Explosive Smisa application

[faraway saint]

2 hours ago, glen said:

Glen is watching 👀

But, unsurprisingly, not saying as much as a few days ago. 🤣

[doakie]

On 5/5/2023 at 7:44 AM, 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.

Interestingly, I've just been sent the attached photo of the planned regeneration and Wellbeing plan which was submitted by Kibble . If you compare it with Cookie Monster's photo of land bought by the club in 2007 - shown above in his post - then it certainly seems to me that it is indeed St.Mirren land that the application refers to. 

As I've said before, I'm no lawyer nor am I a planner but these two images show the same piece of land which is owned by the club yet the club claim that "The application was unspecific as to the precise location of the proposed building". The land shown on the document looks pretty specific to me.

They go on to say "no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion" yet the attached brochure seems to contradict that statement

I wonder who drafted the club's statement and I also wonder if all club directors agreed to the wording.

Does the club’s statement prejudice AW’s chances in the upcoming Smisa election? Does the club's statement misrepresent the truth? Are we being misled? Make up your own mind but, while I accept that there's differing opinions, may I ask that any replies are not of the "I told you so" variety or such like.  This has been, in the main, a healthy debate with differing views - let's keep it that way.

I can assure you that there's more to come on this story and I've got a feeling that those who have been vocal in their criticism of Alan Wardrop might find their criticism's should have been aimed elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong and, if so, I'll hold up my hands but time will tell.

Now, at this point I'm going back to on field matters and getting ready for a trip through to Edinburgh COYS

[faraway saint]

48 minutes ago, doakie said:

Interestingly, I've just been sent the attached photo of the planned regeneration and Wellbeing plan which was submitted by Kibble . If you compare it with Cookie Monster's photo of land bought by the club in 2007 - shown above in his post - then it certainly seems to me that it is indeed St.Mirren land that the application refers to. 

As I've said before, I'm no lawyer nor am I a planner but these two images show the same piece of land which is owned by the club yet the club claim that "The application was unspecific as to the precise location of the proposed building". The land shown on the document looks pretty specific to me.

They go on to say "no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion" yet the attached brochure seems to contradict that statement

I wonder who drafted the club's statement and I also wonder if all club directors agreed to the wording.

Does the club’s statement prejudice AW’s chances in the upcoming Smisa election? Does the club's statement misrepresent the truth? Are we being misled? Make up your own mind but, while I accept that there's differing opinions, may I ask that any replies are not of the "I told you so" variety or such like.  This has been, in the main, a healthy debate with differing views - let's keep it that way.

I can assure you that there's more to come on this story and I've got a feeling that those who have been vocal in their criticism of Alan Wardrop might find their criticism's should have been aimed elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong and, if so, I'll hold up my hands but time will tell.

Now, at this point I'm going back to on field matters and getting ready for a trip through to Edinburgh COYS

Wait a minute, you start a thread with the dramatic "explosive" headline, positively gloating over the potential damage that might come of someones unfounded statement then when theres a statement from the club you call that into doubt and still stick with AW's claims?

Aye, time will tell but until then people are entitled to stick with who's version they choose and post in any manner they choose. 

From my distant view I have concerns that we seem to be going backwards with certain people who, IMO, have had their 15 minutes of fame jumping aboard a pretty successful ship. 

Edited May 6, 2023 by faraway saint

[Albanian Buddy]

@doakie

Can you send the whole document?

There must surely be more information available.

Regarding the land issue - who actually owns the area across the road from the stadium shaded in red?

Stewart Gilmour ?

Gordon Scott ?

St Mirren FC Ltd ?

St Mirren Charitable Foundation ?

Kibble ?

Renfrewshire Council ?

It looks an oasis of calm that “well-being centre”

The Masterplan ?

Whoever thought that up must be a fan of the Gallagher brothers who we know are Celtic fans. 

 

 

 

[portmahomack saint]

Great song and video  wit one is Liam 

[portmahomack saint]

1 hour ago, doakie said:

Interestingly, I've just been sent the attached photo of the planned regeneration and Wellbeing plan which was submitted by Kibble . If you compare it with Cookie Monster's photo of land bought by the club in 2007 - shown above in his post - then it certainly seems to me that it is indeed St.Mirren land that the application refers to. 

