Mr Gilmour

[bazil85]

21 hours ago, alanb said:

 

Remember that Mr Gilmour wishes to return SMiSA to the original plan of 70+% share holding.

How is this possible ? Cancelling Kibble ? Canvas individual shareholders,getting them to sell their shares ?

And where does the money come from to acheive this ?

Kibble are in with the bricks now at the club, would be an expensive process to get rid. Apart from share price,legal costs too.

An interesting watch seeing what happens next

A lot of that will be for him to work out, if that’s his vision for SMFC. But I think it would have to be buying out the Kibble, I doubt other shareholders would sell-up on mass.
 

He’ll need to get the buy-in from the SMISA board, provide a plan on funding, then get the membership agreement in a vote. 

On the point of actually buying out the Kibble, I think I remember a question on this before, where it was confirmed SMISA have a buy option on their shares. Could be wrong though (if anyone can confirm?). If that’s not the case, it will indeed be interesting to see what happens if we do go down that route. 
 

Personally, I think we’d be mad to vote out the Kibble so soon into the arrangement but I also thought we were mad to vote for VAR, so I guess we’ll see. 😂

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

Its astonishing how long you can dine out on something. Sell up on the back of it, then come back for the crumbs.

It’s also astonishing how the events/history of the share issue around the Reg Brealey era can be rewritten. The share issue of that time was not embraced by as many St Mirren fans as had hoped. (Read the accounts of around that timeline for proof) Someone had to underwrite the purchase of the remaining shares. 

Separately all these rumours of issues at the club, clashes with Kibble, financial Armageddon etc. WHERE are they coming from, WHO is spreading them and WHO benefits from them. One thing for sure the beneficiary isn’t St Mirren or SMISA

There is a tight knit group of fans who are currently very active in spreading these stories, by all accounts, through social media and by other means.

Rightly or wrongly, they have bought into the financial Armageddon scenario. They only have the club's interests at heart apparently.

[Brilliant Disguise]

1 hour ago, Warrior Saint said:

Without him you wouldn't have a StMirren to support....

You are being disingenuous to the many other fans who put their money in their pocket at the time to participate in the share issue. Collectively they purchased more shares than the messiah. Those shares were then sold to SMISA, funded by the fans.

 

[Brilliant Disguise]

Summary of the events

1. Clique join together to sell their collective 52% of the shares to anyone who had the cash (deliberately omit GLS and other shareholders who hold 20% of shares)

2. Alleged deals with Argentinians, Italians, Americans bla bla fall through

3. Clique fail to sell club after a period of circa 6-7 years

4. Deal is brokered for GLS+SMISA to buy the 52% shares over a 10 year period

5. GLS changes the deal to sell SMISA the Cliques shares earlier that anticipated and sell his shares to the Kibble (with SMISA agreement)

6.  Campaign run for election on the back of returning SMISA stake to 70% and rid us of the Kibble

 

FACT: The Clique were never selling 70% of the shares. If they had brought GLS in to the fold then the Kibble would not have been at the table. Ironically the Kibble are here due to the manner that the original shares were sold.

[Cookie Monster]

So many inaccuracies.

Summary of the events
1. Clique join together to sell their collective 52% of the shares to anyone who had the cash (deliberately omit GLS and other shareholders who hold 20% of shares)

Don't the other shareholders add up to 48%

Summary of the events

2. Alleged deals with Argentinians, Italians, Americans bla bla fall through

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/st-mirren-snub-15m-takeover-2547420

So not so much alleged.

Summary of the events

5. GLS changes the deal to sell SMISA the Cliques shares earlier that anticipated and sell his shares to the Kibble (with SMISA agreement)

It wasn't GLS that changed the deal, it was the SMISA members.

Summary of the events

6.  Campaign run for election on the back of returning SMISA stake to 70% and rid us of the Kibble

70%, thought it was 78%



Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

[Brilliant Disguise]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

So many inaccuracies.
 

 

Don't the other shareholders add up to 48%



https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/st-mirren-snub-15m-takeover-2547420

So not so much alleged.



It wasn't GLS that changed the deal, it was the SMISA members.



70%, thought it was 78%



Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
 

 

Pedantic !!

