Explosive Smisa application

[glen]

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It’s all been cleared up in the club statement as far as I’m concerned. As I have said before, if someone can prove there has been lying on the part of the club regarding this, fine. 
 

This is Groundhog Day, how often can something like this come up & be shown to be just noise before we start to trust the people running our club? 

Please explain this part of the Glasgow Herald article :- 

"Applications for public funds to support the project described it as "the St Mirren Masterplan" with an "innovative partnership" with "St Mirren Football Club’s Charitable Foundation cited as one of the three partners with Kibble and the council.
But the foundation has sent a letter to Kibble saying that they had no knowledge of the project when the application for funds was sought in June "much less that its name would be associated with any submission for government funding".
It said it only found out through a third party in October, after a second stage bid was being made.   It decided not to "interject itself" from the process as there was "insufficient time" to make an assessment.
It has called for a "full explanation surrounding the application process" and why there were "material misstatements and representations in support of Scottish Government funding".
It said: "We are deeply concerned that this unilateral action on the part of Kibble was submitted without our knowledge and associates the Foundation with statements and representations of fact that we do not recognise."
 
 

 

[Maboza]

So… of all the land that could have been marked up incorrectly on an application, it just so happened to be the club’s land that was mistakenly shaded. 
 

And the fact that Kibble were representing a bid as SMFC charitable foundation without their knowledge doesn’t matter - because it was just at an early speculative stage. 
 

Those are the facts that we are asked to accept. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Maboza

[glen]

1 minute ago, Maboza said:

So… of all the land that could have been marked up incorrectly on an application, it just so happened to be the club’s land that was mistakenly shaded. 
 

And the fact that Kibble were representing a bid as SMFC charitable foundation without their knowledge doesn’t matter - because it was just at an early speculative stage. 
 

Those are the facts that we are asked to accept. 

I assume it will be OK then if I misrepresent you without your knowledge to your bank, maybe your employer in order to get a on-line loan ? Please give me your full personal details so I can fill in the form. Don't worry it's only at an early speculative stage.😃

[bazil85]

12 minutes ago, glen said:

Please explain this part of the Glasgow Herald article :- 

"Applications for public funds to support the project described it as "the St Mirren Masterplan" with an "innovative partnership" with "St Mirren Football Club’s Charitable Foundation cited as one of the three partners with Kibble and the council.
But the foundation has sent a letter to Kibble saying that they had no knowledge of the project when the application for funds was sought in June "much less that its name would be associated with any submission for government funding".
It said it only found out through a third party in October, after a second stage bid was being made.   It decided not to "interject itself" from the process as there was "insufficient time" to make an assessment.
It has called for a "full explanation surrounding the application process" and why there were "material misstatements and representations in support of Scottish Government funding".
It said: "We are deeply concerned that this unilateral action on the part of Kibble was submitted without our knowledge and associates the Foundation with statements and representations of fact that we do not recognise."
 
 

 

See club statement. I choose to believe the football club I support & the people we have trusted to run the club over that rag paper. 

[Cookie Monster]

I assume it will be OK then if I misrepresent you without your knowledge to your bank, maybe your employer in order to get a on-line loan ? Please give me your full personal details so I can fill in the form. Don't worry it's only at an early speculative stage.[emoji2]

[emoji1787]

[Albanian Buddy]

44 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

before we start to trust the people running our club? 

Trust? Usually that’s earned. Way too many fcuk ups since the outset. 

 

[Cookie Monster]

There's some things that weren't done correctly. The Ferguslie regeneration was known about but shouldn't have been used as a cover for the latest funding request by the Kibble in using The St Mirren Charity Foundation name in its application as a partner.

The photo of the SMFC owned land and the artists impression of the wellbeing centre in the funding application can no way be right. The land area isnt anywhere near large enough for the buildings shown.

Can SMISA find out what the buy out price is for the Kibble?

[bazil85]

24 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Trust? Usually that’s earned. Way too many fcuk ups since the outset. 

 

Has there been? Like what? 
 

I get some fans had utterly ridiculous expectations that the new, fan ownership model would come in & be completely seamless with no issues whatsoever. But for the most part, there hasn’t really been many big issues from what I’ve seen. 
 