As I've said before, I'm no lawyer nor am I a planner but these two images show the same piece of land which is owned by the club yet the club claim that "The application was unspecific as to the precise location of the proposed building". The land shown on the document looks pretty specific to me.

They go on to say "no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion" yet the attached brochure seems to contradict that statement

I wonder who drafted the club's statement and I also wonder if all club directors agreed to the wording.

Does the club’s statement prejudice AW’s chances in the upcoming Smisa election? Does the club's statement misrepresent the truth? Are we being misled? Make up your own mind but, while I accept that there's differing opinions, may I ask that any replies are not of the "I told you so" variety or such like.  This has been, in the main, a healthy debate with differing views - let's keep it that way.

I can assure you that there's more to come on this story and I've got a feeling that those who have been vocal in their criticism of Alan Wardrop might find their criticism's should have been aimed elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong and, if so, I'll hold up my hands but time will tell.

Now, at this point I'm going back to on field matters and getting ready for a trip through to Edinburgh COYS

Is that genuine or was your nose bleeding 

[djchapsticks]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

From my distant view I have concerns that we seem to be going backwards with certain people who, IMO, have had their 15 minutes of fame jumping aboard a pretty successful ship. 

The cricket club mentality remains.

People who were large fish in a small pond and simply cannot fathom that the club....THEIR club.  Is being run even more successfully without them so they want back in.

[doakie]

5 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:

@doakie

Can you send the whole document?

There must surely be more information available.

Regarding the land issue - who actually owns the area across the road from the stadium shaded in red?

Stewart Gilmour ?

Gordon Scott ?

St Mirren FC Ltd ?

St Mirren Charitable Foundation ?

Kibble ?

Renfrewshire Council ?

It looks an oasis of calm that “well-being centre”

The Masterplan ?

Whoever thought that up must be a fan of the Gallagher brothers who we know are Celtic fans. 

 

 

 

@Albanian Buddy , it's attached to my reply - you simply click on Cookie Monster's post and it opens up, however, I'm going to try and attach a screen shot so you can see it fully. This image was provided by @Cookie Monster who got it through FOI

AW, who also got the image through FOI, insists that the shaded area is land that has been owned by St.Mirren since 2007. Hope my last post makes sense to you now that you have both images.

The shaded area in each image is the same piece of land yet the board are claim in their statement that "no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion". 

That doesn't add up to me but I'm confident there will be further developments in the next week.

[Maboza]

23 hours ago, JJ McG said:

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.

Do I remember correctly that the club, with his guidance, invested hundreds of thousands in the stock market? I’m sure it was him that was lauding the great decision and how well the investment was doing compared to money just sitting in the bank. 
 

 

 

[faraway saint]

22 minutes ago, Maboza said:

Do I remember correctly that the club, with his guidance, invested hundreds of thousands in the stock market? I’m sure it was him that was lauding the great decision and how well the investment was doing compared to money just sitting in the bank. 

Along with Gilmour who was in the  "We need Rangers or it would be Armageddon?" boat? 

Oh, Tommy Craig and Tony appointments.

I think that's enough, for now.  🤣🤣🤣

Edited May 6, 2023 by faraway saint

[Cookie Monster]

Do I remember correctly that the club, with his guidance, invested hundreds of thousands in the stock market? I’m sure it was him that was lauding the great decision and how well the investment was doing compared to money just sitting in the bank. 
 

 
 

Can't remember the actual investment at the beginning, but it is in profit according to the last audited accounts.

[Maboza]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

1 hour ago, Maboza said:

Do I remember correctly that the club, with his guidance, invested hundreds of thousands in the stock market? I’m sure it was him that was lauding the great decision and how well the investment was doing compared to money just sitting in the bank. 
 

 
 

Can't remember the actual investment at the beginning, but it is in profit according to the last audited accounts.

So it’s still sitting there as an investment? Or at least was, in the last set of accounts? 

[Cookie Monster]

So it’s still sitting there as an investment? Or at least was, in the last set of accounts? 

Yes.

