Explosive Smisa application

[Albanian Buddy]

I understand why posters have a difference of opinion about Alan Wardrop.

Let’s put that to one side as not everyone sees eye to eye on everything.

For AW to resign from the club board and then look to take direct action against a group (who are minority shareholders) who have significant influence and power in the boardroom he must have evidence of significant wrongdoing by the Kibble. 

It’s still not clear to me why AW resigned. I don’t think we have heard the truth behind that. Some say he was pushed out but I’m not so sure if that is accurate. 

I was critical of AW leaving before the accounts were published but he must have had good reasons if it was his choice. 

Unfortunately I was not at the club AGM so not sure what was said. 

I don’t buy into the “civil war” aspect.

If there have been moves made by a 3rd party to exploit land owned by our club we should deal with that issue and not just sweep it under the carpet.

 

[Cookie Monster]

How can anyone build on St Mirren owned land without the permission of St Mirren?

If there have been moves made by a 3rd party to exploit land owned by our club we should deal with that issue and not just sweep it under the carpet.

As I asked previously yet no one could or would answer. Makes you wonder why when some are so vocal until asked for facts.

[doakie]

9 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

I understand why posters have a difference of opinion about Alan Wardrop.

Let’s put that to one side as not everyone sees eye to eye on everything.

For AW to resign from the club board and then look to take direct action against a group (who are minority shareholders) who have significant influence and power in the boardroom he must have evidence of significant wrongdoing by the Kibble. 

It’s still not clear to me why AW resigned. I don’t think we have heard the truth behind that. Some say he was pushed out but I’m not so sure if that is accurate. 

I was critical of AW leaving before the accounts were published but he must have had good reasons if it was his choice. 

Unfortunately I was not at the club AGM so not sure what was said. 

I don’t buy into the “civil war” aspect.

If there have been moves made by a 3rd party to exploit land owned by our club we should deal with that issue and not just sweep it under the carpet.

 

This is the most sensible, accurate response on the thread. Talk of civil war is nonsense and your final sentence is absolutely on the ball.

As I said in my original post “On field and off field are two separate issues.”

[doakie]

19 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

 

 

As I asked previously yet no one could or would answer. Makes you wonder why when some are so vocal until asked for facts.

 

 

 

You asked “How can anyone build on St Mirren owned land without the permission of St Mirren? As I asked previously yet no one could or would answer. Makes you wonder why when some are so vocal until asked for facts”

I'll try to help you out:

The vast majority of fans on this thread are not lawyers, surveyors or planners and therefore have no way of answering your questions.

Moreover, this thread is about AW’s mission statement and his intention of being rid of the two Kibble directors. I’m pretty sure he would not make these allegations unless his FOI request contains hard evidence but we won’t know until he’s heard at the AGM.

In the meantime, speculation about what is and isn’t St.Mirren land should be left to those who are expert in that field – which excludes the majority of contributors to this thread. It's very evident that this is the reason no one has answered your question.

Mind you, the possibility of building on St.Mirren land (or not) isn't the issue. The issue is, and I quote, “the application named St. Mirren FC Charitable Foundation as a partner when the charity had no knowledge of it and had not granted permission to submit it on their behalf”. That is the crux of the matter.

Hope you don’t have to wonder any longer.

[Albanian Buddy]

29 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

 

 

As I asked previously yet no one could or would answer. Makes you wonder why when some are so vocal until asked for facts.

 

 

 

I’ve made my position clear right at the start that I need to see evidence.

I agree we need facts. It would seem that AW is in possession of those.
 

[Albanian Buddy]

On the subject of buying out Kibbles share.

This has been asked at a previous SMISA meeting and to my knowledge has never been answered honestly.

That legal agreement (now that the deal is concluded and Gordon Scott no longer the majority shareholder) should in my opinion be made public to the SMISA membership. 

[doakie]

1 hour ago, Albanian Buddy said:

On the subject of buying out Kibbles share.

This has been asked at a previous SMISA meeting and to my knowledge has never been answered honestly.

That legal agreement (now that the deal is concluded and Gordon Scott no longer the majority shareholder) should in my opinion be made public to the SMISA membership. 

I agree it would be a good idea to share the shareholders agreement and don’t believe Smisa would have any problem with doing that with their members.

Re Evidence of wrongdoing by The Kibble and their reps, I can only assume that AW has taken legal advice before putting on record the information he has shared with 1200 Smisa members. As I said, surely the evidence will be available after the election at the AGM (on the 17^th May)

[Cookie Monster]

I'll try to help you out:
The vast majority of fans on this thread are not lawyers, surveyors or planners and therefore have no way of answering your questions.

