Explosive Smisa application

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, Hendo said:

So are you not even a tiny bit concerned that two St Mirren directors are seeking legal orders against SMISA, which has led SMISA to seek legal advice? Does that sound like a harmonious state of affairs?

Buttoned.up.the.back.

I sure am. It’s a whole issue that could have been completely avoided had AW not made a mountain out of a molehill. 
 

The relationships are all fractured, all needlessly. Best thing the club could do is get all these people around a table & draw a line under everything. 

[Brilliant Disguise]

11 hours ago, Hendo said:

So are you not even a tiny bit concerned that two St Mirren directors are seeking legal orders against SMISA, which has led SMISA to seek legal advice? Does that sound like a harmonious state of affairs?

Buttoned.up.the.back.

What was more concerning was the admission that there has been legal advice sought twice for 2 (former/current) board directors. Also SMISA took advice to rid themselves of the Kibble ?????

Imagine putting yourself on a board to be bullied by the constant threats of legal action. That sounds like a jolly good board working effectively together.

[billyg]

45 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

 Also SMISA took advice to rid themselves of the Kibble ?????

 

Smisa took legal advice in the hope of staying out of the court proceedings  , because the Kibble's action partly relies on a screed by AW on the Smisa website , when he was trying to get on the Smisa board. 

[Brilliant Disguise]

12 hours ago, billyg said:

As John Needham said tonight , the working relationship between Smisa and Kibble on the BOD is great , and the improvement in financial performance , turnover and the club in general is testament to that. AW is still the fly in the ointment here , because it appears that in his eyes , it's still all about him !

You have misconstrued what was actually stated last night with your evident dislike for AW

The facts are that 2 Kibble Employees/SMFC Directors have taken a legal case against AW. The said employees have cited SMISA in their legal case in some form or another. SMISA have now incurred legal costs in order to protect itself and its members. If the later had not occurred then it had feck all to do with SMFC or SMISA and was about the 3 individuals. So much so had SMISA not been mentioned then the whole issue could easily have been shut down and not discussed at all.

From the legal case and the SMISA pre meeting statement, someone has something to hide and has been less than honest from the beginning . Good luck to the three of them, they are all as bad as each other I hope they spend a fortune on legal fees trying to see who can pee the highest and who has the largest ego.

 

[StanleySaint]

3 hours ago, Warrior Saint said:

Well something is clearly working as in best position in years.

I'm going to put my neck out and suggest that our position is down to the players, manager, coaching staff and our Chief Exec and not any work experience staff brought in by Kibble. We also don't appear to be paying off former managers or settling player contracts after release that we had been doing in previous years. But of course I could be wide of the mark.

[billyg]

1 hour ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

You have misconstrued what was actually stated last night with your evident dislike for AW

The facts are that 2 Kibble Employees/SMFC Directors have taken a legal case against AW. The said employees have cited SMISA in their legal case in some form or another. SMISA have now incurred legal costs in order to protect itself and its members. If the later had not occurred then it had feck all to do with SMFC or SMISA and was about the 3 individuals. So much so had SMISA not been mentioned then the whole issue could easily have been shut down and not discussed at all.

From the legal case and the SMISA pre meeting statement, someone has something to hide and has been less than honest from the beginning . Good luck to the three of them, they are all as bad as each other I hope they spend a fortune on legal fees trying to see who can pee the highest and who has the largest ego.

 

Partly because AW used his unsuccessful attempt to become part of the Smisa board to to criticise Kibble on the Smisa website  , his poor showing in the vote shows that most of the membership have no time for him . The longer this drags on , and the more the mud slinging goes on , then it's less likely AW will ever get his ban lifted , in my opinion of course !

[Brilliant Disguise]

29 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said:

So Kibble keeps the ground up to scratch and the training ground. They do the PR, tickets, HR for club, administration. Got the club on a footing where we can get better players but Kibble have nothing to do with this? Where were we before they came in?

The same as where we are now. In the SPL.

You are giving too much plaudits to the Kibble and ignoring the people in the club and the fans who have been loyal to the club many years before they arrived.

When you’re playing well you attract more fans, better players and in theory can generate better revenue from both.

 

[Brilliant Disguise]

2 minutes ago, billyg said:

Partly because AW used his unsuccessful attempt to become part of the Smisa board to to criticise Kibble on the Smisa website  , his poor showing in the vote shows that most of the membership have no time for him . The longer this drags on , and the more the mud slinging goes on , then it's less likely AW will ever get his ban lifted , in my opinion of course !