[bonzoboys]

I think by profession AW is a financial advisor. It is good that he helps club invest surplus cash. even the most biased kibble supporter cannot blame him for Covid, war in Ukraine etc, but they will!
The more cynical will then ask if they invested through his role or company. That then becomes close to conflict of interest issue. 
 

it is tough being a supporter and director. We appoint people for their experience and knowledge to help the Club, then spend remainder of time looking for ways to criticize them. 
 

does the Cubs statement out an end to this matter?. In real life, should do, but on this Forum, no chance. The conspiracy theorists will have a field day!
 

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by bonzoboys

[Albanian Buddy]

@doakie

I believe you misunderstood my request.

I was actually looking for the actual “master plan” document which I thought you had access to. 

I’m keen to drill more into the details of the actual application rather than just a front cover image. 

 

 

[doakie]

Guys,

I’ve been sent this analysis of the board’s statement from a fan who wishes to remain anonymous – simply due to the amount of personal criticism that’s been posted here towards other contributors and towards Alan Wardrop himself. I asked for replies to be respectful and I repeat that plea.  What follows is one fan's opinion and you may agree or disagree. I offer no opinion i.e. don’t shoot the messenger but I do feel it is worthy of your attention.

Make up your own mind about this analysis but I will highlight that the deadline for stage 1 applications was 17 June 2022.

                                                       ST.MIRREN CLUB BOARD STATEMENT

SMISA members and fans will be aware that an election process is underway to fill vacancies on the SMISA Board. One of the candidates referred to a grant application, initiated by Kibble, for funding under the auspices of the Scottish Government Regeneration Capital Grant Fund (RCGF). Given the nature of the wording within that candidate statement, the Club Board wish to clarify the details regarding this matter, including the diligence undertaken in September/October 2022

[Comment] – The timing is only one aspect of AW’s criticism of Kibble.  The content of the application is the subject of deeper concern.  Here, the Club statement confirms that the Board conducted “diligence” 3 months too late, and that it had no knowledge. Stage 1 Application submitted in June, Scot Gov RCGF announcement 5^th September and Club Board meeting 29^th September.   

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. 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.

Comment –

• “The Directors became aware of”.  Obviously, this relates to only the SMiSA appointed directors.  The Kibble directors knew months before September.  So, only some of the directors “became aware of”.  Misleading and an attempt to deflect. 
• The Statement says, “…historic discussions and meetings … with Club Board members …”  Which “Club Board members”?  Surely they are not trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by referring to the Kibble representatives to the Board!  They obviously had no authority to represent the Board as the matter had not been brought to the attention of the Board until September.  The “hat” they wore during these discussions was that of Kibble and not the Board.  They cannot seriously contend that the Club Board knew merely because the two Kibble directors knew.
• Clearly, the first the Directors became aware was September.  They neglect to say when the Stage 1 Application was submitted (June 2022) – which is a damning fact in itself.  One of Alan’s points was that an application was submitted in the Club’s name without the Board’s knowledge nor approval.  The two Kibble directors had no authority to make such a submission.  The Club Statement admits as much but attempts to divert attention by claiming it was “…very early stages.”
• The Statement says “…application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application.”  They do not say that the Club was also named as a participant in the project.  An inclusion in June without knowledge nor authority.
• So what does this paragraph tell us?  The Directors admit that they (only the SMiSA appointed directors) first became aware of the RCGF application well after the process was initiated in June. 

From the discussions that took place at the St Mirren Football Club Board meeting on 29 September 2022 it became clear that the matter would require further conversation with the Charitable Foundation and that the Club should maintain interest in this matter to establish if the project offered any tangible benefit going forward. It was agreed that timely and appropriate discussions must take place regarding any potential projects in future to ensure that all stakeholders, directly involved or otherwise, were aware of the approach that was being taken. 

[ Comment] – The approach being taken by Kibble and not the Club nor the Foundation – yet each was declared in the application to be an integral partner and developer.

Regarding the suggestion that St Mirren Football Club was expected to offer its land for the proposed Wellbeing Centre, this was not the case. The application was unspecific as to the precise location of the proposed building, but a crucial element of the plan was that the Wellbeing Centre would be built on one of several long-term derelict sites in the Ferguslie area, not on land owned by St Mirren.

