Mr Gilmour

[Cumbriansaint72]

21 minutes ago, alanb said:

Do SMiSA not have first dibs on the Kibble shares at cost price according to the terms of the original deal should they be prepared to sell?

Would be interesting to see if that was the case or not.

[alanb]

4 minutes ago, Cumbriansaint72 said:

Would be interesting to see if that was the case or not.

I am fairly sure those were the terms. With the deal they have, things would need to get quite damaging to Kibble for a sale to happen.

Don't think SGG being unhappy qualifies on that matter 

Edited November 2, 2022 by alanb

[alanb]

13 minutes ago, Cumbriansaint72 said:

Would be interesting to see if that was the case or not.

- if SMISA or Kibble wish to sell any or all their shares in SMFC, the other will have first refusal
The above from SMiSA website 

https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-vote

Edited November 2, 2022 by alanb

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, alanb said:

- if SMISA or Kibble wish to sell any or all their shares in SMFC, the other will have first refusal
The above from SMiSA website 

https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-vote

Kibble may well pay for legal services annually what our annual club turnover is so I’d be surprised if they have not ensured their investment is safe and secure!

It always amazed me that SMISA membership were tasked with picking up the legal bill for the infamous 3-way agreement that only a select few have supposed seen.

Surely since our organisation is “1-member 1-vote” that we are seen as equals then surely we should all be able to see a document that we the membership actually paid for?

Kibble are ten times the size of St Mirren FC Ltd. Last year they had a turnover of £35,000,000.

The following is public information.

According to this report from the Herald in 2018 there are only around 100 young adults in residential care.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/16195272.kibble-group-take-vulnerable-kids-see-can-get-back-society-work/

 

[alanb]

7 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Kibble may well pay for legal services annually what our annual club turnover is so I’d be surprised if they have not ensured their investment is safe and secure!

It always amazed me that SMISA membership were tasked with picking up the legal bill for the infamous 3-way agreement that only a select few have supposed seen.

Surely since our organisation is “1-member 1-vote” that we are seen as equals then surely we should all be able to see a document that we the membership actually paid for?

Kibble are ten times the size of St Mirren FC Ltd. Last year they had a turnover of £35,000,000.

The following is public information.

According to this report from the Herald in 2018 there are only around 100 young adults in residential care.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/life_style/16195272.kibble-group-take-vulnerable-kids-see-can-get-back-society-work/

 

🤷‍♂️

Thanks for sharing 

Kibble are here and control their own destiny 

What to do???

[Guest]

1 hour ago, alanb said:

🤷‍♂️

Thanks for sharing 

Kibble are here and control their own destiny 

What to do???

I’m just putting information that’s already been in the public domain. 
Sorry if you already knew this but I never until the last few days. 

[alanb]

32 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

I’m just putting information that’s already been in the public domain. 
Sorry if you already knew this but I never until the last few days. 

Kibble here for however long they wish now

We now have to “ suck it up” as the saying goes 

[Maboza]

3 hours ago, alanb said:

- if SMISA or Kibble wish to sell any or all their shares in SMFC, the other will have first refusal
The above from SMiSA website 

https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/kibble-vote

First refusal at what price though? 

[alanb]

17 minutes ago, Maboza said:

First refusal at what price though? 

Price paid probably 

A niche market so can’t imagine any bidding war happening but who knows 

Suppose the share value is ultimately what you are willing to pay to achieve your goal 

Edited November 2, 2022 by alanb

[bonzoboys]

Yet again a moan abour SGG turns in to a Kibble debate.

Like him or loathe him, at least SGG and the consortium all were resonably successful business men who had experience in running a buiness. The club played the Hampden game, financial management game in very difficult times for the Club and Scottish football.

Maybe he has an agenda, but doesnt everybody. 

Selling and getting their money back annoyed many fans, but it is easy to moan when it is not your money.  They forget it was the consortium who put their money where their mouthes were when the Club was in danger.  Just look at the poor uptake to the previous share issues when the Club needed money, fans cannot actually financially support a club in difficult times.  To most of us small shareholders, it was a matter of the heart, not the greatest financial deal we had ever done.  That is probably why we still chip in our money each month.

How many Celtic fans hate Fergus Mccann walking away with a tidy profit yet are happy that he saved the club, brought professional business practices and was probably the one who set the financial model for those that followed.

We all love the club, love the concept of fan ownership but I would be very concerned about most of the fans on a Saturday actually being involved in running it day to day.

This message was partly due to reading the statement of the SMISAClub Board nominee.  I found after reading it, that it was full of lovely ideas and concepts but I had no idea if the guy actually had the skill set to run the business.  Hopefully that may come out on here in the coming days.

[faraway saint]

4 hours ago, bonzoboys said:

 

We all love the club, love the concept of fan ownership but I would be very concerned about most of the fans on a Saturday actually being involved in running it day to day.

 

^^^^^ This was discussed in detail around the time of the sale of the club and was enough to put off many supporters. 

You, and I, know this would be a disaster, especially after reading this forum. 

[portmahomack saint]

6 hours ago, faraway saint said:

^^^^^ This was discussed in detail around the time of the sale of the club and was enough to put off many supporters. 

You, and I, know this would be a disaster, especially after reading this forum. 

Totally agree I've many a sleepless night and nightmares since the buyout with the thought of you at the wheel 

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, portmahomack saint said:

Totally agree I've many a sleepless night and nightmares since the buyout with the thought of you at the wheel 

Feck me, another honking attempt.

[bazil85]

I abstained on the vote. I didn’t know enough about the other candidates to make an informed choice. 
 

