Jump to content

The AGM controversy


doakie

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

For people like yourself, it’s always going to be a case of ‘Kibble bad’

For me, I think it seems entirely more reasonable that the issues at Ralston are legacy & the full extent of the uplift became apparent as the project work was undertaken. 

If Kibble have indeed quoted £80k as a set quote for everything, in full knowledge & review of the work needing done, then yes, more fool them. But I’m yet to see a shred of evidence, that’s how things transpired. It seems extremely unlikely to me. 

Why were Kibble and their pals even given the contract in the first place? 
Surely a job like this should have gone through it to tender. 
 

Edited by Albanian Buddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites


20 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Why were Kibble and their pals even given the contract in the first place? 
Surely a job like this should have gone through it to tender. 
 

It's ironic really given that Ralston being our training base and like the rest of SMFC becomes Kibble's training ground.

All down to the finer points of the SMiSA/Kibble deal/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Why were Kibble and their pals even given the contract in the first place? 
Surely a job like this should have gone through it to tender. 
 

Kibble took on the project as part owner of the football club.
 

Why would we put the project management gig out for people to charge us money, when we have contacts within the clubs ownership structure who offered their services for free? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Kibble took on the project as part owner of the football club.
 

Why would we put the project management gig out for people to charge us money, when we have contacts within the clubs ownership structure who offered their services for free? 

But its on public record they have had ”the experience” of a significant failed project up the road from Ralston.
Bit it’s ok as it’s “free” labour. 🙄 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Saintsarmy65 said:

 

Hi, as a long time employee of kibble (10+years) and life long st mirren fan, it’s time I had a say in this drama.

 

you have stated you were “directly involved” in this project. If this is true, could you confirm to the forum

 

1- who carried out the plumbing works? I.e the water problems that were involved

 

2- who carried out electrical works involved in the project?

 

 

3- who carried out bt/internet problems?

 

 

4- who was in charge of producing and changing of the drawings? I.e roofing problems which caused delays.

 

If you can’t provide the answers to these then just ask as I was directly involved with this projects so you must know who this is coming from.

 

 

look forward to hearing back about this 👍

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Saintsarmy65 said:

Just ask me a question about what’s happened and I’ll be happy to tell the truth unlike what’s happening here 

Ok I'll bite. 

Tell us then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Kibble took on the project as part owner of the football club.
 

Why would we put the project management gig out for people to charge us money, when we have contacts within the clubs ownership structure who offered their services for free? 

Surely it would have been important to award this "gig" to someone with a proven track record?

You do know "free" quite often doesn't end up being "free"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:

But its on public record they have had ”the experience” of a significant failed project up the road from Ralston.
Bit it’s ok as it’s “free” labour. 🙄 

They’ve been an extremely successful & positive institution of Paisley for many years. I’m sure they’ve had miss-steps like other companies over that time but that’s hardly uncommon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Surely it would have been important to award this "gig" to someone with a proven track record?

You do know "free" quite often doesn't end up being "free"? 

What’s wrong with the Kibbles track record exactly? 
 

‘You do know’ they’re a multi-million pound institution with decades of experience in various different projects under their belts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

They’ve been an extremely successful & positive institution of Paisley for many years. I’m sure they’ve had miss-steps like other companies over that time but that’s hardly uncommon. 

How many miss-steps are they allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

What’s wrong with the Kibbles track record exactly? 
 

‘You do know’ they’re a multi-million pound institution with decades of experience in various different projects under their belts? 

You do know that this particular project at Ralston suggests very strongly there are far from the advertising blurb youve just quoted and you have no knowledge that "decades of experience " doesn't equate to excellence,? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pod said:

How many miss-steps are they allowed.

I’m not seeing anything of real concern, lots of things blown out of proportion though.  

6 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

You do know that this particular project at Ralston suggests very strongly there are far from the advertising blurb youve just quoted and you have no knowledge that "decades of experience " doesn't equate to excellence,? 

Evidence please? I’ve not seen a single point that suggests the legacy issues at Ralston are the fault of the Kibble. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the important thing to remember in this is the presence on the board of a former majority shareholder, who is also the founder and former owner of a pretty large property maintenance and facility management company.  That person was in charge of the Client's role during the design and construction of the current stadium.  All the expertise and experience you need to make competent appointments of project manager and principle contractor rolled up into one person.  He surely had the opportunity as a director to set this project up properly?

When you look at the other personnel involved as directors then there is no way that Kibble should have been alllowed to run this project into the ground.  Perhaps preventing them from adding this blemish to an otherwise chequered history as a developer of premises?

 

Edited by beyond our ken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I’m not seeing anything of real concern, lots of things blown out of proportion though.  

Evidence please? I’ve not seen a single point that suggests the legacy issues at Ralston are the fault of the Kibble. 

Have you seen any that aren't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pod said:

Have you seen any that aren't. 

I find it hard to believe the Kibble have taken work that would only cost £80k & somehow turned it into £400k. I think it’s far more likely, the work at Ralston was considerably underestimated when we look at the list of points covered in the uplift. 
 