I can only think of two ways of building, with the landowners consent or by compulsory purchase.

Moreover, this thread is about AW’s mission statement

Where he has mentioned building on St Mirren owned land TWICE as quoted below

Kibble club board representatives, Jim Gillespie and Mark Macmillan, failed to disclose to the St Mirren board, shareholders and fans Kibble supported plans to build on St Mirren owned land.

Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St. Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest.

In the meantime, speculation about what is and isn’t St.Mirren land should be left to those who are expert in that field – which excludes the majority of contributors to this thread. It's very evident that this is the reason no one has answered your question.
Mind you, the possibility of building on St.Mirren land (or not) isn't the issue.

Hawd the bus, you're now speculating it isn't St Mirren owned land and if it isn't a issue why was it mentioned TWICE.



So Alan can you provide us the evidence now for clarity.

[Stu]

16 hours ago, doakie said:

Cover it up? I've just given you a detailed summary of the increased transparency and communications from Smisa i.e. the complete opposite of a cover up. Are you capable of sensible debate or are you simply trying to cause mischief? I suspect the latter. Cover up - what a nonsensical statement. 

Not sure if I agree about increased transparency considering they announced two new co-opted board members, forgetting (deliberately or otherwise) to announce a third one until unveiling him as the new chairman, replacing a guy who has quit a week or so earlier with no explanation (not even the standard “personal reasons” vagueness) as to why he had gone - the third chairman in less than a year to quit.

Some worrying stuff in Alan Wardrop’s statement however it’s hard to see how we get rid of Kibble unless they get bought out.

I also find the attempt to change the constitution around co-opting members slightly worrying but sadly you can only vote against that if you attend the AGM, which I’m unable to.

Shame there isn’t another amendment stopping a co-opted board member becoming chairman unless voted through at an AGM.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Stu

[waldorf34]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Not sure if I agree about increased transparency considering they announced two new co-opted board members, forgetting (deliberately or otherwise) to announce a third one until unveiling him as the new chairman, replacing a guy who has quit a week or so earlier with no explanation (not even the standard “personal reasons” vagueness) as to why he had gone - the third chairman in less than a year to quit.

Some worrying stuff in Alan Wardrop’s statement however it’s hard to see how we get rid of Kibble unless they get bought out.

I also find the attempt to change the constitution around co-opting members slightly worrying but sadly you can only vote against that if you attend the AGM, which I’m unable to.

Shame there isn’t another amendment stopping a co-opted board member becoming chairman unless voted through at an AGM.

Under the current constitution  co opted board members cannot vote on Smisa business 

[doakie]

10 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

I can only think of two ways of building, with the landowners consent or by compulsory purchase.




Where he has mentioned building on St Mirren owned land TWICE as quoted below








Hawd the bus, you're now speculating it isn't St Mirren owned land and if it isn't a issue why was it mentioned TWICE.



So Alan can you provide us the evidence now for clarity.






 

 

I reiterate, the purpose of posting Alan's statement was to highlight his statement regarding the Kibble directors. If you feel that I'm speculating on the land issue then, rest assured, that is not my intention. There has been such speculation elsewhere but, as I've said, that just muddies the waters around AW's statement. 

Furthermore, I should think that the possibility of Alan responding to your question on this forum and before the AGM is, shall we say, very slim. 

While I can't control what posts are made on this thread, I am of the opinion that the crux of the matter is the alleged behaviour of the Kibble directors and feel that it would be sensible for contributors to focus on that issue. 

[Cookie Monster]

I reiterate, the purpose of posting Alan's statement was to highlight his statement regarding the Kibble directors. If you feel that I'm speculating on the land issue then, rest assured, that is not my intention. There has been such speculation elsewhere but, as I've said, that just muddies the waters around AW's statement. 
Furthermore, I should think that the possibility of Alan responding to your question on this forum and before the AGM is, shall we say, very slim. 
While I can't control what posts are made on this thread, I am of the opinion that the crux of the matter is the alleged behaviour of the Kibble directors and feel that it would be sensible for contributors to focus on that issue. 

Not at all.

I believe I read a post from you on Facebook after i had posted, glad you realised who I was referring to. [emoji106]

If AW has info, why wait until he is seeking election. Surely he should divulge it immediately so if there is a problem it could possibly get sorted sooner rather than later.

[ianmac]

As I recall from the St Mirren AGM a couple of months ago, when this issue was raised, it was stated that Kibble had applied for funding and/or planning permission for land adjacent to the area owned by St Mirren , not land owned by St Mirren. That is a bit different, but perhaps still dodgy.