The vast majority were seemingly very short-term anyway. For me, the biggest issue was running at such a loss & that’s a boat a lot of clubs are in post-Covid. Way we have handled it has been very positive. 

[Albanian Buddy]

6 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Can SMISA find out what the buy out price is for the Kibble?

 

The question has been asked before at a formal meeting a while back involving all parties and from my recollection no one from the board would answer it.

Perhaps a formal request could be made by the someone in the membership prior to the AGM?

 

 

[Albanian Buddy]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Has there been? Like what? 

🤦‍♂️

There were a number of meetings that took place at the club to discuss a variety of issues. They were well documented on here at the time. 

I’m not going to repeat anything I’ve been told on a social media platform in case I too get banned from the club.  😂 

[beyond our ken]

5 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

There is a clear and distinct difference to be drawn between criticism (which is fine) and making an accusation, having that accusation rebutted with dates, times and people present (again, fine) but instead of providing further evidence or having further discussion to say why you disagree with this turn of events (which would be the correct course to take) you run to the press and repeat your first accusation with the sole purpose of it being heard by a wider audience when you know it has been disproven and you've provided no further evidence for your stance.

I don't think there is such a law in Scotland but elsewhere that is more or less slander. The club are well within their rights to tell him to GTF on this one. Had they banned him without him doing the Herald thing, I'd have had a very different standpoint but he did do it and he's f**king goosed himself in doing so.

Slander is defamation in Scotland,  a matter of common law.  If someone says anything about you that it materially untrue with the intention and effect of harming you by diminishing your reputation, then you have recourse via the courts.  The first step is usually to instruct a solicitor who brings your belief that you have or are being defamed to the attention of the individual making the statement(s) as goinf to court will be costly for both parties and as a company the board need to move forward whilst observing the best interests of the company.   if the party making the statements don't back down then the next step would be to take the matter to court and if SMFC feel they are being defamed then they need to not only prove the statements are false but that the company has suffered financial harm as a result.  What is important here is that the directors need to take the correct and proportionate actions that protect the club.

So, no evidence yet that the club has lost money (unless i missed that).  So there is no basis for a defamation action.  But lashing out with a petty ban?  What is the point of that?  They then have to ask for the names of the club members?  That is a joke.  The club statement is ambiguous at best as there are two important things in the allegations.

1 Club land was going to be used.  That has now been disproven

2. SMFC and the charitable foundation were named in papers as being on board with the application.  That seems to be untrue and when the club eventually caught up with the facts they decided to amble along with things (the statement doesn't actually seem very assertive, nor does it indicate decisive action.  Just a desire to move along and forget the whole thing).  

The important thing for me is that the club don't seem to have been in control of events or even appraised of them and a venture that may or may not have been in the best interests of the club was touting itself for public funds and other investment.  In the process they claimed that the club was onboard with this and AW claims they weren't.  From what I can see the club have talked around that rather than completely disproven this assertion and they absolutely and unequivocally need to disprove the notion that they were being misrepresented.  I don't see that they have done that yet.  Until they do then AW can say what he wants, which is messy at best.

Most of all, the club needs to protect it's interests by dominating it's own patch and they are not doing that, they even seem to be being led on by Kibble in this episode and that is sleeping on the job while tied to a very acquisitive and assertive maybe even aggressively so, partner.  A dangerous situation to be in for sure.

Edited May 11, 2023 by beyond our ken

[beyond our ken]

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

If it is true, why has he not been able to provide a shred of evidence? 
 

Once again, all information points to a trivial point, blown up by someone/ multiple people with an anti-SMFC agenda. 

I'd say that his legal advice probably leads him to put information out there in the hope that the club seek to address it via legal process.  This in turn requires the club to come right out and prove that the information is false and damaging.  He is effectively putting them on the spot and the club needs to come out with proof he is lying or simply sit there and take it.

Edited May 11, 2023 by beyond our ken

[Slarti]

1 Club land was going to be used.  That has now been disproven.

Has it? It's been denied but has anyone actually stated which land was supposed to be getting used?

