Should John Needham resign due to inappropriate comments?

[BuddieinEK]

All directors attending and taking part? I don’t think it’s ‘business etiquette’ for them to not be there but you are welcome to disagree. 
 
It’s funny though isn’t it? You’re saying I would argue black is white when you’re literally jumping in to disagree with me. People have said it about me on here before in various threads… Usually while I defend SMFC, which I have been doing regarding not jumping on the ‘kibble bad’ bandwagon. Strange behaviour for a football clubs fan forum I would have thought before witnessing just how desperate some have been to criticise the club over the years on here. 

"People have said it about me on here before in various threads… Usually while I defend SMFC, which I have been doing regarding not jumping on the ‘kibble bad’ bandwagon."

Again, defending the Kibble ahead of St Mirren.

That is NOT defending SMFC, as you call them. I'd expect no less from someone intent on defending his beloved Rangers! [emoji41]

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

[WeeBud]

24 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

My view was & is that it was extremely unprofessional & not what I would expect from a football club chairman. Given he’s so recently in the door & the journey the club is on, I feel it was right he graciously step down. Given he hasn’t, I would ideally like to see him removed or at the very least a SMISA member vote on the matter (I would of course respect the democratic outcome). 
 

Regarding your points on Rangers fans behaviour, it’s just whataboutery really. Their poor behaviour isn’t relevant on this topic for me & I don’t fully understand how it links into your last question. 

Baz, even by your standards that is unbelievable…..we’ve to forgive Kibble everything (because they’re just in the door) but we can shift Needham ( because he’s just in the door), incidentally I think he was in the wrong.

 

For what it’s worth I’ve always had a concern that any body (not anybody) that doesn’t have St Mirren at it’s/their core have such influence over our future as a worry, I’m currently watching the “worst case scenario” play out”. 

[BuddieinEK]

Baz, even by your standards that is unbelievable…..we’ve to forgive Kibble everything (because they’re just in the door) but we can shift Needham ( because he’s just in the door), incidentally I think he was in the wrong.
 
For what it’s worth I’ve always had a concern that any body (not anybody) that doesn’t have St Mirren at it’s/their core have such influence over our future as a worry, I’m currently watching the “worst case scenario” play out”. 

You do realise that you are now officially a bully simply taking a stance to counter the always right one?

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

[waldorf34]

38 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

My view was & is that it was extremely unprofessional & not what I would expect from a football club chairman. Given he’s so recently in the door & the journey the club is on, I feel it was right he graciously step down. Given he hasn’t, I would ideally like to see him removed or at the very least a SMISA member vote on the matter (I would of course respect the democratic outcome). 
 

Regarding your points on Rangers fans behaviour, it’s just whataboutery really. Their poor behaviour isn’t relevant on this topic for me & I don’t fully understand how it links into your last question. 

A double vote from members

1) Should he stand down from chairman role 

2)Should Smisa remove him as one of their representatives  on the club board

[bazil85]

40 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

Fine by me as long as I do the counting this time    

 

If you did the counting last time, pretty sure the result would have been the same. 😂

[bazil85]

23 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

You do realise that you are now officially a bully simply taking a stance to counter the always right one?

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

Utter nonsense, I’ll put it up there with your garbage on ‘snowflake’ 

[bazil85]

46 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

"People have said it about me on here before in various threads… Usually while I defend SMFC, which I have been doing regarding not jumping on the ‘kibble bad’ bandwagon."

Again, defending the Kibble ahead of St Mirren.

That is NOT defending SMFC, as you call them. I'd expect no less from someone intent on defending his beloved Rangers!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

As I have said multiple times, it isn’t us vs them for me. Defending kibble & defending SMFC is one and the same linked to the ownership. 
 

You again lash out & copy Glasgow derby fans. Sorry my presence upsets you so much but I’m going nowhere. Good you have a wee coping mechanism in copying fans of Celtic & Rangers on demanding all fans of ‘wee’ teams have to favour one of the Glasgow bigots. It isn’t true but I guess you’ve proven you need such a coping mechanism 😀

Edited December 5, 2021 by bazil85

[bazil85]

31 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Baz, even by your standards that is unbelievable…..we’ve to forgive Kibble everything (because they’re just in the door) but we can shift Needham ( because he’s just in the door), incidentally I think he was in the wrong.