Which is it?

The Kibble folk at the AGM did not deny this, but said the funding/ planning permission has been turned down anyway.

[Cookie Monster]

As I recall from the St Mirren AGM a couple of months ago, when this issue was raised, it was stated that Kibble had applied for funding and/or planning permission for land adjacent to the area owned by St Mirren , not land owned by St Mirren. That is a bit different, but perhaps still dodgy.
Which is it?
The Kibble folk at the AGM did not deny this, but said the funding/ planning permission has been turned down anyway.

If that is the case then AW has lied in his statement to be an elected member of the SMISA board.

[InMehmetWeTrust]

22 hours ago, doakie said:

No updates? no say? I' don't accept that. Since the so-called new Smisa board have taken over, communication has never been better. Four updates in March, three in April - communication has never been better. Check it out here https://www.smisa.net/

There's been regular meetings - some of which have involved robust debate. If you "don't have a clue what's happening" - your words, not mine - then I suggest you check your e-mail for the regular updates or attend the meetings. Smisa are putting information out so it's totally inaccurate to claim there's "no updates". The information is easily found even if your e-mail isn't working

There's a pretty important AGM coming up - why don't you attend and see the vital work that, for example, the likes of Stewart Gilmour, Alex Dillon and Willie Bell are doing.

Over and out.

How many of those “never better” updates were apologies for not telling anyone that someone had been co-opted on to the board before making them interim chair?

[alwaystrue]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

Not at all.

I believe I read a post from you on Facebook after i had posted, glad you realised who I was referring to.

If AW has info, why wait until he is seeking election. Surely he should divulge it immediately so if there is a problem it could possibly get sorted sooner rather than later.

 

That really is my point as well, the information needs to be made available now to allow it to be reviewed and a determination made on a legal basis as to any wrongdoing. 

[doakie]

49 minutes ago, alwaystrue said:

That really is my point as well, the information needs to be made available now to allow it to be reviewed and a determination made on a legal basis as to any wrongdoing. 

I understand your desire to get to the bottom of this asap - I'm sure we all feel that way - and on 23rd March Smisa published the attached statement which makes clear that they were waiting for further information. I would hope that AW's subsequent statement in his application to join the Smisa board is being reviewed by Smisa but it is, as Smisa say, a "developing situation".

AW has stated that there is more information to come. That information is his to reveal, not Smisa and I hope the AGM gives us all the chance to find out more.

As previously stated "I can only assume that AW has taken legal advice before putting on record the information he has shared with 1200 Smisa members. As I said, surely the evidence will be available after the election at the AGM"

KIBBLE: 

Following a question from a member at the last meeting, Ex Club Board Director Alan Wardrop informed the meeting of a developing situation between the Charity and the Kibble Club Board Directors. This was raised at the Clubs AGM in January. If, as Alan stated there is more to come on this issue we will review any further information if or when it is made available to us. SMISA is the majority shareholder at the Club and all Club business is by default of interest to SMISA. 

 

[doakie]

1 hour ago, InMehmetWeTrust said:

How many of those “never better” updates were apologies for not telling anyone that someone had been co-opted on to the board before making them interim chair?

As I keep saying, I feel there are much bigger fish to fry i.e. AW's revelations around Kibble directors behaviour.

If, however, you require an apology or explanation because you were not informed about every single protocol involved around the three members who were co-opted etc. then I suggest you write to Smisa - I'm confident that they will respond speedily. I'm sure the constitutional guidelines would have been followed.

[alwaystrue]

37 minutes ago, doakie said:

I understand your desire to get to the bottom of this asap - I'm sure we all feel that way - and on 23rd March Smisa published the attached statement which makes clear that they were waiting for further information. I would hope that AW's subsequent statement in his application to join the Smisa board is being reviewed by Smisa but it is, as Smisa say, a "developing situation".

AW has stated that there is more information to come. That information is his to reveal, not Smisa and I hope the AGM gives us all the chance to find out more.

As previously stated "I can only assume that AW has taken legal advice before putting on record the information he has shared with 1200 Smisa members. As I said, surely the evidence will be available after the election at the AGM"

KIBBLE: 

Following a question from a member at the last meeting, Ex Club Board Director Alan Wardrop informed the meeting of a developing situation between the Charity and the Kibble Club Board Directors. This was raised at the Clubs AGM in January. If, as Alan stated there is more to come on this issue we will review any further information if or when it is made available to us. SMISA is the majority shareholder at the Club and all Club business is by default of interest to SMISA. 