And as for Gilmour, it’s a tough one. Every St Mirren fan owes him a huge debt of gratitude for what he did for our club as chairman, without him there may not even have been a St Mirren still here. Will he have a positive influence now though? I don’t know, hence why I didn’t vote. 
 

Happy to see what happens. Certainly won’t be cancelling anything. 

[W6er]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I abstained on the vote. I didn’t know enough about the other candidates to make an informed choice. 
 

And as for Gilmour, it’s a tough one. Every St Mirren fan owes him a huge debt of gratitude for what he did for our club as chairman, without him there may not even have been a St Mirren still here. Will he have a positive influence now though? I don’t know, hence why I didn’t vote. 
 

Happy to see what happens. Certainly won’t be cancelling anything. 

I abstained for the same reason, but had I known about Gilmour I would have endorsed him.

[alanb]

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I abstained on the vote. I didn’t know enough about the other candidates to make an informed choice. 
 

And as for Gilmour, it’s a tough one. Every St Mirren fan owes him a huge debt of gratitude for what he did for our club as chairman, without him there may not even have been a St Mirren still here. Will he have a positive influence now though? I don’t know, hence why I didn’t vote. 
 

Happy to see what happens. Certainly won’t be cancelling anything. 

 

8 minutes ago, W6er said:

I abstained for the same reason, but had I known about Gilmour I would have endorsed him.

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

[Wilbur]

Would someone please explain to me why having SGG back on the board of SMFC is a negative ?

As I see it he is hugely experienced in the prudent running of a football club, he understands the politics of Scottish football and the SFA/SPFL, and he has already demonstrated his commitment to SMFC having pulled the club out of the shit once before so why would he now do anything that he believed would be non-beneficial or harmful to SMFC ?

Has he ever acted in any way against the best interests of the club ? If so, remind me.

[FTOF]

13 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Would someone please explain to me why having SGG back on the board of SMFC is a negative ?

As I see it he is hugely experienced in the prudent running of a football club, he understands the politics of Scottish football and the SFA/SPFL, and he has already demonstrated his commitment to SMFC having pulled the club out of the shit once before so why would he now do anything that he believed would be non-beneficial or harmful to SMFC ?

Has he ever acted in any way against the best interests of the club ? If so, remind me.

Tommy Craig. Ian Murray. Alex Rae.

[Wilbur]

1 minute ago, FTOF said:

Tommy Craig. Ian Murray. Alex Rae.

What's your point, FTOF ?

Are you suggesting that he appointed these guys because he knew they would be shit managers, intentionally harming our club ?

Every managerial appointment is a risk. 

[FTOF]

59 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

What's your point, FTOF ?

Are you suggesting that he appointed these guys because he knew they would be shit managers, intentionally harming our club ?

Every managerial appointment is a risk. 

My point is, with that succession of appointments, which certainly were not in the best interests of the club, we ended up on the brink of demotion to the third tier.

Of course, it wasn't done on purpose, but it was a sign that his time was up. That should be it IMO.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by FTOF

[BuddieinEK]

1 hour ago, Wilbur said:

Would someone please explain to me why having SGG back on the board of SMFC is a negative ?

As I see it he is hugely experienced in the prudent running of a football club, he understands the politics of Scottish football and the SFA/SPFL, and he has already demonstrated his commitment to SMFC having pulled the club out of the shit once before so why would he now do anything that he believed would be non-beneficial or harmful to SMFC ?

Has he ever acted in any way against the best interests of the club ? If so, remind me.

I believe yes but, in his defence, he thought not at the time. 

He was willing to support an SPL2 even though it would have resulted in Saints no longer being in the top division.

He was willing to fast track the new Rangers club's return to the higher divisions.

I disagreed with both and told him as much.

In fairness, he was willing to listen and argue a case for his belief that they were indeed in Saints best interests. 

I respected him for that. 

[alanb]

1 hour ago, Wilbur said:

Would someone please explain to me why having SGG back on the board of SMFC is a negative ?

As I see it he is hugely experienced in the prudent running of a football club, he understands the politics of Scottish football and the SFA/SPFL, and he has already demonstrated his commitment to SMFC having pulled the club out of the shit once before so why would he now do anything that he believed would be non-beneficial or harmful to SMFC ?

Has he ever acted in any way against the best interests of the club ? If so, remind me.

He has been voted onto the SMiSA board not the club board and not been selected to replace Alan Wardrop

[Wilbur]

5 minutes ago, alanb said:

He has been voted onto the SMiSA board not the club board and not been selected to replace Alan Wardrop

Of course, my mistake.

[JJ McG]

4 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Would someone please explain to me why having SGG back on the board of SMFC is a negative ?

As I see it he is hugely experienced in the prudent running of a football club, he understands the politics of Scottish football and the SFA/SPFL, and he has already demonstrated his commitment to SMFC having pulled the club out of the shit once before so why would he now do anything that he believed would be non-beneficial or harmful to SMFC ?

Has he ever acted in any way against the best interests of the club ? If so, remind me.

Away!!! Wanting to vote Rangers in…..Armageddon etc.

Chancer.

[portmahomack saint]

5 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Would someone please explain to me why having SGG back on the board of SMFC is a negative ?

As I see it he is hugely experienced in the prudent running of a football club, he understands the politics of Scottish football and the SFA/SPFL, and he has already demonstrated his commitment to SMFC having pulled the club out of the shit once before so why would he now do anything that he believed would be non-beneficial or harmful to SMFC ?

Has he ever acted in any way against the best interests of the club ? If so, remind me.

We had 18 years of prudent mediocrity you mean...  9 of those years spent in the Championship and in his last season if Gordon Scott hadn't came along would have seen us drop to our lowest ever position in Scottish football....  I really don't get all this knight in shining armour stuff