[Comment] – While the narrative in application document may have been non-specific, an artists’ impression and location map submitted as an exhibit with the application, clearly demonstrates that Kibble had targeted St Mirren assets for use in the project.  The artist’s impression and location map, together with “Land ownership transfer” identified as a “Key next step” in the application document, demonstrate Kibble’s true intent.  Use of St Mirren land was an integral part of the plans well before the SMiSA appointed Directors knew of those plans.

Given the need to align other stakeholders, a meeting with the Charitable Foundation took place, and subsequently the Charitable Foundation Board agreed to support the Stage 2 application for RCGF funding, given the complementary nature of the establishment of a Wellbeing Centre in the area.

[Comment] – The meeting with the Foundation took place at the instance of the Foundation (not Kibble) after it was surprised by a congratulatory message from another club at moving to Phase 2.  At that moment, it had no knowledge about the application nor the pivotal part it was said to play in its conceptualisation and development.  This occurred a mere 3 days before the Phase 2 deadline.  Clearly, that was insufficient time to get acquainted with a project that had been under consideration by Kibble for at least a year and 4 months of an application process.  The Foundation was not going to stand in the way.  The Foundation did not, however, “support” the Stage 2 application.  In fact, the material presented to the Foundation prior to submission, and used during the discussions, did not match the application actually submitted.  The Foundation was misled.

The Club Board, having confirmed that alignment on the proposal had been achieved, was content that the matter had been concluded appropriately from a St Mirren Football Club perspective. As highlighted, a watching brief on the progress of the application was applied to establish it there were any opportunities for the Club arising from the initiative. The Club Board will always be supportive of any regeneration and development of the area surrounding the stadium if it is complementary to the best interests of the Club.

[Comment] – What steps did the Board take to “confirm alignment”?  Did it:

• Review the application material? 
  • If not, questions must be asked about the integrity of the enquiry process to “confirm alignment” and whether a failure to review the application and map was a failure of the Directors’ fiduciary duties to the Club.
  • If so, then how could the Director’s condone the misstatements of fact in the June 2022 application?
• Was the Board presented with a copy of the artists’ impression and location map?
  • If not, then at least two of the Directors (with full knowledge of the artists impression and the intent to use St Mirren land) were not forthcoming to the other (SMiSA) directors.  These two Directors had a fiduciary duty of transparency to the others and to make a full disclosure.
  • If so, how is it that alignment could be confirmed when the project was intended to be located on St Mirren owned land?

Notification that the application was unsuccessful was received in January 2023, and the matter is now closed.

[Comment] – While the application may have been unsuccessful, the matter is far from closed.  The events leading up the development, preparation, and submission of the application, made on behalf of the Club without Board approval, and the part played by Kibble, is an extremely important governance matter.  This issue is exacerbated by the extent of the misstatements and misrepresentations made in the application materials, attributable to the Club and the Foundation, without their knowledge.

It is also worth noting by way of background information that the Club own a parcel of land adjacent to the stadium. Any sale or transfer of that asset, or any other element of the St Mirren estate, would require to be subject to a robust process. This would include being professionally valued, recommended by a majority of the Directors and approved by Club Shareholders as part of the legal Shareholder Agreement.

To reiterate the information outlined above regarding the RCGF application, no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion hence these arrangements were never required.

[Comment] – The artists’ impression and location map, prepared by Kibble, clearly show that St Mirren Football Club land was part of the application.

There have been other parties who have proposed the development of the stadium facilities and these, when they have been suggested, have been treated in a similar manner to the RCGF application by the St Mirren Football Club Board.

[Comment] – The difference is that these other projects:

• were discussed by the Board before steps were taken to gain government funding
• they were not proposed by DIrectors who had a fiduciary duty to the Club
• did not include applications for government funding that contained serious misstatements of fact and material misrepresentations.

Like all fans, the Club Board are looking forward to the next five games that see our Club in the Top Six of the SPFL for the first time, we want everyone to enjoy the games, get right behind the team and are looking forward to a positive end to one of the most successful seasons in our Club's history.

RCGF-R10-Stage-1-submission-guidance-2023-24.doc

[glen]

54 minutes ago, doakie said:

Guys,

I’ve been sent this analysis of the board’s statement from a fan who wishes to remain anonymous – simply due to the amount of personal criticism that’s been posted here towards other contributors and towards Alan Wardrop himself. I asked for replies to be respectful and I repeat that plea.  What follows is one fan's opinion and you may agree or disagree. I offer no opinion i.e. don’t shoot the messenger but I do feel it is worthy of your attention.

