Jump to content

Should John Needham resign due to inappropriate comments?


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, hamlet said:

I am a  St Mirren fan but certainly not weird. Your comment is derogatory to many "fans". It seems the reason he should have resigned is being lost. He should have resigned when his stupidity came to light and I do not buy " he has apologised" which may only have been on the advice of more sensible persons. The damage had already been done.

A person representing a Company, in this case St Mirren Football Club Limited, is expected to maintain certain standards on behalf of its shareholders and in this case a crass joke on a social media platform indicates that he is unsuitable for the position.

 

You are a St.Mirren fan, you say?

Are you also an employee of Kibble, perhaps?

You refer to expectations of certain standards so I wonder: What are your thoughts on Kibble taking legal action demanding the removal of John Needham prior to his disciplinary hearing and their lawyers letters to our democratically elected Smisa board members demanding that they do not discuss the matter?

Kibble are attempting to shut down our elected Smisa board from communicating with Smisa members. This is a huge, not to mention, scandalous state of affairs yet you persist in a witch hunt against John Needham because of an ill advised but jokey tweet? I suspect that you may be a Kibble "plant" but, if not, I suggest that your outrage is misguided.

The big picture isn't the tweet - it's the fact that Kibble are taking legal action against Smisa and our elected representatives. THAT'S THE STORY, THE BIG PICTURE! WAKE UP! THE TWEET IS A SIDESHOW!

p.s. I wonder who leaked the tweet story (as well as last year's "financial improprieties" story) to the press? Answers on the back of a postcard but I'd bet that it wasn't a disgruntled Rangers fan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 minutes ago, doakie said:

You are a St.Mirren fan, you say?

Are you also an employee of Kibble, perhaps?

You refer to expectations of certain standards so I wonder: What are your thoughts on Kibble taking legal action demanding the removal of John Needham prior to his disciplinary hearing and their lawyers letters to our democratically elected Smisa board members demanding that they do not discuss the matter?

Kibble are attempting to shut down our elected Smisa board from communicating with Smisa members. This is a huge, not to mention, scandalous state of affairs yet you persist in a witch hunt against John Needham because of an ill advised but jokey tweet? I suspect that you may be a Kibble "plant" but, if not, I suggest that your outrage is misguided.

The big picture isn't the tweet - it's the fact that Kibble are taking legal action against Smisa and our elected representatives. THAT'S THE STORY, THE BIG PICTURE! WAKE UP! THE TWEET IS A SIDESHOW!

p.s. I wonder who leaked the tweet story (as well as last year's "financial improprieties" story) to the press? Answers on the back of a postcard but I'd bet that it wasn't a disgruntled Rangers fan!

Starting to throw around mince like "are you an employee of the Kibble" or, as earlier in this thread that people are "Rangers supporters" is a sure way to lose and attempts to put forward a serious debate. 

While I certainly am "perturbed" by the situation within the club I see the Needham situation as an entirely "stand alone! issue.

Also, I doubt anybody can comment on the supposed goings on as there's only "here'say" to the majority of supporters.

Clouding the issue with "who leaked the tweet story" is deflection, the FACT is HE posted the stupid tweets, showing, again, a serious lack of professionalism and certainly not what I expect from someone in his position. 

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, doakie said:

You are a St.Mirren fan, you say?

Are you also an employee of Kibble, perhaps?

You refer to expectations of certain standards so I wonder: What are your thoughts on Kibble taking legal action demanding the removal of John Needham prior to his disciplinary hearing and their lawyers letters to our democratically elected Smisa board members demanding that they do not discuss the matter?

Kibble are attempting to shut down our elected Smisa board from communicating with Smisa members. This is a huge, not to mention, scandalous state of affairs yet you persist in a witch hunt against John Needham because of an ill advised but jokey tweet? I suspect that you may be a Kibble "plant" but, if not, I suggest that your outrage is misguided.

The big picture isn't the tweet - it's the fact that Kibble are taking legal action against Smisa and our elected representatives. THAT'S THE STORY, THE BIG PICTURE! WAKE UP! THE TWEET IS A SIDESHOW!

p.s. I wonder who leaked the tweet story (as well as last year's "financial improprieties" story) to the press? Answers on the back of a postcard but I'd bet that it wasn't a disgruntled Rangers fan!