 

Thanks @doakie I hadn't seen the statement you shared. The other party in this that hasn't been mentioned often is the Foundation themselves. I am aware AW is on the board there, i may have missed it (not like me) but has anything been released from the Foundation?

[Tommy]

I am someone who not been a member of smisa for a few years and don't know anybody who is involved in it.

Because of that, i don't know what to believe.

If it is true that 1 of the Kibble director is a Ranger fan, then i am shocked and amazed that had been allowed to happen. 

Surely the only people who should become directors of our club are saints fans. 

[SamSmith99]

There’s 2 sides to this story and so far we’ve only heard the side from Alan Wardrop - I’d wait until everyone has heard both sides before making any assumptions.

Wardrop using an accusation like that as part of his election message is pretty bold and could end up looking very daft if he happens to be wrong. I guess we’ll just need to wait and see if there is substance to his claim.

I’ve been put off joining Smisa for a while because of the secrecy of the whole thing (co-opting guys on without announcement, lack of updates etc) and a potential board member withholding information like this from fans isn’t making me want to sign up any quicker.

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by SamSmith99

[doakie]

12 minutes ago, alwaystrue said:

Thanks @doakie I hadn't seen the statement you shared. The other party in this that hasn't been mentioned often is the Foundation themselves. I am aware AW is on the board there, i may have missed it (not like me) but has anything been released from the Foundation?

"has anything been released from the Foundation?" Not as far as I know but this story has got legs and will run and run, of that I'm certain.

[alanb]

13 minutes ago, Tommy said:

I am someone who not been a member of smisa for a few years and don't know anybody who is involved in it.

Because of that, i d on't know what to believe.

If it is true that 1 of the Kibble director is a Ranger fan, then i am shocked and amazed that had been allowed to happen. 

Surely the only people who should become directors of our club are saints fans. 

And the other K director supports the other cheek (alledgedly)

[doakie]

14 minutes ago, Tommy said:

I am someone who not been a member of smisa for a few years and don't know anybody who is involved in it.

Because of that, i don't know what to believe.

If it is true that 1 of the Kibble director is a Ranger fan, then i am shocked and amazed that had been allowed to happen. 

Surely the only people who should become directors of our club are saints fans. 

Many saints fans have known since day 1 that Gillespie is a Rangers fan and McMillan a Celtic fan. 

[doakie]

10 minutes ago, SamSmith99 said:

There’s 2 sides to this story and so far we’ve only heard the side from Alan Wardrop - I’d wait until everyone has heard both sides before making any assumptions.

Wardrop using an accusation like that as part of his election message is pretty bold and could end up looking very daft if he happens to be wrong. I guess we’ll just need to wait and see if there is substance to his claim.

I’ve been put off joining Smisa for a while because of the secrecy of the whole thing (co-opting guys on without announcement, lack of updates etc) and a potential board member withholding information like this from fans isn’t making me want to sign up any quicker.

 

"I’d wait until everyone has heard both sides before making any assumptions."

That's obviously a fair comment but I am a bit puzzled. Which potential Smisa board member has been withholding information? ("a potential board member withholding information like this from fans isn’t making me want to sign up any quicker.")

Surely you don't mean Alan Wardrop? I apologise in advance if I've misunderstood but it's been well documented that he went public on this issue a few months ago, revealing the alleged conflict of interest at a pretty stormy meeting. He followed it up at the last Smisa meeting, promising "there's more to come". In the interim, I'm sure he'd have sought legal advice and would only have issued his statement if he was confident that he was on solid ground. We'll soon find out.

"I’ve been put off joining Smisa for a while because of the secrecy of the whole thing"

Secrecy from Smisa? Sorry, but I disagree - nothing could be further from the truth. They send out updates regularly (including news about those being co-opted).....to members!

If you're not a Smisa member I struggle to understand why you'd expect to be kept fully informed about Smisa business - it is a member's organisation, after all. Having said that, it is obviously a practical idea to provide fans who aren't members with access to the Smisa website where up to date information is readily available even for non members like yourself. The information is out there - it just comes, quite rightly, to members immediately. There's also regular updates on Twitter, Facebook etc.

I myself was very critical about the previous board's "anonymity" but the current Smisa board are, in my view, much more pro-active, more transparent than what we've experienced in the past.

I hope this gives you food for thought and perhaps re-evaluate joining. The club needs to attract more fans to not only join Smisa but to get involved, to attend the meetings and to engage in the debate and I'm lead to believe that increasing membership is a top priority for the Smisa board. Increased membership is one certain way of guaranteeing a secure future for the club, a future when we will be entirely fan owned.