Make up your own mind about this analysis but I will highlight that the deadline for stage 1 applications was 17 June 2022.

                                                       ST.MIRREN CLUB BOARD STATEMENT

SMISA members and fans will be aware that an election process is underway to fill vacancies on the SMISA Board. One of the candidates referred to a grant application, initiated by Kibble, for funding under the auspices of the Scottish Government Regeneration Capital Grant Fund (RCGF). Given the nature of the wording within that candidate statement, the Club Board wish to clarify the details regarding this matter, including the diligence undertaken in September/October 2022

[Comment] – The timing is only one aspect of AW’s criticism of Kibble.  The content of the application is the subject of deeper concern.  Here, the Club statement confirms that the Board conducted “diligence” 3 months too late, and that it had no knowledge. Stage 1 Application submitted in June, Scot Gov RCGF announcement 5^th September and Club Board meeting 29^th September.   

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. 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.

Comment –

• “The Directors became aware of”.  Obviously, this relates to only the SMiSA appointed directors.  The Kibble directors knew months before September.  So, only some of the directors “became aware of”.  Misleading and an attempt to deflect. 
• The Statement says, “…historic discussions and meetings … with Club Board members …”  Which “Club Board members”?  Surely they are not trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by referring to the Kibble representatives to the Board!  They obviously had no authority to represent the Board as the matter had not been brought to the attention of the Board until September.  The “hat” they wore during these discussions was that of Kibble and not the Board.  They cannot seriously contend that the Club Board knew merely because the two Kibble directors knew.
• Clearly, the first the Directors became aware was September.  They neglect to say when the Stage 1 Application was submitted (June 2022) – which is a damning fact in itself.  One of Alan’s points was that an application was submitted in the Club’s name without the Board’s knowledge nor approval.  The two Kibble directors had no authority to make such a submission.  The Club Statement admits as much but attempts to divert attention by claiming it was “…very early stages.”
• The Statement says “…application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application.”  They do not say that the Club was also named as a participant in the project.  An inclusion in June without knowledge nor authority.
• So what does this paragraph tell us?  The Directors admit that they (only the SMiSA appointed directors) first became aware of the RCGF application well after the process was initiated in June. 

From the discussions that took place at the St Mirren Football Club Board meeting on 29 September 2022 it became clear that the matter would require further conversation with the Charitable Foundation and that the Club should maintain interest in this matter to establish if the project offered any tangible benefit going forward. It was agreed that timely and appropriate discussions must take place regarding any potential projects in future to ensure that all stakeholders, directly involved or otherwise, were aware of the approach that was being taken. 

[ Comment] – The approach being taken by Kibble and not the Club nor the Foundation – yet each was declared in the application to be an integral partner and developer.

Regarding the suggestion that St Mirren Football Club was expected to offer its land for the proposed Wellbeing Centre, this was not the case. The application was unspecific as to the precise location of the proposed building, but a crucial element of the plan was that the Wellbeing Centre would be built on one of several long-term derelict sites in the Ferguslie area, not on land owned by St Mirren.

[Comment] – While the narrative in application document may have been non-specific, an artists’ impression and location map submitted as an exhibit with the application, clearly demonstrates that Kibble had targeted St Mirren assets for use in the project.  The artist’s impression and location map, together with “Land ownership transfer” identified as a “Key next step” in the application document, demonstrate Kibble’s true intent.  Use of St Mirren land was an integral part of the plans well before the SMiSA appointed Directors knew of those plans.

Given the need to align other stakeholders, a meeting with the Charitable Foundation took place, and subsequently the Charitable Foundation Board agreed to support the Stage 2 application for RCGF funding, given the complementary nature of the establishment of a Wellbeing Centre in the area.