Is there evidence for what you say?

Not doubting it, just wondering how you know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Is there evidence for what you say?

Not doubting it, just wondering how you know this.

That's precisely what I was indicating.

19 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Also, I doubt anybody can comment on the supposed goings on as there's only "here'say" to the majority of supporters.

However, IF these "stories" are, indeed close to true I'd imagine the less said on a football forum the better as there seems to be legal issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clear the relationship  has broken down.

Smisa should put forward a motion of no confidence  in the board(I know it includes  their representatives) and clear everyone out and start with a clean slate.

The problem  them becomes the , as far as I know ,the agreement  between Smisa and the Kibble whereby each party can veto who goes on the board.

Smisa will have to break this agreement  but the bank might have a say on that.

Smisa need a war chest to buy them out ,it needs to come clean with its members so this can be achieved  , the supporters  ,given the full picture ,will step up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

It's clear the relationship  has broken down.

Smisa should put forward a motion of no confidence  in the board(I know it includes  their representatives) and clear everyone out and start with a clean slate.

The problem  them becomes the , as far as I know ,the agreement  between Smisa and the Kibble whereby each party can veto who goes on the board.

Smisa will have to break this agreement  but the bank might have a say on that.

Smisa need a war chest to buy them out ,it needs to come clean with its members so this can be achieved  , the supporters  ,given the full picture ,will step up.

Count me in.... I'll rejoin SMISA 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clear the relationship  has broken down.
Smisa should put forward a motion of no confidence  in the board(I know it includes  their representatives) and clear everyone out and start with a clean slate.
The problem  them becomes the , as far as I know ,the agreement  between Smisa and the Kibble whereby each party can veto who goes on the board.
Smisa will have to break this agreement  but the bank might have a say on that.
Smisa need a war chest to buy them out ,it needs to come clean with its members so this can be achieved  , the supporters  ,given the full picture ,will step up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, doakie said:

You are a St.Mirren fan, you say?

Are you also an employee of Kibble, perhaps?

You refer to expectations of certain standards so I wonder: What are your thoughts on Kibble taking legal action demanding the removal of John Needham prior to his disciplinary hearing and their lawyers letters to our democratically elected Smisa board members demanding that they do not discuss the matter?

Kibble are attempting to shut down our elected Smisa board from communicating with Smisa members. This is a huge, not to mention, scandalous state of affairs yet you persist in a witch hunt against John Needham because of an ill advised but jokey tweet? I suspect that you may be a Kibble "plant" but, if not, I suggest that your outrage is misguided.

The big picture isn't the tweet - it's the fact that Kibble are taking legal action against Smisa and our elected representatives. THAT'S THE STORY, THE BIG PICTURE! WAKE UP! THE TWEET IS A SIDESHOW!

p.s. I wonder who leaked the tweet story (as well as last year's "financial improprieties" story) to the press? Answers on the back of a postcard but I'd bet that it wasn't a disgruntled Rangers fan!

You are well of the mark. To put your mind at rest, not that I have to explain, but I do object to you questioning my passion for St Mirren. 

Lets just say my support goes back to the days of Walker, Lapsley etc.,  (In case you are to young that was 1957) And continues to this day.

I have no thoughts on your speculation (since you have not provided proof) on Kibble actions.

Me, an employee of Kibble is a joke. The closest connection I have or had to Kibble was walking (or sometimes running) 4 times past their front door on the Greenock Road on a Saturday to and from the Racecourse to play football. 

Neither do I have any connection with Smisa. Never been a member, so no nothing about their arrangements for representatives to the Board.

I am not outraged (past that), your words, but I do expect the Chairman of an Institution that I have been a member of for many years to represent me in a professional manner.

Nearly forgot. Not me that leaked the tweet since I not on it. ( To easy to cause problems!)

Please don't loose the point, It has nothing to do with the "joke" THAT IS NOT THE BIG PICTURE but his lack of thought of the consequence is.

From my experience, Companies that I have been employed by have standards that their employees or their representatives are expected to abide by or suffer the consequences. (Failure normally led to a sacking)

If our "man" has the best interest of OUR St Mirren at heart he shall do the right thing and resign before his disciplinary meeting later to-day and not drag the club down any further.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hamlet said:

You are well of the mark. To put your mind at rest, not that I have to explain, but I do object to you questioning my passion for St Mirren. 

