Jump to content

Explosive Smisa application


Recommended Posts

23519622.st-mirren-faces-court-action-leaks-ignite-charity-care-centre-row/
Surely the Kibble directors and the club board weren't misrepresenting the truth? Alas, Emails from within the council contradict entirely what we've been fed. So it seems, after all, that it wasn't Alan Wardrop who was misleading the fans. The Herald has seen, as have various others within the club, council e-mails contradicting the so called "official" version that's been peddled.
The council e-mails state quite specifically that "The Council assisted with the bid but the content was produced and signed off by Kibble in terms of the parameters of the proposal."
"In the ensuing row, an email seen by the Herald on Sunday from Mr Gillespie said that the council "wrongly shaded in an area of land owned by St Mirren" and gave a "categoric assurance" that club land would not be used.
As the dispute emerged, Kibble said Mr Wardrop's allegations are based on the "entirely false premise that there was ever any intention to build on land owned by St Mirren".
The Herald on Sunday can reveal that the council does not agree that areas of land indicated on a submitted map were produced in error and say the area earmarked in the application to Scottish Government was pinpointed by Kibble.
St Mirren's board insisted that the application was "unspecific" as to the precise location and that it was "not on land owned by St Mirren".
But leaked emails from council managers have told a different story - with a diagram submitted to the Scottish Government for public funding showing that land proposed to be built on was, in fact, on St Mirren land."
 
So, in summing up, first of all Kibble directors submitted an application naming the St.Mirren charitable foundation as a partner without their knowledge - a scandal in itself, which the board glossed over then, to compound that disgraceful decision, the Kibble directors submitted plans showing that the so-called non specific land was actually on specific land i.e. St.Mirren owned land.
In attempting to cover this up the board and Kibble claimed, in an e-mail sent to Smisa - that it was a council error whereas the council contradict that by saying  that the content of the application was produced by Kibble. No error by the council after all, they simply followed "the parameters of the proposal produced and signed off by Kibble". This contradicts what Mr Gillespie stated in his e-mail. 
It seems that both the club board and also Kibble directors have been, shall we say, economical with the truth. To add insult to injury and in an attempt to stifle free speech (i.e. AW's criticism of Kibble and not the club itself) the board then ban AW from the stadium?  I suggest that there are a few individuals who may have to reconsider their position.
 
Well, well, whodathunkit?

Of course, maybe the council are lying. [emoji848]
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The way the game finished yesterday neatly summed up the entire week.

Someone needs to get control over this nonsense, get folk round a table and bang some fucking heads together.

This is a fan owned club and I can tell all those involved, on BOTH sides, that the whole episode is EMBARRASSING those fans.

To have the manger even have to speak out about it in his presser two days before a massive game was also EMBARRASSING.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, div said:

This is a fan owned club and I can tell all those involved, on BOTH sides, that the whole episode is EMBARASSING those fans.To have the manger even have to speak out about it in his presser two days before a massive game was also EMBARASSING.


 

Embarrassing !

Even Jesus agrees!

Edited by Albanian Buddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve submitted a planning application to build an extension to my house which will involve building a significant part of it on her patio.
I’ve also put her as a co-applicant on the initial request .
 
When do you think I should let her know ? [emoji848]
You should have put Baz as the co-applicant, he'd obviously see nothing wrong with that. [emoji1787]

Or were you already referring to Baz when you said "her"? [emoji1787]

I await his usual type of response about "ignore" etc, which I obviously won't see unless one of you cnuts quote it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Slarti said:

You should have put Baz as the co-applicant, he'd obviously see nothing wrong with that. emoji1787.png

Or were you already referring to Baz when you said "her"? emoji1787.png

I await his usual type of response about "ignore" etc, which I obviously won't see unless one of you cnuts quote it.

Oh dont worry , Baz will be involved at some point .
 

The bank loan I’ve applied for to get the work done was in his name . 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

I’ve submitted a planning application to build an extension to my house which will involve building a significant part of it on my neighbours patio.
I’ve also put her as a co-applicant on the initial request .

 

When do you think I should let her know ? 🤔

So glad you brought that up Callum as you know I'm your neighbour on the opposite side and we also have submitted plans for a extension using your driveway.. it has now moved to stage 2.. so nows a good time to let you know... as you can see from the plans... your side door entrance is now unavailable but you never use it so it shouldn't be a problem.. 

 

 

Screenshot_20230514-113231_Google.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to reiterate that Kibble or any other organisation's priority is essentially to promote their own interests first and foremost.  When it comes to the crunch St Mirren comes second.   What would the Kibble BOD say if their reps on the St Mirren board gave Saints priority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, doakie said:

Quelle Surprise. In face of overwhelming evidence that you, sorry, Mr Gillespie issued a statement that is untrue, you still "don't see how". Are the council - who have no skin in the game - lying?

You cannot fool all of the people all of the time. You have tried your best but the truth is out and it is undeniable to all. Every St.Mirren fan that I know who follows this forum - and there are quite a few - laughs at the mention of Bazil85 and his blind, unswerving loyalty to his Kibble paymasters.