[Comment] – The meeting with the Foundation took place at the instance of the Foundation (not Kibble) after it was surprised by a congratulatory message from another club at moving to Phase 2.  At that moment, it had no knowledge about the application nor the pivotal part it was said to play in its conceptualisation and development.  This occurred a mere 3 days before the Phase 2 deadline.  Clearly, that was insufficient time to get acquainted with a project that had been under consideration by Kibble for at least a year and 4 months of an application process.  The Foundation was not going to stand in the way.  The Foundation did not, however, “support” the Stage 2 application.  In fact, the material presented to the Foundation prior to submission, and used during the discussions, did not match the application actually submitted.  The Foundation was misled.

The Club Board, having confirmed that alignment on the proposal had been achieved, was content that the matter had been concluded appropriately from a St Mirren Football Club perspective. As highlighted, a watching brief on the progress of the application was applied to establish it there were any opportunities for the Club arising from the initiative. The Club Board will always be supportive of any regeneration and development of the area surrounding the stadium if it is complementary to the best interests of the Club.

[Comment] – What steps did the Board take to “confirm alignment”?  Did it:

• Review the application material? 
  • If not, questions must be asked about the integrity of the enquiry process to “confirm alignment” and whether a failure to review the application and map was a failure of the Directors’ fiduciary duties to the Club.
  • If so, then how could the Director’s condone the misstatements of fact in the June 2022 application?
• Was the Board presented with a copy of the artists’ impression and location map?
  • If not, then at least two of the Directors (with full knowledge of the artists impression and the intent to use St Mirren land) were not forthcoming to the other (SMiSA) directors.  These two Directors had a fiduciary duty of transparency to the others and to make a full disclosure.
  • If so, how is it that alignment could be confirmed when the project was intended to be located on St Mirren owned land?

Notification that the application was unsuccessful was received in January 2023, and the matter is now closed.

[Comment] – While the application may have been unsuccessful, the matter is far from closed.  The events leading up the development, preparation, and submission of the application, made on behalf of the Club without Board approval, and the part played by Kibble, is an extremely important governance matter.  This issue is exacerbated by the extent of the misstatements and misrepresentations made in the application materials, attributable to the Club and the Foundation, without their knowledge.

It is also worth noting by way of background information that the Club own a parcel of land adjacent to the stadium. Any sale or transfer of that asset, or any other element of the St Mirren estate, would require to be subject to a robust process. This would include being professionally valued, recommended by a majority of the Directors and approved by Club Shareholders as part of the legal Shareholder Agreement.

To reiterate the information outlined above regarding the RCGF application, no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion hence these arrangements were never required.

[Comment] – The artists’ impression and location map, prepared by Kibble, clearly show that St Mirren Football Club land was part of the application.

There have been other parties who have proposed the development of the stadium facilities and these, when they have been suggested, have been treated in a similar manner to the RCGF application by the St Mirren Football Club Board.

[Comment] – The difference is that these other projects:

• were discussed by the Board before steps were taken to gain government funding
• they were not proposed by DIrectors who had a fiduciary duty to the Club
• did not include applications for government funding that contained serious misstatements of fact and material misrepresentations.

Like all fans, the Club Board are looking forward to the next five games that see our Club in the Top Six of the SPFL for the first time, we want everyone to enjoy the games, get right behind the team and are looking forward to a positive end to one of the most successful seasons in our Club's history.

RCGF-R10-Stage-1-submission-guidance-2023-24.doc 120.5 kB · 2 downloads

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, glen said:

🤣🤣🤣

[Smithers Jones]

1 hour ago, glen said:

😂😂😂

[gomaster]

Very good analysis within the last post provided by @Doakie . I agree that it reads that other board members only became aware after application was submitted. One fundamental aspect of all this for me is who's name/s or signatures were on the stage 1 application in June 2022. Depending on exact wording in application has a person/s signature been applied in effect on behalf of the club or charity foundation without their knowledge/consent, if so that could have significant legal implications. I do not necessarily believe that this matter is closed and as such depending on what other information comes out in coming weeks or at Smisa agm, this could lead to an EGM being called of the club itself to discuss the matter in full with all parties present along with shareholders and all evidence presented by all parties to prove/disprove the allegations/situation.  The matter could also be referred to external parties to independently assess any allegation of wrongdoing.

Edited May 7, 2023 by gomaster

[HSS]

Just found out I can’t go to Wednesdays meeting,I was looking forward to it

Raging 🤬

[faraway saint]

26 minutes ago, HSS said:

Just found out I can’t go to Wednesdays meeting,I was looking forward to it

Raging 🤬

That's a pity as I'd like to have heard your version of events as you don't seem to have an agenda. 

