Jump to content

Special General Meeting Called


bazil85
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, buddiecat said:

Your wee stalker would seem to not be a stalker if he/she is ignoring you.

They haven’t ignored me though have they?
 

Just responding on quoted posts. There’s a few on here incapable of ‘ignoring’ me despite often claiming that as an intention… Strange. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Seems he can't ignore me. emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

I've never claimed to want to ignore anyone on here, it's always been the other way. 

I've made it very clear in the past what you or anyone else needs to do & I will happily not respond, mention or quote. It's proven to be impossible for most, including you. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

Forgive me for asking but how did Kibble end up with Directors on the St Mirren board? They bought shares from an individual  ,as has happened with many minority  shareholders in the past ,  but under Gilmour and co no minority  shareholders  were offered seats on the board.

It was all part of the three way agreement. It was possibly one of the worst decisions in the history of St Mirren to relinquish control.

Edited by SuperSaints1877
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

Why was an individual  selling shares allowed to have a 3 way agreement 

It was a change in approach from the original buyout involving Gilmour to SMISA, funded by GLS.

Voting SMISA members overwhelmingly backed the proposal which included two Kibble elected directors on the St Mirren board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for asking but how did Kibble end up with Directors on the St Mirren board? They bought shares from an individual  ,as has happened with many minority  shareholders in the past ,  but under Gilmour and co no minority  shareholders  were offered seats on the board.
Everyone on that board was a minority shareholder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2022 at 4:14 PM, bazil85 said:

It was a change in approach from the original buyout involving Gilmour to SMISA, funded by GLS.

Voting SMISA members overwhelmingly backed the proposal which included two Kibble elected directors on the St Mirren board. 

Still don t get it.

GS had an agreement  to sell all his shares to Smisa  so they have an agreement. 

Then GS has an offer from Kibble to buy some if his shares ,Smisa agree to that  no problem ,a 3 way agreement  in place.

But how do St Mirren fc end up in that agreement  ? St Mirren fc have nothing to do with GL selling his shares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Still don t get it.
GS had an agreement  to sell all his shares to Smisa  so they have an agreement. 
Then GS has an offer from Kibble to buy some if his shares ,Smisa agree to that  no problem ,a 3 way agreement  in place.
But how do St Mirren fc end up in that agreement  ? St Mirren fc have nothing to do with GL selling his shares.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2022 at 11:12 AM, bazil85 said:

To think this all came from me simply copying a SMISA email and defending someone putting an incorrect day in the text. If there was ever evidence some forum users will argue over absolutely anything. :whistle

It has taken a while but glad you have finally got it. The "someone" must be the Secretary since the e-mail carries his name. No argument from me just more attention to detail required.😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

Still don t get it.

GS had an agreement  to sell all his shares to Smisa  so they have an agreement. 

Then GS has an offer from Kibble to buy some if his shares ,Smisa agree to that  no problem ,a 3 way agreement  in place.

But how do St Mirren fc end up in that agreement  ? St Mirren fc have nothing to do with GL selling his shares.

It’s ultimately the ownership of SMFC, that’s the principle point. SMISA & the Kibble combined own over 70% of the shares of St Mirren.
 

With that level of control they have full power over the makeup of the boardroom & that’s the point that was put to SMISA members to vote & agree on.
 

The vote was to allow Kibble to buy a portion of shares in the ownership of St Mirren instead of all GLS shares (ones he bought from Gilmour) going to SMISA.
 

If approved by SMISA members, part of that deal on Kibble owning a significant share in SMFC, was to allow them to always elect two directors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It’s ultimately the ownership of SMFC, that’s the principle point. SMISA & the Kibble combined own over 70% of the shares of St Mirren.
 

With that level of control they have full power over the makeup of the boardroom & that’s the point that was put to SMISA members to vote & agree on.
 

The vote was to allow Kibble to buy a portion of shares in the ownership of St Mirren instead of all GLS shares (ones he bought from Gilmour) going to SMISA.
 

If approved by SMISA members, part of that deal on Kibble owning a significant share in SMFC, was to allow them to always elect two directors. 

Bazil. Is there a limit on the size of the board or any special voting rights for board members nominated by Kibble or indeed SMISA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rascal said:

Bazil. Is there a limit on the size of the board or any special voting rights for board members nominated by Kibble or indeed SMISA?

Not that I’m aware of. Regarding the size of the board though, I imagine there would always need to be proportionate representation (or at least voting share) for the Kibble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bazil85 said:

It’s ultimately the ownership of SMFC, that’s the principle point. SMISA & the Kibble combined own over 70% of the shares of St Mirren.
 

With that level of control they have full power over the makeup of the boardroom & that’s the point that was put to SMISA members to vote & agree on.
 

The vote was to allow Kibble to buy a portion of shares in the ownership of St Mirren instead of all GLS shares (ones he bought from Gilmour) going to SMISA.
 

If approved by SMISA members, part of that deal on Kibble owning a significant share in SMFC, was to allow them to always elect two directors. 

But can that be changed ie Kibble have shares but no Directors ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

But can that be changed ie Kibble have shares but no Directors ?

Not without another vote by SMISA members & separate agreement by the Kibble to sell their shares. (Although there may be a trigger value SMISA can buy the shares at, I’m not sure). 

 

Nothing that will likely change anytime soon given the overwhelming backing SMISA members gave to the Kibbke deal. 

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...