1. Clique had 52% other 48% made up of GLS + share issues holder of circa 20% (I don’t know the exact number, neither do you, however i can go back and check)

2. Story in the paper must be true then. Worth also noting in the story that the Clique also snubbed fan ownership at the same time. (I presume you fact checked the paper story)

3. Pass. SMISA changed the deal to give GLS his money back 5 years earlier and GLS had nothing to do with it ?????? OKAY (you obviously know the inner circles)

4. The 70% was from a poster earlier in the thread. (I see that LPM has now posted as another alias called Guest.)

Point is that had SMISA bought the shares from the Clique 12 years ago they would have had 51/52 % of the shares, as they have now, not the 70/78% as is being the wishful thinking scenario. SMISA would also have had to contend with a shareholder with CIRCA 22% shares in the form of GLS/Kibble/Another/Another(s) 

That did not happen because the 52% shareholders did not want fan ownership. They preferred selling out to a mythical sugar daddy

 

[alanb]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

A lot of that will be for him to work out, if that’s his vision for SMFC. But I think it would have to be buying out the Kibble, I doubt other shareholders would sell-up on mass.
 

He’ll need to get the buy-in from the SMISA board, provide a plan on funding, then get the membership agreement in a vote. 

On the point of actually buying out the Kibble, I think I remember a question on this before, where it was confirmed SMISA have a buy option on their shares. Could be wrong though (if anyone can confirm?). If that’s not the case, it will indeed be interesting to see what happens if we do go down that route. 
 

Personally, I think we’d be mad to vote out the Kibble so soon into the arrangement but I also thought we were mad to vote for VAR, so I guess we’ll see. 😂

I posted a link to the T&Cs of the deal,if Kibble or SMiSA chose to sell then the other party has first option to purchase. 

Reading some tweets from a departed board member, the departures of two BMs was due to his proposed comeback,so he may well have his work cut out to convince the SMiSA board. They believed any costs spent getting more shares would be to the detriment of Academy, Charity foundation, SMWFC and no doubt pre match kids entertainment

A side note of a toxic atmosphere re bullying also concerning at board meetings raised too 

[Slarti]

I posted a link to the T&Cs of the deal,if Kibble or SMiSA chose to sell then the other party has first option to purchase. 
Reading some tweets from a departed board member, the departures of two BMs was due to his proposed comeback,so he may well have his work cut out to convince the SMiSA board. They believed any costs spent getting more shares would be to the detriment of Academy, Charity foundation, SMWFC and no doubt pre match kids entertainment
A side note of a toxic atmosphere re bullying also concerning at board meetings raised too 

Wait. Two board members resigned because of his proposed comeback? Resigning would only have given him more chance of getting on the board as more places would have been available. Either the two board members are too thick to realise that (and therefore too thick to be on the board anyway) or it's a lot of shite (or maybe it's a lot of shite AND they're thick). If they didn't want him on the board or to work with him, the best bet would have been to sit tight and only quit if he was elected. Unless you are saying they resigned specifically to create space for him.

[Wilbur]

59 minutes ago, alanb said:

A side note of a toxic atmosphere re bullying also concerning at board meetings raised too 

That's interesting. 

Will someone "in the know" please name the party / parties responsible for the alleged bullying. This is key information for everyone who could influence the future direction of our club. 

[faraway saint]

6 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

That's interesting. 

Will someone "in the know" please name the party / parties responsible for the alleged bullying. This is key information for everyone who could influence the future direction of our club. 

I would but I'm scared.  

[alanb]

24 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

Wait. Two board members resigned because of his proposed comeback? Resigning would only have given him more chance of getting on the board as more places would have been available. Either the two board members are too thick to realise that (and therefore too thick to be on the board anyway) or it's a lot of shite (or maybe it's a lot of shite AND they're thick). If they didn't want him on the board or to work with him, the best bet would have been to sit tight and only quit if he was elected. Unless you are saying they resigned specifically to create space for him.

 

Indeed and after his scraping 4th place, a resignee suggested he only got elected due to their resignation… go figure

I don’t doubt the reasons for quitting but consequences of doing so only made him a shoe in 

Clearly fearful of a greater % vote and did not want any risk of serving alongside him 

 

[alanb]

21 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

That's interesting. 

Will someone "in the know" please name the party / parties responsible for the alleged bullying. This is key information for everyone who could influence the future direction of our club. 

