Explosive Smisa application

[Albanian Buddy]

2 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

I've been unsuccessful so far trying to find the disclosure log where the FOI requested would have the relevant information.

What I did find was the land registry documentation detailing the ownership of the land that was purchased by SMFC on 1st June 2007.

That land was once owned by SG’s father as he had a shop nearby.

I’m led to believe SG was intending selling this separately. But it appears it became part of the deal when the consortium sold the club to GLS.

I have nothing to confirm that unless it is in the land registry.

I was at an AGM after the move to the new ground and there were suggestions to perhaps develop this land at some stage with some kind of training facility that may have been able to use grants to support if it was also made available for local community. Long time ago so forget the details.

Now that area is of significant interest at local and national level.

I recently saw a public display presentation in the Tannahill Centre by a team of architects who presented various projects and plans for regeneration of the area which would make this land more valuable to “developers”. 

I will try and find out details. 

 

[Cookie Monster]

Can you please elaborate on what exactly you found?
Is this just regarding the land or the individuals? The reason I ask is the you make reference to the trustees of that “charity”. 
The background to the rise of one individual is quite incredible. 
Btw you have no chance of getting Basil to change direction despite your U-turn.

A few things, just trying to get some of them corroborated.

The land in question was the land across Ferguslie Park Avenue from the ground.

Highlighted in the picture I posted.

[doakie]

5 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

Surely trying to secure the funding in the way they are alleged to have done so, is tantamount to fraud?

Not being a lawyer I can't say but I certainly look forward to whatever response comes from these guys.

As I recall, at the AGM when AW first brought it up, one of the Kibble guys answered AW's criticism, saying something along the lines of "what does it matter, it didn't reach the next stage". That was met by a huge collective groan - I guess everyone in the room knew it was the alleged misleading application that was important - not whether it was successful or not.

[Kombibuddie]

3 minutes ago, doakie said:

Not being a lawyer I can't say but I certainly look forward to whatever response comes from these guys.

As I recall, at the AGM when AW first brought it up, one of the Kibble guys answered AW's criticism, saying something along the lines of "what does it matter, it didn't reach the next stage". That was met by a huge collective groan - I guess everyone in the room knew it was the alleged misleading application that was important - not whether it was successful or not.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am sure, lying for financial gain falls within the boundaries of fraud.

Hopefully, one of the forum's legal eagles will let us know.

[bonzoboys]

Couple of points

AW application to become a Board Member of SMISA. 

It is up to the individual members to determine which of the candidates gets elected.  We could ask ourselves if AW genuinely wants be elected to work to benefit SMISA or is he using this an an avenue to exlore a single agenda.  An agenda he has probably not been getting any resonse on now, he is not a member of the ST Mirren Club.  

The AW Point

This matter of the grant application is very much a matter for the Club Board.  All Directors should be accountable to the Board for their actions.  If the other directors consider that some club directors have acted in appropriately, they should do something about .  SMISA appointed a majority of the Club directors and those apointed should be following this up.  Despite all that many of us talk about Kibble, they are a significant Charitable organisation and if they consider that two people have acted wrongly and mis-reresented the Club, they should do the honourable thing and have them step down, and appoint 2 new directors.  Were they acting on behalf of Kibble or the Club, if shown that they were acting on behalf of Kibble, in a way that was in conflict to their duties as a directer of the Club, they should go.  KIbble would not dare to veto any action to remove a director if he, they were proved to have taken action to harm the Club. Directors have a duty of care

Would the party who was hosting the Grant application not be very interested in any impropriety in an application.  Kibble are a huge Charity, have full time staff working on grants, they need to have a spotless reutation regards grant alications, they have far more to lose than simply this project.  This series of ongoing discussions must be equqlly frustrating to their management.

This matter has been dragging on for a while.  Perhaps we normal suporters may never get to know the full story.  We only own the shares, the actions of the Club are run as a business and any such compromising discussions may be considered a closed matter.

All of the above presupposes that AW has a valid point, if there is no smoking gun, the very least the Club could do is report that the matter has been investigated internally and closed.

Perhas at some point, we may get back to talking about football, we have a game this weekend!!