 

For what it’s worth I’ve always had a concern that any body (not anybody) that doesn’t have St Mirren at it’s/their core have such influence over our future as a worry, I’m currently watching the “worst case scenario” play out”. 

What are you talking about ‘forgiving kibble’ what have they done exactly that needs forgiven? 
 

I also can’t understand how this is possibly close to worst case scenario. Not seeing anything that suggests to me this can’t be a long-term success. 

[ALBIONSAINT]

6 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Taking bets on who guest is. 
Evens - LPM

3/1 - Dicko 

7/1 - Oakster. 
 

Any other thoughts? 😂

He is obviously Q 😂

[Rascal]

Deflection after deflection on this thread. Guilty as charged and must go. Voluntarily would be best but, if not, other directors or coowners representatives would be right, IMO. To force the issue, let’s clean up this self inflicted problem ASAP by getting rid of its source and in doing so return to the moral high ground.

[BuddieinEK]

Deflection after deflection on this thread. Guilty as charged and must go. Voluntarily would be best but, if not, other directors or coowners representatives would be right, IMO. To force the issue, let’s clean up this self inflicted problem ASAP by getting rid of its source and in doing so return to the moral high ground.

Not going to happen Rascal.

That has been made clear.

Best for Saints if we move on.

I think, although he should have gone, Mr Needham will have learned a lesson.

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

[portmahomack saint]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

If you did the counting last time, pretty sure the result would have been the same. 😂

[WeeBud]

12 hours ago, bazil85 said:

What are you talking about ‘forgiving kibble’ what have they done exactly that needs forgiven? 
 

I also can’t understand how this is possibly close to worst case scenario. Not seeing anything that suggests to me this can’t be a long-term success. 

You talk about democracy Baz....what if there's been a democratic vote taken within the Boardroom that they draw a line under things and John Needham stays in role. Would it then be undemocratic for one of the major shareholders, represented by two Directors on the Club Board, to seek legal routes to remove John Needham and in your opinion would this be wrong?

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, WeeBud said:

You talk about democracy Baz....what if there's been a democratic vote taken within the Boardroom that they draw a line under things and John Needham stays in role. Would it then be undemocratic for one of the major shareholders, represented by two Directors on the Club Board, to seek legal routes to remove John Needham and in your opinion would this be wrong?

This would be my preferred choice at this stage (caveat, this is based on the very limited publicly known information), a SMISA members led democratic vote on the Chairman. If they vote him out great, if they vote he remains I would be onboard with the democratic decision. 

As already discussed though, you me and seemingly all the other St Mirren fans on here have no idea the truth/ circumstances of the legal advice taken. You have assumed it is a negative regarding Kibble, I have not, but I also haven't assumed the other way. For all we know (if it is true) there is more to the story and the Kibble are doing it in aligned best interests of themselves and SMFC. Do you agree this is a pretty realistic possibility if the rumours are to be believed? 

[WeeBud]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

This would be my preferred choice at this stage (caveat, this is based on the very limited publicly known information), a SMISA members led democratic vote on the Chairman. If they vote him out great, if they vote he remains I would be onboard with the democratic decision. 

As already discussed though, you me and seemingly all the other St Mirren fans on here have no idea the truth/ circumstances of the legal advice taken. You have assumed it is a negative regarding Kibble, I have not, but I also haven't assumed the other way. For all we know (if it is true) there is more to the story and the Kibble are doing it in aligned best interests of themselves and SMFC. Do you agree this is a pretty realistic possibility if the rumours are to be believed? 

Not quite what I asked Baz as we are talking about the Club Board and not the SMiSA Board. My belief is that vote has already taken place.

With regards to your second part if a vote has taken place and Kibble are doing "it" at all they are acting against the club 's (SMFC) stance, that can only be undemocratic. (Caveat, I thought that JN should have either resigned or been removed from post but that's just my opinion).