[doakie]

30 minutes ago, HSS said:

Just found out I can’t go to Wednesdays meeting,I was looking forward to it

Raging 🤬

You do know that the meeting isn't this coming Wednesday but the following i.e. 17th?

[gomaster]

33 minutes ago, HSS said:

Just found out I can’t go to Wednesdays meeting,I was looking forward to it

Raging 🤬

It's not this Wednesday - it's the 17th

[BuddieinEK]

4 hours ago, doakie said:

Guys,

I’ve been sent this analysis of the board’s statement from a fan who wishes to remain anonymous – simply due to the amount of personal criticism that’s been posted here towards other contributors and towards Alan Wardrop himself. I asked for replies to be respectful and I repeat that plea.  What follows is one fan's opinion and you may agree or disagree. I offer no opinion i.e. don’t shoot the messenger but I do feel it is worthy of your attention.

Make up your own mind about this analysis but I will highlight that the deadline for stage 1 applications was 17 June 2022.

                                                       ST.MIRREN CLUB BOARD STATEMENT

SMISA members and fans will be aware that an election process is underway to fill vacancies on the SMISA Board. One of the candidates referred to a grant application, initiated by Kibble, for funding under the auspices of the Scottish Government Regeneration Capital Grant Fund (RCGF). Given the nature of the wording within that candidate statement, the Club Board wish to clarify the details regarding this matter, including the diligence undertaken in September/October 2022

[Comment] – The timing is only one aspect of AW’s criticism of Kibble.  The content of the application is the subject of deeper concern.  Here, the Club statement confirms that the Board conducted “diligence” 3 months too late, and that it had no knowledge. Stage 1 Application submitted in June, Scot Gov RCGF announcement 5^th September and Club Board meeting 29^th September.   

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. 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.

Comment –

• “The Directors became aware of”.  Obviously, this relates to only the SMiSA appointed directors.  The Kibble directors knew months before September.  So, only some of the directors “became aware of”.  Misleading and an attempt to deflect. 
• The Statement says, “…historic discussions and meetings … with Club Board members …”  Which “Club Board members”?  Surely they are not trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by referring to the Kibble representatives to the Board!  They obviously had no authority to represent the Board as the matter had not been brought to the attention of the Board until September.  The “hat” they wore during these discussions was that of Kibble and not the Board.  They cannot seriously contend that the Club Board knew merely because the two Kibble directors knew.
• Clearly, the first the Directors became aware was September.  They neglect to say when the Stage 1 Application was submitted (June 2022) – which is a damning fact in itself.  One of Alan’s points was that an application was submitted in the Club’s name without the Board’s knowledge nor approval.  The two Kibble directors had no authority to make such a submission.  The Club Statement admits as much but attempts to divert attention by claiming it was “…very early stages.”
• The Statement says “…application cited Kibble, The St Mirren Charitable Foundation and Renfrewshire Council as leading the application.”  They do not say that the Club was also named as a participant in the project.  An inclusion in June without knowledge nor authority.
• So what does this paragraph tell us?  The Directors admit that they (only the SMiSA appointed directors) first became aware of the RCGF application well after the process was initiated in June. 

From the discussions that took place at the St Mirren Football Club Board meeting on 29 September 2022 it became clear that the matter would require further conversation with the Charitable Foundation and that the Club should maintain interest in this matter to establish if the project offered any tangible benefit going forward. It was agreed that timely and appropriate discussions must take place regarding any potential projects in future to ensure that all stakeholders, directly involved or otherwise, were aware of the approach that was being taken. 

[ Comment] – The approach being taken by Kibble and not the Club nor the Foundation – yet each was declared in the application to be an integral partner and developer.

Regarding the suggestion that St Mirren Football Club was expected to offer its land for the proposed Wellbeing Centre, this was not the case. The application was unspecific as to the precise location of the proposed building, but a crucial element of the plan was that the Wellbeing Centre would be built on one of several long-term derelict sites in the Ferguslie area, not on land owned by St Mirren.