AW stood on a mandate to go for the Kibble board members. The SMISA members did not agree with his mandate. It’s dropped and we move on.

Aggrieved  board members with too much money then decide to play billy big baws and go legal ego on the matter. 

Just as well most other people have sensible heads and lack of funds when offended to resist from the childish “I’m going to sue you” scenario.

As started earlier this is the second legal advice on board members that have been sought. The meeting last night inferred that another board member had to seek legal advice due to an issue in the board room.

[HSS]

20 minutes ago, billyg said:

Partly because AW used his unsuccessful attempt to become part of the Smisa board to to criticise Kibble on the Smisa website  , his poor showing in the vote shows that most of the membership have no time for him . The longer this drags on , and the more the mud slinging goes on , then it's less likely AW will ever get his ban lifted , in my opinion of course !

As I understand it the hope is AW will be allowed back for the Hearts game on Sept 23rd

[billyg]

14 minutes ago, HSS said:

As I understand it the hope is AW will be allowed back for the Hearts game on Sept 23rd

That was mentioned last night , but only if both sides can reach an agreement , which isn't in place at the moment !

[billyg]

31 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

The meeting last night inferred that another board member had to seek legal advice due to an issue in the board room.

Was that the reference to bullying ? If so , that was refuted by the BOD members in attendance ?

[HSS]

Tomorrow nights SGM has been cancelled after a resolution was found in the AW situation 

[linwood buddie]

1 hour ago, HSS said:

Tomorrow nights SGM has been cancelled after a resolution was found in the AW situation 

Still not allowed in but they will give him a chair to stand on to look over the fence.

[bazil85]

Hopefully a sign that the entire situation is getting put behind us. It’s been a ridiculous mountain out of a mole hill from the get go.
 

We are doing brilliant on the park. Also seemingly a lot has improved off the park financially after the fallout from Covid. 
 

Better looking forward than concentrating on a ‘he said, she said’ argument over something that was never even going to happen. 

[Doakes]

Delighted to read this. 

Sitting 3rd in the league

Finances looking better

AW has decided to relax

All is well!

😎

 

 

 

 

Now of course in true St Mirren fashion, WWIII will break out and our good season will be made null and void  

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Hopefully a sign that the entire situation is getting put behind us. It’s been a ridiculous mountain out of a mole hill from the get go.
 

We are doing brilliant on the park. Also seemingly a lot has improved off the park financially after the fallout from Covid. 
 

Better looking forward than concentrating on a ‘he said, she said’ argument over something that was never even going to happen. 

Was the legal action not prompted by the ban?

If so, the notification may be a wee bit disingenuous implying "he backed down, so we let him back in".  The reality is that the club backed down on this as there is no mention of retraction or an agreement not to repeat his accusations, is there any other case ongoing between the club, Kibble or any other party around AW's statements?  My recollection is that there were two Kibble employees who were treatening action regarding comments and accusations they attribute to AW.  There is no mention of that so my assumption is that while the club might be out of it, a process that still has the potential to generate bad publicity and maybe even financial implications is still underway.

Or maybe it is all swept under the carpet?

Edited October 24, 2023 by beyond our ken

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Was the legal action not prompted by the ban?

If so, the notification may be a wee bit disingenuous implying "he backed down, so we let him back in".  The reality is that the club backed down on this as there is no mention of retraction or an agreement not to repeat his accusations, is there any other case ongoing between the club, Kibble or any other party around AW's statements?  My recollection is that there were two Kibble employees who were treatening action regarding comments and accusations they attribute to AW.  There is no mention of that so my assumption is that while the club might be out of it, a process that still has the potential to generate bad publicity and maybe even financial implications is still underway.

Or maybe it is all swept under the carpet?

Definitely reads as Wardrop has backed down. ‘I won’t take this any further, just please let me get back to watching the football as a fan’ 

No mention of the Kibble directors actions which (I believe) were only against Wardrop & not SMISA/ the club board/ the club as an entity. 
 

If they still have intent to go down legal routes & it’s just against him, that’s nothing to do with the club & those parties can sort it out.
 

I feel though, there’s a decent chance this will be wider reaching with AW retracting his complaints fully & Kibble dropping their action against him. I do hope so anyway, even though it wouldn’t be directly hurting the club, we don’t need anymore publicity on this topic. 
 

https://www.renfrewshire24.co.uk/2023/07/20/st-mirren-fc-directors-granted-interim-interdict-at-court-of-session/

[beyond our ken]

Nah!