[Maboza]

19 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Slander is defamation in Scotland,  a matter of common law.  If someone says anything about you that it materially untrue with the intention and effect of harming you by diminishing your reputation, then you have recourse via the courts.  The first step is usually to instruct a solicitor who brings your belief that you have or are being defamed to the attention of the individual making the statement(s) as goinf to court will be costly for both parties and as a company the board need to move forward whilst observing the best interests of the company.   if the party making the statements don't back down then the next step would be to take the matter to court and if SMFC feel they are being defamed then they need to not only prove the statements are false but that the company has suffered financial harm as a result.  What is important here is that the directors need to take the correct and proportionate actions that protect the club.

So, no evidence yet that the club has lost money (unless i missed that).  So there is no basis for a defamation action.  But lashing out with a petty ban?  What is the point of that?  They then have to ask for the names of the club members?  That is a joke.  The club statement is ambiguous at best as there are two important things in the allegations.

1 Club land was going to be used.  That has now been disproven

2. SMFC and the charitable foundation were named in papers as being on board with the application.  That seems to be untrue and when the club eventually caught up with the facts they decided to amble along with things (the statement doesn't actually seem very assertive, nor does it indicate decisive action.  Just a desire to move along and forget the whole thing).  

The important thing for me is that the club don't seem to have been in control of events or even appraised of them and a venture that may or may not have been in the best interests of the club was touting itself for public funds and other investment.  In the process they claimed that the club was onboard with this and AW claims they weren't.  From what I can see the club have talked around that rather than completely disproven this assertion and they absolutely and unequivocally need to disprove the notion that they were being misrepresented.  I don't see that they have done that yet.  Until they do then AW can say what he wants, which is messy at best.

Absolutely agree. I’d also love to know what the club / charitable foundation involvement would have been moving forward. Given they were fronting the bid in name, would there have been operational costs? Who was intended to be running the show? 

[Cookie Monster]

Absolutely agree. I’d also love to know what the club / charitable foundation involvement would have been moving forward. Given they were fronting the bid in name, would there have been operational costs? Who was intended to be running the show? 

Had it got to that stage for any of those questions to be answered?

[bazil85]

9 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

I'd say that his legal advice probably leads him to put information out there in the hope that the club seek to address it via legal process.  This in turn requires the club to come right out and prove that the information is false and damaging.  He is effectively putting them on the spot and the club needs to come out with proof he is lying or simply sit there and take it.

Which he should be utterly embarrassed about given how important our next four games are. The club doesn't need all this noise at this time. Especially from something that absolutely, looks like a settled and minimal matter. 

[Albanian Buddy]

This application if I understand the timelines from the information made public was submitted in June 2022 so very likely it was in planning phase a good while before that. 

Given the location of the proposed centre and the inclusion of the charitable foundation in the application our football club board should have been made aware by Kibble of this request at the planning phase and certainly before the formal submission.

Trust?

That is what has been clearly missing here since this wellness centre application was first considered by the Kibble and the council.

If this was all out in the open and the club board and charitable foundation had been involved from the beginning then this would surely have been a complete non-issue. 

The initial submission was called “St Mirren Regeneration and Well-being Masterplan” yet no SMISA Elected club director apparently knew of the application at the time.

If the roles were reversed and SMISA or the Charitable foundation were to apply for government grant funding using “Kibble” in the application I think you would find the Kibble would not be very happy if they were kept in the dark.

Had this been out in the open from the start perhaps a successful outcome could have happened with the application and we could all be writing that the working relationship with Kibble was moving forward positively. 

As it was the application appears to have been submitted with numerous errors.

I could understand errors made by Joe Public building a home extension with a planning application for a proposed building on land not yet purchased.

But this is an organisation that has dedicated staff and expertise in these type of grant applications. 

It is very embarrassing for all parties that this has occurred. 

Blame lies with all parties involved in this cluster fcuk.

Kibble, Council, and club board. 

 

 

 

[antrin]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Which he should be utterly embarrassed about given how important our next four games are. The club doesn't need all this noise at this time. Especially from something that absolutely, looks like a settled and minimal matter. 

If, as you claim, it is absolutely settled, minimal… irrelevant, then it should have zero impact on upcoming games.  No need for embarrassment.

it’s always healthy that people care enough to ask awkward questions.

[Albanian Buddy]

If this issue is not resolved then this could have a detrimental impact on SMISA membership moving forward.

It must be addressed openly and honestly at the SMISA AGM and ultimately resolved.

Given SMISA membership had no involvement at all in this whole application process that subsequent fall out and potential membership drop off should be our greatest concern. 