[Comment] – While the narrative in application document may have been non-specific, an artists’ impression and location map submitted as an exhibit with the application, clearly demonstrates that Kibble had targeted St Mirren assets for use in the project.  The artist’s impression and location map, together with “Land ownership transfer” identified as a “Key next step” in the application document, demonstrate Kibble’s true intent.  Use of St Mirren land was an integral part of the plans well before the SMiSA appointed Directors knew of those plans.

Given the need to align other stakeholders, a meeting with the Charitable Foundation took place, and subsequently the Charitable Foundation Board agreed to support the Stage 2 application for RCGF funding, given the complementary nature of the establishment of a Wellbeing Centre in the area.

[Comment] – The meeting with the Foundation took place at the instance of the Foundation (not Kibble) after it was surprised by a congratulatory message from another club at moving to Phase 2.  At that moment, it had no knowledge about the application nor the pivotal part it was said to play in its conceptualisation and development.  This occurred a mere 3 days before the Phase 2 deadline.  Clearly, that was insufficient time to get acquainted with a project that had been under consideration by Kibble for at least a year and 4 months of an application process.  The Foundation was not going to stand in the way.  The Foundation did not, however, “support” the Stage 2 application.  In fact, the material presented to the Foundation prior to submission, and used during the discussions, did not match the application actually submitted.  The Foundation was misled.

The Club Board, having confirmed that alignment on the proposal had been achieved, was content that the matter had been concluded appropriately from a St Mirren Football Club perspective. As highlighted, a watching brief on the progress of the application was applied to establish it there were any opportunities for the Club arising from the initiative. The Club Board will always be supportive of any regeneration and development of the area surrounding the stadium if it is complementary to the best interests of the Club.

[Comment] – What steps did the Board take to “confirm alignment”?  Did it:

• Review the application material? 
  • If not, questions must be asked about the integrity of the enquiry process to “confirm alignment” and whether a failure to review the application and map was a failure of the Directors’ fiduciary duties to the Club.
  • If so, then how could the Director’s condone the misstatements of fact in the June 2022 application?
• Was the Board presented with a copy of the artists’ impression and location map?
  • If not, then at least two of the Directors (with full knowledge of the artists impression and the intent to use St Mirren land) were not forthcoming to the other (SMiSA) directors.  These two Directors had a fiduciary duty of transparency to the others and to make a full disclosure.
  • If so, how is it that alignment could be confirmed when the project was intended to be located on St Mirren owned land?

Notification that the application was unsuccessful was received in January 2023, and the matter is now closed.

[Comment] – While the application may have been unsuccessful, the matter is far from closed.  The events leading up the development, preparation, and submission of the application, made on behalf of the Club without Board approval, and the part played by Kibble, is an extremely important governance matter.  This issue is exacerbated by the extent of the misstatements and misrepresentations made in the application materials, attributable to the Club and the Foundation, without their knowledge.

It is also worth noting by way of background information that the Club own a parcel of land adjacent to the stadium. Any sale or transfer of that asset, or any other element of the St Mirren estate, would require to be subject to a robust process. This would include being professionally valued, recommended by a majority of the Directors and approved by Club Shareholders as part of the legal Shareholder Agreement.

To reiterate the information outlined above regarding the RCGF application, no St Mirren Football Club land was ever part of the application or discussion hence these arrangements were never required.

[Comment] – The artists’ impression and location map, prepared by Kibble, clearly show that St Mirren Football Club land was part of the application.

There have been other parties who have proposed the development of the stadium facilities and these, when they have been suggested, have been treated in a similar manner to the RCGF application by the St Mirren Football Club Board.

[Comment] – The difference is that these other projects:

• were discussed by the Board before steps were taken to gain government funding
• they were not proposed by DIrectors who had a fiduciary duty to the Club
• did not include applications for government funding that contained serious misstatements of fact and material misrepresentations.

Like all fans, the Club Board are looking forward to the next five games that see our Club in the Top Six of the SPFL for the first time, we want everyone to enjoy the games, get right behind the team and are looking forward to a positive end to one of the most successful seasons in our Club's history.

Far too much factual information for this playground.bBax will be spinning, as will Fartaway.RCGF-R10-Stage-1-submission-guidance-2023-24.doc 120.5 kB · 9 downloads