The club has allowed him back in, they clearly want him kept out and he has dropped action.  He got what he wanted and the club has gone back on a decision.  Probably a very knee-jerk and ill-advised one.

 

It's just the slant that the statement put on it that makes it look like like he backed down

[StanleySaint]

As Baz has said it looks like the immediate threat of hostilities has receeded but like BOK has indicated there was still the matter of other legal action being mooted and no matter whether it is between those parties you can be sure the club would be linied to it in the press so it would be good to clarify that it has all been dropped.

[bazil85]

45 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Nah!

The club has allowed him back in, they clearly want him kept out and he has dropped action.  He got what he wanted and the club has gone back on a decision.  Probably a very knee-jerk and ill-advised one.

 

It's just the slant that the statement put on it that makes it look like like he backed down

That’s some amount of spin. He’s only been allowed back after backing down on his position to take action on the situation. It would appear he gets nothing he wants bar a seat at the ground. 
- No repercussions for the club on the supposed incident 

- no repercussions for SMISA 

- no actions for any individuals - Kibble & SMISA continue exactly as before. 
 

If AW is seeing this as a win, it certainly would be a very hollow one. 

[Albanian Buddy]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

That’s some amount of spin. He’s only been allowed back after backing down on his position to take action on the situation. It would appear he gets nothing he wants bar a seat at the ground. 
- No repercussions for the club on the supposed incident 

- no repercussions for SMISA 

- no actions for any individuals - Kibble & SMISA continue exactly as before. 
 

If AW is seeing this as a win, it certainly would be a very hollow one. 

From what I’ve heard this was not what was agreed yesterday prior to the cancellation of the SGM. 

That statement is certainly open to interpretation - none of which reflects well on the individual who received a stadium ban. 

 

[Slarti]

IIRC (though I could be wrong), Alan's action against "the club and the board (as a whole)" was due to the stadium ban and totally separate from any proceedings the Kibble members of the board had taken (or implied they were taking) regarding Alan's comments.  It seems unlikely that Alan dropping the threat of legal action resulted in the decision to lift the ban (at least directly) as that was not the reason for the ban in the first place.  More likely that the board has said to Alan "we'll let you back in but we want you to drop the legal action" and Alan has replied "OK, the legal action was only because of the ban".  So, in respect of this matter only, Alan gets what he wants without proceeding with legal action.  In essence, the board have realised that they haven't got a (legal) leg to stand on regarding the ban and Alan's threat of legal action has made them shit themselves.

The statement's wording is just a bit of spin to save face.

[Albanian Buddy]

13 minutes ago, Slarti said:

In essence, the board have realised that they haven't got a (legal) leg to stand on regarding the ban and Alan's threat of legal action has made them shit themselves.

The statement's wording is just a bit of spin to save face.

👏 👏 👏 

[W6er]

23 minutes ago, Slarti said:

IIRC (though I could be wrong), Alan's action against "the club and the board (as a whole)" was due to the stadium ban and totally separate from any proceedings the Kibble members of the board had taken (or implied they were taking) regarding Alan's comments.  It seems unlikely that Alan dropping the threat of legal action resulted in the decision to lift the ban (at least directly) as that was not the reason for the ban in the first place.  More likely that the board has said to Alan "we'll let you back in but we want you to drop the legal action" and Alan has replied "OK, the legal action was only because of the ban".  So, in respect of this matter only, Alan gets what he wants without proceeding with legal action.  In essence, the board have realised that they haven't got a (legal) leg to stand on regarding the ban and Alan's threat of legal action has made them shit themselves.

The statement's wording is just a bit of spin to save face.

The ban seemed quite spiteful and uncalled for. He got a lot of stick due to the 'Mr St. Mirren' moniker, but the guy loves the club and robbing him of that over a dispute wasn't reasonable behaviour, IMHO. 

[Slarti]

9 minutes ago, W6er said:

The ban seemed quite spiteful and uncalled for. He got a lot of stick due to the 'Mr St. Mirren' moniker, but the guy loves the club and robbing him of that over a dispute wasn't reasonable behaviour, IMHO. 

To be fair, I don't know anyone (not even Alan) who refers to him as Mr St Mirren.  That was just a press invention, though he really should have nipped it in the Bud (pun intended).