COYS

[doakie]

1 hour ago, bonzoboys said:

Couple of points

AW application to become a Board Member of SMISA. 

It is up to the individual members to determine which of the candidates gets elected.  We could ask ourselves if AW genuinely wants be elected to work to benefit SMISA or is he using this an an avenue to exlore a single agenda.  An agenda he has probably not been getting any resonse on now, he is not a member of the ST Mirren Club.  

The AW Point

This matter of the grant application is very much a matter for the Club Board.  All Directors should be accountable to the Board for their actions.  If the other directors consider that some club directors have acted in appropriately, they should do something about .  SMISA appointed a majority of the Club directors and those apointed should be following this up.  Despite all that many of us talk about Kibble, they are a significant Charitable organisation and if they consider that two people have acted wrongly and mis-reresented the Club, they should do the honourable thing and have them step down, and appoint 2 new directors.  Were they acting on behalf of Kibble or the Club, if shown that they were acting on behalf of Kibble, in a way that was in conflict to their duties as a directer of the Club, they should go.  KIbble would not dare to veto any action to remove a director if he, they were proved to have taken action to harm the Club. Directors have a duty of care

Would the party who was hosting the Grant application not be very interested in any impropriety in an application.  Kibble are a huge Charity, have full time staff working on grants, they need to have a spotless reutation regards grant alications, they have far more to lose than simply this project.  This series of ongoing discussions must be equqlly frustrating to their management.

This matter has been dragging on for a while.  Perhaps we normal suporters may never get to know the full story.  We only own the shares, the actions of the Club are run as a business and any such compromising discussions may be considered a closed matter.

All of the above presupposes that AW has a valid point, if there is no smoking gun, the very least the Club could do is report that the matter has been investigated internally and closed.

Perhas at some point, we may get back to talking about football, we have a game this weekend!!

COYS

Excellent post!

I’ve got a couple of observations:

“We could ask ourselves if AW genuinely wants be elected to work to benefit SMISA or is he using this as an avenue to explore a single agenda”.

I suspect the former but only he knows the answer but, either way, he seems determined to highlight these allegations.

“This matter of the grant application is very much a matter for the Club Board”. “Perhaps we normal suporters may never get to know the full story”

The board should indeed be seeking answers from the Kibble representatives but my only issue is that the board answer to the majority owners, Smisa, who, in turn answer to the fans. Consequently, we need to be made aware of whether or not AW’s allegations have been proved to be correct.

Nonetheless, yours is a very good analysis of the situation. Well done.

Edited May 5, 2023 by doakie

[Brilliant Disguise]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:58 AM, bazil85 said:

What mess is the club in? Off the park we are seeing record crowds, players sold for cash, other sellable assets, income from a league position we haven't met in over 30 years and potential income from European football. SMISA have over £1 million worth of assets saved up, which is going almost nowhere but to the betterment of our football club. 

There can't be many clubs in the UK that have had such a quick turnaround in fortune from disappointing annual accounts. 

If our biggest moan is a dispute over a small piece of land, between the Kibble and a former board member, I'm a happy man.  

Firstly of all, all the positive stuff in your first paragraph, is a smokescreen and does not fix the disappointing accounts. Deflection at best

The moan from AW is not about the land it’s about the lack of trust that evidently exists within our board. With AW background i doubt he would make such accusations without having detailed evidence to substantiate it. 

In simple terms if you ran a pub which had a spare driveway with one of your mates who also ran a mobile home company. I think you would be well pissed off to discover your mate had applied for grant funding to park a mobile home in your pubs driveway for his other business and not even ask you or tell you about it. AND when challenged responded “oh it doesn’t matter i never got the funds anyway.”

The gripe AW has is that the name of SMFC and SMFC land has been used without their knowledge to try and secure grant funding which is not ultimately for the benefit of SMFC. (While at the same time SMFC are discussing other proposals for the land with the “offending” Directors)

The questions are have the Directors acted in accordance of the laws set by Companies House

- Have the followed the Articles of Association

- Have they promoted the success of the Company (in this case which company)

- Have the exercised independent judgement 

- Exercised reasonable care, skill and diligence

- Advised on Conflicts of interest and personal benefit

- Kept reasonable records

 

 

 

[waldorf34]

Another project for the Police fraud  squad?

