Jump to content

Tony Fitzpatrick Retiral


Rascal

Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, Buddymarvellous said:

Well stop giving the impression it was five - you just admitted it was two

I didn't. The deadline was for the process to take 10 years, we delivered it in five. 

Had Kibble not got involved, we would have likely delivered it three years ahead of schedule. 

For me this is another attempt at us vs them, overall it is all SMFC and SMFC delivered fan ownership five years ahead of when the original plan set a deadline for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't. The deadline was for the process to take 10 years, we delivered it in five. 
Had Kibble not got involved, we would have likely delivered it three years ahead of schedule. 
For me this is another attempt at us vs them, overall it is all SMFC and SMFC delivered fan ownership five years ahead of when the original plan set a deadline for it. 
No it didn't.
We are NOT fan owned!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Buddymarvellous said:

Well stop giving the impression it was five - you just admitted it was two

Scott and Kibble told that riddle so many times in the lead up to the members vote that many SMiSA swallowed it as truth. Even at the latest AGM Kibble were still playing that same card. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

No it didn't.
We are NOT fan owned!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

Yes we are, terminology perfectly acceptable whether you like it or not. St Mirren delivered fan ownership last year, five years ahead of the deadline.

Brilliant achievement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes we are, terminology perfectly acceptable whether you like it or not. St Mirren delivered fan ownership last year, five years ahead of the deadline.
Brilliant achievement. 
Lies!

Not 5 years
Not fan owned.

You yourself agreed that we need the permission of non supporting co-owners to make decisions!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why involve Kibble then. :unsure:
Kibble could easily have been involved with a legally binding trading agreement.

There was no need whatsoever to sell them shares or give them a controlling boardroom interest!

I have nothing whatsoever against Kibble as potential trading partners... but they own part of our club meaning it is NOT fan owned!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Because of the added benefits they would bring outlined in the proposal to include them, which passed with overwhelming support of voting SMISA members. :unsure:

But you said we could have delivered 3 years sooner without them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Kibble could easily have been involved with a legally binding trading agreement.

There was no need whatsoever to sell them shares or give them a controlling boardroom interest!

I have nothing whatsoever against Kibble as potential trading partners... but they own part of our club meaning it is NOT fan owned!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

Think it suited Kibble to gain access to boardrooms up and down the country especially the OF.

They are allegedly partial to sausage rolls and would love the chance to drink from the Loving Cup. 

Some of our current board couldn’t wait to partake in this “celebration”.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, guinness said:

Definitely not fan controlled if we need permission to do anything

We don't. There are a few standing points that require agreement of the Kibble representatives. It was, is and will continue to be (I have little doubt) blown out of proportion. The points are perfectly reasonable to be covered by both parties and are very unlikely to cause issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't. There are a few standing points that require agreement of the Kibble representatives. It was, is and will continue to be (I have little doubt) blown out of proportion. The points are perfectly reasonable to be covered by both parties and are very unlikely to cause issue. 
In other words...
We don't but we do!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Lies!

Not 5 years
Not fan owned.

You yourself agreed that we need the permission of non supporting co-owners to make decisions!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk



They supported SMISA in delivering fan ownership earlier than anticipated. [emoji14]

They have a veto on SMISA installing.... an artificial surface, having a crook on the board, not having black and white stripes as our first choice strip and selling the ground. [emoji848]

WTF is wrong with any of that. [emoji8]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I know.
It's what you do regardless of facts! emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

 

32 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

In other words...
We don't but we do!

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

Fan owned is a perfectly reasonable way to describe St Mirren. Democracy won, fans wanted something you didn't, get over it :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done guys, a thread to pay tribute to a living club legend for his service for almost 50 years descends into yet another squabble over SMISA. You should be proud of yourselves.
@div - I know there's not much moderating done these days but can't someone sort out this clusterf**k.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...