I know that you'll demand the final word - as usual - but the game's up. The council have shot down in flames Kibble's version of events and I, like many, now look forward to what ludicrous defence you and Kibble put forward to misrepresenting the truth. "Deny, deny, deny", no doubt.

This is the first time on this thread that I've become involved in personalities but, in my defence, I'm frustrated by your predictable response, which insults the journalist, the council and the intelligence of we St.Mirren fans.

 

‘Kibble pay masters’ 😂😂

I know you’ve been begging for something, anything that shows the demise of this ownership model. You seek constantly to divide & conquer.
 

Us Vs them mentality, exactly what AW seems to have & we have seen how much damage that can cause. 
 

This is bottom of the barrel stuff though. An early stage application for a WELL-BEING centre. Jeez, the Kibble really are the devil. 🤦‍♂️ 

Another stalker trying to muscle his way in. Am I really that desirable I’m beyond being ignored? :) 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jockmd said:

Confusion?  Different interpretations?  A common tactic to disguise the facts.

 

- application was early stage, if there was to be any building on St Mirren land, it would have to be approved 

- it was rejected so it hasn’t went to that stage & the issue is closed 

- it was a WELL-BEING centre for crying out loud 

- no one has been able to highlight what the actual impact was to St Mirren, if they asked to build on our land (which they would have had to) or not. 

You mean these facts? 
 

If you feel charitable, throw slarti a bone, he misses me.
 

No doubt it’ll be the ‘SEE TOLD YOU’ posts now despite me telling him multiple times, I’m happy to engage whenever he is. (Which is almost anytime I comment on a topic)  :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if everyone started to submit funding applications using Kibbles name?

I see a local Ferguslie community council activist is angry that no one from Kibble or Renfrewshire council has spoken to the local people - yet no doubt “brand” Ferguslie was being used to garner financial support for this enterprise.

IMG_1794.thumb.jpeg.5f1ea1744342008f0f1494ef672bfca3.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

- application was early stage, if there was to be any building on St Mirren land, it would have to be approved 

- it was rejected so it hasn’t went to that stage & the issue is closed 

- it was a WELL-BEING centre for crying out loud 

- no one has been able to highlight what the actual impact was to St Mirren, if they asked to build on our land (which they would have had to) or not. 

You mean these facts? 
 

If you feel charitable, throw slarti a bone, he misses me.
 

No doubt it’ll be the ‘SEE TOLD YOU’ posts now despite me telling him multiple times, I’m happy to engage whenever he is. (Which is almost anytime I comment on a topic)  :) 

I wonder whose “well-being” it was going to benefit most? 🤔 

@Slarti just for your benefit I replied to the eejit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

- application was early stage, if there was to be any building on St Mirren land, it would have to be approved 
The stage is irrelevant. They put third parties names on the application without telling them. They put St Mirren land on the application without permission from the owners. They blamed the Council for that "mistake" which the Council has refuted.

- it was rejected so it hasn’t went to that stage & the issue is closed 

Closed? no, its far from that

- it was a WELL-BEING centre for crying out loud 

Irrelevant

- no one has been able to highlight what the actual impact was to St Mirren, if they asked to build on our land (which they would have had to) or not. 

Again irrelevant

You mean these facts? 

You are choosing specific facts to build your case which are irrelevant to the matter in hand.

Lets face it, the whole thing has been a clusterf**k, but you STILL defend them.  You're not Donald Trump's lawyer by any chance?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spoke to a sensible fellow fan yesterday, whose opinions on business I massively respect.

He said in his experience Joint Ventures never, ever work because the interests of the two parties are never 100% fully aligned.

It's an interesting perspective as the power of veto pretty that both sides retain has pretty made the Kibble/SMiSA partnership a joint venture in all but name.

As I think I've said before I do not for one second believe Kibble to be a bad thing for the club, or a bad organisation.

Some of the people and practices they have brought into the club have made a very positive impact behind the scenes.

For me however the jury is very much out on the individuals they have in the boardroom though.

And to balance that out, I think the jury must also be out on the individuals SMiSA currently have in the boardroom too.

This has been a shit week in every possible way but the saddest and most alarming moment in all of it was the manager sitting there in his press conference two days before such a big game lamenting the negativity that the club has had to endure these last few days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spoke to a sensible fellow fan yesterday, whose opinions on business I massively respect.
He said in his experience Joint Ventures never, ever work because the interests of the two parties are never 100% fully aligned.
It's an interesting perspective as the power of veto pretty that both sides retain has pretty made the Kibble/SMiSA partnership a joint venture in all but name.
As I think I've said before I do not for one second believe Kibble to be a bad thing for the club, or a bad organisation.
Some of the people and practices they have brought into the club have made a very positive impact behind the scenes.
For me however the jury is very much out on the individuals they have in the boardroom though.
And to balance that out, I think the jury must also be out on the individuals SMiSA currently have in the boardroom too.
This has been a shit week in every possible way but the saddest and most alarming moment in all of it was the manager sitting there in his press conference two days before such a big game lamenting the negativity that the club has had to endure these last few days.
 