Lets just say my support goes back to the days of Walker, Lapsley etc.,  (In case you are to young that was 1957) And continues to this day.

I have no thoughts on your speculation (since you have not provided proof) on Kibble actions.

Me, an employee of Kibble is a joke. The closest connection I have or had to Kibble was walking (or sometimes running) 4 times past their front door on the Greenock Road on a Saturday to and from the Racecourse to play football. 

Neither do I have any connection with Smisa. Never been a member, so no nothing about their arrangements for representatives to the Board.

I am not outraged (past that), your words, but I do expect the Chairman of an Institution that I have been a member of for many years to represent me in a professional manner.

Nearly forgot. Not me that leaked the tweet since I not on it. ( To easy to cause problems!)

Please don't loose the point, It has nothing to do with the "joke" THAT IS NOT THE BIG PICTURE but his lack of thought of the consequence is.

From my experience, Companies that I have been employed by have standards that their employees or their representatives are expected to abide by or suffer the consequences. (Failure normally led to a sacking)

If our "man" has the best interest of OUR St Mirren at heart he shall do the right thing and resign before his disciplinary meeting later to-day and not drag the club down any further.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion it was just a daft tweet. I really don't get why *** is sectarian though. Rangers fans are ****, I'd never call a non rangers supporting Protestant that. Therefore how can it be bigoted or sectarian? It's just a statement of fact because that's what they are.

Hopefully it's a rap on the knuckles or a small fine (for the bridge comments which were a bit crass) which we can cover in the next 3 monthly spend vote, then we can all move on.

Edited by ford prefect
ETA to add bridge bit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion it was just a daft tweet. I really don't get why *** is sectarian though. Rangers fans are ****, I'd never call a non rangers supporting Protestant that. Therefore how can it be bigoted or sectarian? It's just a statement of fact because that's what they are.
Hopefully it's a rap on the knuckles or a small fine (for the bridge comments which were a bit crass) which we can cover in the next 3 monthly spend vote, then we can all move on.
He should have to pay any fine himself as he wasn't acting in any official capacity (for SMFC or SMiSA), he was posting on his own personal twitter account. Not that I think there should be any fine, but I've already covered that earlier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, doakie said:

You are a St.Mirren fan, you say?

Are you also an employee of Kibble, perhaps?

You refer to expectations of certain standards so I wonder: What are your thoughts on Kibble taking legal action demanding the removal of John Needham prior to his disciplinary hearing and their lawyers letters to our democratically elected Smisa board members demanding that they do not discuss the matter?

Kibble are attempting to shut down our elected Smisa board from communicating with Smisa members. This is a huge, not to mention, scandalous state of affairs yet you persist in a witch hunt against John Needham because of an ill advised but jokey tweet? I suspect that you may be a Kibble "plant" but, if not, I suggest that your outrage is misguided.

The big picture isn't the tweet - it's the fact that Kibble are taking legal action against Smisa and our elected representatives. THAT'S THE STORY, THE BIG PICTURE! WAKE UP! THE TWEET IS A SIDESHOW!

p.s. I wonder who leaked the tweet story (as well as last year's "financial improprieties" story) to the press? Answers on the back of a postcard but I'd bet that it wasn't a disgruntled Rangers fan!

If Kibble are threatening or even are taking legal action against SMISA then SMISA have a duty to advise the members of this action. I have not seen anything to suggest that SMISA have done this.

Also worth remembering that SMISA are the majority shareholder on the SMFC board and Kibble are a minority. They can have the ultimate voting rights on any decision on the board. If Kibble are taking action against SMISA or their representatives then they are jeopardising the board and ultimately SMFC. 

Separately at the time i did wonder why a Rangers fan would trawl through the Chairman of SMFC twitter account to find these  posts from way back. In all intents and purpose John Needham is a nobody to these fans, therefore why was he targeted when i am sure every other clubs representatives have similar posts on their social media.

If as you say this is the Kibbles workings and it can be proven then the Kibble are jeopardising SMFC not SMISA then SMISA would have a possible legal argument to remove Kibble from the board.