Possibly a SMiSA board split pro and anti SG/Kibble 

If on Twitter, it’s not hard to find the tweets given names of leavers are public and only one of the 4 has commented on this issue (JS) no names mentioned only bad feelings 

[Cookie Monster]

Wait. Two board members resigned because of his proposed comeback? Resigning would only have given him more chance of getting on the board as more places would have been available. Either the two board members are too thick to realise that (and therefore too thick to be on the board anyway) or it's a lot of shite (or maybe it's a lot of shite AND they're thick). If they didn't want him on the board or to work with him, the best bet would have been to sit tight and only quit if he was elected. Unless you are saying they resigned specifically to create space for him.

The tweet I read from the former board member said that bullying resulted in 2 resignations and the said person being forced out.

So is it recently elected person/s that is causing this?

There's some person called beatlebud on twitter that is tweeting like animal on here.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

[alanb]

6 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The tweet I read from the former board member said that bullying resulted in 2 resignations and the said person being forced out.

So is it recently elected person/s that is causing this?

There's some person called beatlebud on twitter that is tweeting like animal on here.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
 

Possible that  beatlebud was the campaign manager🤫🤫🤫

[bigjerseybuddie]

For Mr Gilmour to return to be involved but not to be chairman I believe would be a huge challenge for him. He undoubtedly helped to save our beloved club from disappearing and for that he should always be held in high regard. 
I’m not sure if he would be able to work with a new chairman in place. It feels to me like returning to where you used to work but you’ve been demoted. It would take a huge dollop of humility to remain in his role and not try to run things. He clearly has a great cv so to speak. I just think that we seem to be building a way of involving more of our community in St Mirren and it would take very careful handling both by smisa and Mr Gilmour for it to work.

[alanb]

9 minutes ago, bigjerseybuddie said:

For Mr Gilmour to return to be involved but not to be chairman I believe would be a huge challenge for him. He undoubtedly helped to save our beloved club from disappearing and for that he should always be held in high regard. 
I’m not sure if he would be able to work with a new chairman in place. It feels to me like returning to where you used to work but you’ve been demoted. It would take a huge dollop of humility to remain in his role and not try to run things. He clearly has a great cv so to speak. I just think that we seem to be building a way of involving more of our community in St Mirren and it would take very careful handling both by smisa and Mr Gilmour for it to work.

He is now a supporters association board member now and not back where he once was the main man

He does have an agenda though 

[Slarti]

The tweet I read from the former board member said that bullying resulted in 2 resignations and the said person being forced out.

So is it recently elected person/s that is causing this?

There's some person called beatlebud on twitter that is tweeting like animal on here.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Not on twAtter, so not seen them.

[faraway saint]

39 minutes ago, Slarti said:

Not on twAtter,

That's a surprise.  😉

Edited November 4, 2022 by faraway saint

[Slarti]

That's a surprise.  [emoji6]

I only cal it that cos you are. [emoji16]

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, Slarti said:

I only cal it that cos you are.

Oh my. 🤣🤣🤣

[StanleySaint]

Given what otherz have said about the SMISA board being a bit complacent maybe it is time to shake it up a bit and see what happens?

[Slarti]

Oh my. [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]

Yep, I noticed as soon as I posted it but didn't change it 'cos I wondered whether you would comment on it when you regularly comment on others picking on typos. Funny how you missed the lack of an apostrophe before "cos", though.

[faraway saint]

3 minutes ago, Slarti said:

12 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Oh my.

Yep, I noticed as soon as I posted it but didn't change it 'cos I wondered whether you would comment on it when you regularly comment on others picking on typos. Funny how you missed the lack of an apostrophe before "cos", though.

Of course you did. 🤣

I only pick up on typos when people are being arsey.  

Keep digging, you'll be in Australia soon. 😄

[W6er]

On 11/3/2022 at 12:55 PM, alanb said:

 

Remember that Mr Gilmour wishes to return SMiSA to the original plan of 70+% share holding.

How is this possible ? Cancelling Kibble ? Canvas individual shareholders,getting them to sell their shares ?

And where does the money come from to acheive this ?

Kibble are in with the bricks now at the club, would be an expensive process to get rid. Apart from share price,legal costs too.

An interesting watch seeing what happens next

I have always wanted that, too. I'm paying £12 per month to SMISA. Hopefully that's where the money will come from.

[alanb]

30 minutes ago, W6er said:

I have always wanted that, too. I'm paying £12 per month to SMISA. Hopefully that's where the money will come from.

And where do the shares come from ?

Why would Kibble even consider selling ?