[FTOF]

Club Board Statement (stmirren.com)

Oops! So it wasn't land that St.Mirren owned.

Edited May 5, 2023 by FTOF

[Albanian Buddy]

12 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Club Board Statement (stmirren.com)

Oops! So it wasn't land that St.Mirren owned.

Good news.

That clears the confusion over the land issue.

I was not at the AGM but why was this not discussed fully and put to bed there and then?

ETA: @FTOF that question was just an open invitation to others not just for you.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Albanian Buddy

[faraway saint]

20 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Club Board Statement (stmirren.com)

Oops! So it wasn't land that St.Mirren owned.

Not so explosive then? 🤣🤣🤣

[SamSmith99]

54 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Club Board Statement (stmirren.com)

Oops! So it wasn't land that St.Mirren owned.

Excellent statement by the club and clears up the questions most people had on here.

Edited May 5, 2023 by SamSmith99

[InMehmetWeTrust]

I, for one, am shocked that the bare bum boxing guy didn’t have a full grasp of apparent facts before saying something silly online. 

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

Firstly of all, all the positive stuff in your first paragraph, is a smokescreen and does not fix the disappointing accounts. Deflection at best

The moan from AW is not about the land it’s about the lack of trust that evidently exists within our board. With AW background i doubt he would make such accusations without having detailed evidence to substantiate it. 

In simple terms if you ran a pub which had a spare driveway with one of your mates who also ran a mobile home company. I think you would be well pissed off to discover your mate had applied for grant funding to park a mobile home in your pubs driveway for his other business and not even ask you or tell you about it. AND when challenged responded “oh it doesn’t matter i never got the funds anyway.”

The gripe AW has is that the name of SMFC and SMFC land has been used without their knowledge to try and secure grant funding which is not ultimately for the benefit of SMFC. (While at the same time SMFC are discussing other proposals for the land with the “offending” Directors)

The questions are have the Directors acted in accordance of the laws set by Companies House

- Have the followed the Articles of Association

- Have they promoted the success of the Company (in this case which company)

- Have the exercised independent judgement 

- Exercised reasonable care, skill and diligence

- Advised on Conflicts of interest and personal benefit

- Kept reasonable records

 

 

 

Let’s be honest, you’ve been one of the biggest culprits in doomsday predictions regarding the club that haven’t come true. 
 

One set of disappointing accounts, likely to be largely offset by this seasons (and hopefully next) income is about the most of it. 
 

I don’t necessarily think AW is making all this up. But I also don’t automatically buy into the narrative that it’s against the interests of St Mirren & a huge deal. We haven’t seen nearly enough about it to make those sort of conclusions. 
 

Things are going well at the club right now. As we have seen many times before, people like to blow up issues when that’s the case. 

[djchapsticks]

Colour me shocked that Alan Wardrop is talking a load of unsubstantiated shite.

I think it's fair to say that he should now do the right thing and remove his candidacy from the SMISA elections immediately given his was a one issue manifesto that has been soundly and comprehensivly shown up as wrong.

[djchapsticks]

2 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

 

In simple terms if you ran a pub which had a spare driveway with one of your mates who also ran a mobile home company. I think you would be well pissed off to discover your mate had applied for grant funding to park a mobile home in your pubs driveway for his other business and not even ask you or tell you about it. AND when challenged responded “oh it doesn’t matter i never got the funds anyway.”

The gripe AW has is that the name of SMFC and SMFC land has been used without their knowledge to try and secure grant funding which is not ultimately for the benefit of SMFC. (While at the same time SMFC are discussing other proposals for the land with the “offending” Directors)

In simpler terms it was f**k all like that. 

More like your mate applied for funds to build on the spare bit of ground near the pub that the landlord didn't own.

[FTOF]

56 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Not so explosive then? 🤣🤣🤣

Plenty of "Explosive" diarrhoea of the verbal type on the thread though.

[faraway saint]

12 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Colour me shocked that Alan Wardrop is talking a load of unsubstantiated shite.