Read extract from legal advice on companies (caveat is that there is a shareholders agreement in place to protect Kibbles place on the board, however not sure where this agreement would stand if they were taking action against their own board)

The Companies Act 2006 and the normal rule is that a simple majority of shareholders can remove a Director from office.

A minority Shareholder who holds less than 50% of the shares is, conversely, in a weak position as he is unable to control the board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

If Kibble are threatening or even are taking legal action against SMISA then SMISA have a duty to advise the members of this action. I have not seen anything to suggest that SMISA have done this.

Also worth remembering that SMISA are the majority shareholder on the SMFC board and Kibble are a minority. They can have the ultimate voting rights on any decision on the board. If Kibble are taking action against SMISA or their representatives then they are jeopardising the board and ultimately SMFC. 

Separately at the time i did wonder why a Rangers fan would trawl through the Chairman of SMFC twitter account to find these  posts from way back. In all intents and purpose John Needham is a nobody to these fans, therefore why was he targeted when i am sure every other clubs representatives have similar posts on their social media.

If as you say this is the Kibbles workings and it can be proven then the Kibble are jeopardising SMFC not SMISA then SMISA would have a possible legal argument to remove Kibble from the board.

Read extract from legal advice on companies (caveat is that there is a shareholders agreement in place to protect Kibbles place on the board, however not sure where this agreement would stand if they were taking action against their own board)

The Companies Act 2006 and the normal rule is that a simple majority of shareholders can remove a Director from office.

A minority Shareholder who holds less than 50% of the shares is, conversely, in a weak position as he is unable to control the board

The problem will be the shareholders agreement ,I believe they can both veto nominations for the board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

The problem will be the shareholders agreement ,I believe they can both veto nominations for the board

They agreement maybe to protect who can become a director. However the Companies Act 2006 states

168 Resolution to remove director

(1)A company may by ordinary resolution at a meeting remove a director before the expiration of his period of office, notwithstanding anything in any agreement between it and him.

 

This gives SMISA the ability to remove the Kibble representatives from the board., irrespective of what’s in the Shareholders Agreement. At that point it gets very messy and there will be winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that JN is still around all these weeks later would suggest to me that they are expecting a rap on the knuckles and then we move on and put it behind us. Lesson learned. 
 

If there was all this supposed agitation behind the scenes then I can’t see why JN would be hanging around awaiting a SFA verdict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

They agreement maybe to protect who can become a director. However the Companies Act 2006 states

168 Resolution to remove director

(1)A company may by ordinary resolution at a meeting remove a director before the expiration of his period of office, notwithstanding anything in any agreement between it and him.

 

This gives SMISA the ability to remove the Kibble representatives from the board., irrespective of what’s in the Shareholders Agreement. At that point it gets very messy and there will be winners.

Our protocols are listed on the SMiSA website

one of which states 

No directors can be removed (or appointed)without both Kibble and SMiSA agreement 

All covered in the Legal Agreement section 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maboza said:

The fact that JN is still around all these weeks later would suggest to me that they are expecting a rap on the knuckles and then we move on and put it behind us. Lesson learned. 
 

If there was all this supposed agitation behind the scenes then I can’t see why JN would be hanging around awaiting a SFA verdict. 

Possibly because the direct make-up of the board (and shareholding) allows a situation where nobody is truly independent and "party" lines have to be followed. I have nothing personally against "Kibble" but have had a concern from the outset that they will always and only prioritise "Kibble's" best interests, there is nothing wrong in that other than it might not always be in St Mirren's best interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, alanb said:

Our protocols are listed on the SMiSA website

one of which states 

No directors can be removed (or appointed)without both Kibble and SMiSA agreement 

All covered in the Legal Agreement section 

The “notwithstanding” part of the wording of the act would supersede any shareholders agreement on protection of individual Directors. If not then a Director could sit on any board unopposed irrespective of his/hers actions. The board are purely representative of the shareholders, the ACT ensures that the shareholders hold the voting rights of the entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

The “notwithstanding” part of the wording of the act would supersede any shareholders agreement on protection of individual Directors. If not then a Director could sit on any board unopposed irrespective of his/hers actions. The board are purely representative of the shareholders, the ACT ensures that the shareholders hold the voting rights of the entity.

Which means in layman terms :huh:

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...