who selected them.

 

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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...