The cause SMISA, Bod and Kibble.
With the captain John Needham at the wheel



Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, div said:

I spoke to a sensible fellow fan yesterday, whose opinions on business I massively respect.

He said in his experience Joint Ventures never, ever work because the interests of the two parties are never 100% fully aligned.

It's an interesting perspective as the power of veto pretty that both sides retain has pretty made the Kibble/SMiSA partnership a joint venture in all but name.

As I think I've said before I do not for one second believe Kibble to be a bad thing for the club, or a bad organisation.

Some of the people and practices they have brought into the club have made a very positive impact behind the scenes.

For me however the jury is very much out on the individuals they have in the boardroom though.

And to balance that out, I think the jury must also be out on the individuals SMiSA currently have in the boardroom too.

This has been a shit week in every possible way but the saddest and most alarming moment in all of it was the manager sitting there in his press conference two days before such a big game lamenting the negativity that the club has had to endure these last few days.

 

It questions whether the individuals SMISA have in the boardroom were the correct choice in the first place and whether some of their heads have been turned by the Kibble directors. What should be borne in mind is they were elected to act in the best interests of the club as well as the Smisa membership/shareholders. If they are not doing that then the current Smisa board along with whoever is voted to that board on Wednesday need to decide whether none/some or all should be removed through whatever the process actually is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, div said:

I spoke to a sensible fellow fan yesterday, whose opinions on business I massively respect.

He said in his experience Joint Ventures never, ever work because the interests of the two parties are never 100% fully aligned.

It's an interesting perspective as the power of veto pretty that both sides retain has pretty made the Kibble/SMiSA partnership a joint venture in all but name.

As I think I've said before I do not for one second believe Kibble to be a bad thing for the club, or a bad organisation.

Some of the people and practices they have brought into the club have made a very positive impact behind the scenes.

For me however the jury is very much out on the individuals they have in the boardroom though.

And to balance that out, I think the jury must also be out on the individuals SMiSA currently have in the boardroom too.

This has been a shit week in every possible way but the saddest and most alarming moment in all of it was the manager sitting there in his press conference two days before such a big game lamenting the negativity that the club has had to endure these last few days.

 

All joint ventures need a strong CEO with the power to control all aspects of the business 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, gorgo said:

The cause SMISA, Bod and Kibble.
With the captain John Needham at the wheel



Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
 

This whole shit show should have been played behind closed doors. The fact that it was played so openly lies at the door of AW. For that reason he should never again be a Director of the Club. (On the presumption that is his agenda)

IF and it’s a big IF, JG has lied about the use of the name and the land in the application then he must also go from the Board as must his henchman MM. (Renfrewshire Council denial of the inclusion of the land points to this)

Finally John Needham is the Chairman of the club and put there by SMISA. If he was party to the banning of AW from the club with the knowledge that the Kibble had lied, complicit in their lies or failed to do due diligence on the matter then he also should resign or be removed from the board. By being part of the fighting in the background then to ban a fellow SMISA member for raising concerns suggests that he is not being openly objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

If, if, if........

It’s like a Machiavellian plot from a bad game of Cluedo. 

AW blames the Kibble, The Kibble deny it, Kibble blame the council, Council say it wisnae us it was the Kibble. Kibble say it disnae matter we failed. AW goes full Julian Asante and refuses to go in to witness protection. Fred the Shred is engaged to get rid of the evidence and bans any talk of it.

What next. News breaks that SMISA have bought a 2 man tent from Amazon and got 2 guys to deliver it during lockdown.

 

It’s embarrassing and farcical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2023 at 11:00 AM, billyg said:

Wardrop has been waiting his chance to get back into the club and execute his anti-Kibble agenda. He thought this was the chance he'd been waiting for , but he's f**ked up , and is now proving he is an arsehole who's in it for himself. "Mr  St Mirren" ? 🤣😆😂

That makes no sense at all. Wardrop was already on the board and resigned. If he wanted to spout anti-kibble stuff and sit with his own agenda surely staying on the board would have been an easier place to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel I’m repeating myself but a simple question that remains unanswered:

Why did Kibble and Renfrewshire Council not make this significant government funding application with the prior consent of St Mirren FC Ltd and the St Mirren Charitable Foundation?
 

This would surely have stopped this “Wardrop-Kibble” issue from occurring in the first place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

I feel I’m repeating myself but a simple question that remains unanswered:

Why did Kibble and Renfrewshire Council not make this significant government funding application with the prior consent of St Mirren FC Ltd and the St Mirren Charitable Foundation?
 

This would surely have stopped this “Wardrop-Kibble” issue from occurring in the first place.

 

It was meant to be a Big Surprise to commemorate the Kibble take over sorry the joint venture i mean, 

Can you imagine the Board members faces and the fans when they turn up for the first home game next season with the whole place redeveloped, some folk just can't keep their mooth shut, anyway just need to be a big cake now any bakers on the forum ? 

Excited Jurassic Park GIF

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...