But as said, if someone has evidence otherwise, they’re welcome to share. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

I think the important thing to remeber in this is the presence on the board of a former majority shareholder who is also the founder and forer owner of a pretty large property maintenance and facility management company.  That person was in charge of the Client's role during the design and construction of the current stadium.  All the expertise and experience you need to make a competent appointment of project manager and principle contractor rolled up into one person.  He surely had the opportunity as a director to set this project up properly?

When you look at the other personnel involved as directors then there is no way that Kibble should have been alllowed to run this project into the ground.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I find it hard to believe the Kibble have taken work that would only cost £80k & somehow turned it into £400k. I think it’s far more likely, the work at Ralston was considerably underestimated when we look at the list of points covered in the uplift. 
 

But as said, if someone has evidence otherwise, they’re welcome to share. 

Who accepted the estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone expand on the term "legacy issues"?  Was all of the work under the scope of the project identified as rectifying previous shortcomings or dillapidation?

My understanding od a "legay issue" is that you take on board the associated problems of an asset when you acquire that asset.  If this is down to "legacy" then at what point was the asset transferred and from whom to whom?

Maybe I am wrong, I believed that certain temporary buildings that were no longer fit for purpose despite previous renovations and repairs were removed and replaced with a new facility.  if that is the case then the only legacy issue would be putting the old shit on the back of a truck, and getting the f**k off the site.  As I said, I amy be wrong in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pod said:

Who accepted the estimate.

Shareholders and directors have both a singular and collective duty to take decisions in the interest of the club and no-one else.  If a deal between two parties that already know each other offers best value is tabled then it's a no-brainer and thoroughly above board.  The directors of the club had the duty as well as the opportunity to perform due dilligence in this respect and if even one of the individuals involved waived through a deal without examining it then they  may well be in breach of their legal obligations.

The first project that i was involved in at my current employer was a £400,000,000 deal and overuns of less than half the value of the training ground upgrade were the subject of legal action.  If the club got the contract right then maybe we will see some recompense on future accounts?  No?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bazil85 said:

For people like yourself, it’s always going to be a case of ‘Kibble bad’

For me, I think it seems entirely more reasonable that the issues at Ralston are legacy & the full extent of the uplift became apparent as the project work was undertaken. 

If Kibble have indeed quoted £80k as a set quote for everything, in full knowledge & review of the work needing done, then yes, more fool them. But I’m yet to see a shred of evidence, that’s how things transpired. It seems extremely unlikely to me. 

I never inferred that it was “Kibble bad”

I’m more concerned that a building warrant was lodged for a NEW 120m2 building at a perceived value of £80k then turns in to a £400k + build

Other posters are correct in flagging up that Kibble have ZERO experience in project management and at the time there was an incumbent Director that used to run a construction company. 

Theoretically is SMFC received a Tender from Renderworks then went into Contract on the £80k then that should have been the price of the works irrespective of material, labour shortages, material cost increases, Brexit, Covid, Ukraine, ETC ETC. UNLESS the club made variations to the contract. This is where the PM role kicks in an advises the Client on the Cause and Effect of the variations. To go from £80k to £400k+ sounds more than a legacy issue. It sounds like. Project was procured by people who don’t know what they are doing and are happy to spend money they have no accountability for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Can anyone expand on the term "legacy issues"?  Was all of the work under the scope of the project identified as rectifying previous shortcomings or dillapidation?

My understanding od a "legay issue" is that you take on board the associated problems of an asset when you acquire that asset.  If this is down to "legacy" then at what point was the asset transferred and from whom to whom?

Maybe I am wrong, I believed that certain temporary buildings that were no longer fit for purpose despite previous renovations and repairs were removed and replaced with a new facility.  if that is the case then the only legacy issue would be putting the old shit on the back of a truck, and getting the f**k off the site.  As I said, I amy be wrong in that.

The planning application makes no reference to removal or refurbishment of an existing temporary accommodation. Nor does it make reference to the use of. Portakabin type (temporary) accommodation. The club paid a reputable firm of Architects to design and lodge for Planning a new building. (Albeit retrospectively)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

I never inferred that it was “Kibble bad”

I’m more concerned that a building warrant was lodged for a NEW 120m2 building at a perceived value of £80k then turns in to a £400k + build

Other posters are correct in flagging up that Kibble have ZERO experience in project management and at the time there was an incumbent Director that used to run a construction company. 

Theoretically is SMFC received a Tender from Renderworks then went into Contract on the £80k then that should have been the price of the works irrespective of material, labour shortages, material cost increases, Brexit, Covid, Ukraine, ETC ETC. UNLESS the club made variations to the contract. This is where the PM role kicks in an advises the Client on the Cause and Effect of the variations. To go from £80k to £400k+ sounds more than a legacy issue. It sounds like. Project was procured by people who don’t know what they are doing and are happy to spend money they have no accountability for.

So, baseless assertion? The Kibble do not have ‘zero’ experience project managing, what utter rubbish. Project management is a big part of their BAU. 

24 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

Never bite the hand that feeds. Very Honourable !!

 

8DD40940-8214-4046-972A-F0162CD67595.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

So, baseless assertion? The Kibble do not have ‘zero’ experience project managing, what utter rubbish. Project management is a big part of their BAU. 

 

It must be their best kept secret. Their webpage makes no reference to Project Management on commercial construction projects. 

PMing a few kids making a birdtable makes them a teacher not a Project Manager

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...