We are now seeing divisions between fellow St Mirren supporters over this. 

That is disturbing.

Some fans are saying that they will cancel direct debits but that makes our position weaker moving forward when ideally we should be getting stronger year on year.

Let’s try and remember that our fans through SMISA memberships over the last 20 years have put significant money directly towards our academy, our charitable foundation, our community through free tickets, our fan experiences (Paisley Panda matchday activities, etc). 

We must not lose sight of what SMISA through direct supporter involvement have achieved over the last two decades. 

Please remember that this was not a mistake made by SMISA. 

[Albanian Buddy]

9 minutes ago, antrin said:

If, as you claim, it is absolutely settled, minimal… irrelevant, then it should have zero impact on upcoming games.  No need for embarrassment.

it’s always healthy that people care enough to ask awkward questions.

I can’t imagine that the players or the manager are bothered about this issue in the slightest.

If anything it takes the spotlight away from them as they have slumped in form in recent weeks.

Their only focus will be to achieve their objectives as they will be on win bonuses and other incentives depending where they finish in the league. 

Our club is punching way above its weight in terms of its position in the league as we are competing against clubs with far higher playing and operational budgets. 

 

[doakie]

7 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Given the location of the proposed centre and the inclusion of the charitable foundation in the application our football club board should have been made aware by Kibble of this request at the planning phase and certainly before the formal submission.

Trust?

That is what has been clearly missing here since this wellness centre application was first considered by the Kibble and the council.

We must not lose sight of what SMISA through direct supporter involvement have achieved over the last two decades. 

Please remember that this was not a mistake made by SMISA. 

Absolutely correct @Albanian Buddy. Smisa have issued no comment so far and, clearly, there's a good reason for that.

The board, Kibble and the council have made statements on the issue but I'm certain that, in the aftermath of the upcoming AGM, Smisa will have something to say to the club board and to the members.

Come Wednesday tough questions will, no doubt, be asked of the club board as to how this situation was allowed to develop, particularly if/when further information comes to light.

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Which he should be utterly embarrassed about given how important our next four games are. The club doesn't need all this noise at this time. Especially from something that absolutely, looks like a settled and minimal matter. 

To be clear, AW has an agenda.  Like it or not.  He has used a common tactic to progress it, I recall a previous SMFC board using it, of putting a story out there and allowing the club the opportunity to offer definitve proof, which I don't think they have done.  The club have spoken around some of the points and offered some dates, but they don't cover every base that has been exposed.  So why should he be embarassed?  The club's only tangible response is to ban him from the stadium, somthing he can possibly challenge in law and they know it, so how does a tit-for-tat approach look?

As for settled, the club has moved on without adressing the most erious points.  As for minimal, by choosing to amble along behind Kibble on this the club COULD have been exposed to harm or loss.  Juat because no-one lost money, except maybe the council who have progressed the funding application, doesn't mean there is no reason to examine this.  My job is in occupational safety and I don't think I would last long if a potentially serious incident occurred and i chose not to investigate because no actual harm or loss was suffered.  That would be a dereliction of duty.

I understand the board are smarting over this, they have been accused of falling asleep at the wheel.  if they are just trying to muddle through it is not a good reflection on their standards

[Slarti]

If, as you claim, it is absolutely settled, minimal… irrelevant, then it should have zero impact on upcoming games.  No need for embarrassment.
it’s always healthy that people care enough to ask awkward questions.

The fact that the board statement confirmed that they weren't aware until after the initial application merely confirms to me that Kibble have been in the wrong and it should be looked into. Whether there was any intentional "deviousness" is another matter - maybe they're just incompetent.

So, no, it's not settled, minimal or irrelevant.

[glen]

19 hours ago, bazil85 said:

It’s over, it was a non-issue (as usual) 

Sensationalising by rag papers don’t change the facts highlighted in the club statement. 

From today's (Friday) "rag paper" . PS. The Herald was founded in 1783. It is the longest running national newspaper in the world.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/23516895.ex-st-mirren-director-gets-stadium-ban-secret-charity-project-row/

[antrin]

Wow!!!

That’s an unfair and total overreaction to Wardrop’s whistle-blowing - to ban him from the ground!

Bigots welcome, but not Buddies?!

Not good.