I think it's fair to say that he should now do the right thing and remove his candidacy from the SMISA elections immediately given his was a one issue manifesto that has been soundly and comprehensivly shown up as wrong.

Wish the few who have been stoking this up would hurry up, I'm running out of popcorn  🍿 

[djchapsticks]

4 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Wish the few who have been stoking this up would hurry up, I'm running out of popcorn  🍿 

I fear you'll go hungry.  They will all disappear the same way the did when Gilmour successfully lov ied his way onto the Board.

SMISA is in real danger of becoming the proper harmful organisation within the club. High people turnover, a seemingly never ending conveyor belt of the sale old faces pulling the same old doomsday act and being too wound up by Kibble to actually get on with the job at hand.

[doakie]

23 minutes ago, SamSmith99 said:

Excellent statement by the club and clears up the questions most people had on here.

I'm not so sure that it clears it up at all, Sam. My point has always been about AW's assertion that an application was made by Kibble, naming the charity as co-applicant without their knowledge. That, for me, was the crux rather than what land belongs to the club.

The statement says: "During the September 2022 Board meeting the Directors became aware of, and discussed, a proposal to build a Wellbeing Centre in Ferguslie Park and a funding application to the RCGF. All St Mirren Football Club Directors were in attendance. A Stage 1 Application had been submitted for RCGF funding and it was successful in moving to Stage 2 of the process. The application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application, the Club nor the Charitable Foundation had been engaged prior to the submission as this was very early stages of the process."

I struggle to understand why an application can be made on behalf of the foundation when neither "the club nor the foundation had been engaged" and the club statement seems to back that up. That just doesn’t make sense, does it? It’s completely illogical. How can an application be made when neither the club nor the charity had been engaged?

On the matter of the land, I’ve been told that the land situation will be addressed in the coming days but, of course, this will involve planning, technical documents and the like. I await those revelations with interest.

This will be my last post on the matter for a couple of days because I’m going out tonight and, like the rest of us, have a rather big day tomorrow.

[InMehmetWeTrust]

10 minutes ago, doakie said:

I'm not so sure that it clears it up at all, Sam. My point has always been about AW's assertion that an application was made by Kibble, naming the charity as co-applicant without their knowledge. That, for me, was the crux rather than what land belongs to the club.

The statement says: "During the September 2022 Board meeting the Directors became aware of, and discussed, a proposal to build a Wellbeing Centre in Ferguslie Park and a funding application to the RCGF. All St Mirren Football Club Directors were in attendance. A Stage 1 Application had been submitted for RCGF funding and it was successful in moving to Stage 2 of the process. The application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application, the Club nor the Charitable Foundation had been engaged prior to the submission as this was very early stages of the process."

I struggle to understand why an application can be made on behalf of the foundation when neither "the club nor the foundation had been engaged" and the club statement seems to back that up. That just doesn’t make sense, does it? It’s completely illogical. How can an application be made when neither the club nor the charity had been engaged?

Why stop what you’ve highlighted before the end of the sentence, excluding the caveat? 😂

Oh, and the sentence after:

“It should be noted that historic discussions and meetings around the development of the Ferguslie Master Plan, including the potential development of a Wellbeing Centre, had taken place with Club Board members, Renfrewshire Council senior officials and other stakeholders.“

 

So, there’s now an official club statement saying that the club has been aware of it, that it’s something they’d discussed supporting before, and that it doesn’t involve any st Mirren property. It also makes clear that, having cleared this early initial stage, the relevant parties then had all the necessary discussions before proceeding further. 
 

As smoking gun’s go, this is a plastic water pistol with an impotent wee dribble of steam coming out the barrel. 

[Smithers Jones]

Where's Glen ?  😂😂

[faraway saint]

20 minutes ago, Smithers Jones said:

Where's Glen ?  😂😂

Frantically trying to dig up more shite to make him look like our knight in shining armour. 

[glen]

1 hour ago, Smithers Jones said:

Where's Glen ?  😂😂

Glen is watching 👀

[JJ McG]

Wardrup has had an absolute shocker, I knew he was a hot air balloon the 1st time I set eyes on him and like I said before he was chased off the board as he is as thick as mince.