 

[portmahomack saint]

Hold the bus guys and put away the pitchforks and rocks it's all been a terrible misunderstanding I've found the culprit responsible 

 

[saint in exile]

1 hour ago, WeeBud said:

You talk about democracy Baz....what if there's been a democratic vote taken within the Boardroom that they draw a line under things and John Needham stays in role. Would it then be undemocratic for one of the major shareholders, represented by two Directors on the Club Board, to seek legal routes to remove John Needham and in your opinion would this be wrong?

They aren't a "major" shareholder. They are a minor shareholder with too much say. The only major shareholder is SMISA and their members.

[WeeBud]

7 minutes ago, saint in exile said:

They aren't a "major" shareholder. They are a minor shareholder with too much say. The only major shareholder is SMISA and their members.

That would be "majority" shareholder (31% plus "Veto" rights would be fairly "major" in influence)....I agree with the second part though 😇

Edited December 6, 2021 by WeeBud

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, WeeBud said:

Not quite what I asked Baz as we are talking about the Club Board and not the SMiSA Board. My belief is that vote has already taken place.

With regards to your second part if a vote has taken place and Kibble are doing "it" at all they are acting against the club 's (SMFC) stance, that can only be undemocratic. (Caveat, I thought that JN should have either resigned or been removed from post but that's just my opinion).

 

Let's break it down 

"What if there's been a democratic vote taken within the Boardroom that they draw a line under things and John Needham stays in role." - If that has happened and that was "JN stays" it's a bit irrelevant for me. My view is he should willingly go, my second would be a SMISA member vote (which is what I thought you meant, apologise I just read it too fast) if he has refused to walk away, which seems likely. I don't think it should be a "boardroom" decision & I don't think Kibble legally challenging that is undemocratic in the slightest, that's why legal council exists. (if indeed the case, again we don't know right now). 

Of course we are all speculating here but say the Kibble directors also agree that it shouldn't be a boardroom decision, maybe they have sought legal advice to this extent. There is nothing so far that undemocratic IMO, a far stronger democratic stance for me would be members deciding, not a few boardroom members.

To your words, they may be acting against the stance of the SMFC board, but to my mind they certainly aren't acting against the best interest of SMFC (again if true, we don't know) or the stance I feel we should have as an inclusive, professional and respectful football club. John Needham has acted against that "stance" in my view & I know that is shared by many a St Mirren fan. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by bazil85

[waldorf34]

Bottom line is it's for Smisa to sort out and the chairman  of Smisa to stand up and be counted. 

[portmahomack saint]

This hopefully is my last post on this subject until there's a update from the club 

Donald Findlay Rangers vice Chairman { an atheist } in 1999 was caught on camera singing the sash at a Rangers party {what were they expecting to hear We Have a Friend in Jesus}  he was hounded so much by the press that he nearly took his own life.. so keep that in mind pitch fork brigade 

At a Larne Rangers supporters club in 2005 he was said to have made obscene jokes about Catholics the Pope, a Nun, he even made jokes about Protestant's that's probably the reason someone reported him lol  he was fined £3500 by the Faculty of Advocates 

I have nothing in common with Donald Findlay but I actually like him and love listening to him talking football,  people need to differentiate from what is football banter, and what is purely bigotry and hatred, We seem to be living in a generation of snowflakes...

Honestly some people take offence at anything, I met a guy with no legs this morning waiting at the bus stop, all I said was "How are you getting on mate 

In 2010 Donald became Chairman of his home town club Cowdenbeath and not an eyebrow was raised why is that ?  Is he anymore a fit and proper person after what's past than John Needham who's being asked to resign by some St Mirren fans ? ? 

You're having a laugh 

[Rascal]

I can understand why the person who is still acting as company secretary has resigned as a director. A lot going on. Lots of company law arguments appear to be going on. During a previous period of board unrest I recall the then secretary telling me that they had learned more about company law than they thought existed. Leave it to the legals. The moral argument is clear. He should do the right thing and go. Put an end to this sorry episode .

[faraway saint]

28 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

This hopefully is my last post on this subject

Deleted the rest of the irrelevant shite, just to say, I hope so. 

[portmahomack saint]

15 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Deleted the rest of the irrelevant shite, just to say, I hope so. 

You should do likewise. but not just with this thread    

[faraway saint]

8 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

You should do likewise. but not just with this thread    

Never seen that coming..........................