Explosive Smisa application

[Albanian Buddy]

12 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. 

Roger Hargreaves would be spinning in his grave. 
Perhaps it could have been the journalist using that description rather than AW?

[pod]

Maybe Digby Brown got involved and made the three parties sort it out.  

[Slarti]

6 minutes ago, pod said:

Maybe Digby Brown got involved and made the three parties sort it out.  

3 parties???  I wasn't invited to any of them. 😪

[bazil85]

Always going to be spin & assertion with this sort of announcement. For me, as we know it based on announcement. AW dropped his threat of legal action & the club said he could come back in. If that isn’t true, it will likely come out in the wash. 
 

Regarding AW getting his way & coming out on top on all of this. We’re talking about a guy that’s went from, long standing club director, with the 1877 club as his baby & (I imagine) generally well thought of by the majority of St Mirren fans with an opinion on him. To a paying punter, completely removed from any responsibility with 1877, who’s reputation has been dragged through the mud… Not to mention potentially still having a legal case from the kibble hanging over his head that could force a grovelling apology & financial hit. 
 

If that’s coming out on top, what would coming out on bottom look like? 😅

Edited October 24, 2023 by bazil85

[jaybee]

10 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Always going to be spin & assertion with this sort of announcement. For me, as we know it based on announcement. AW dropped his threat of legal action & the club said he could come back in. If that isn’t true, it will likely come out in the wash. 
 

Regarding AW getting his way & coming out on top on all of this. We’re talking about a guy that’s went from, long standing club director, with the 1877 club as his baby & (I imagine) generally well thought of by the majority of St Mirren fans with an opinion on him. To a paying punter, completely removed from any responsibility with 1877, who’s reputation has been dragged through the mud… Not to mention potentially still having a legal case from the kibble hanging over his head that could force a grovelling apology & financial hit. 
 

If that’s coming out on top, what would coming out on bottom look like? 😅

Are you anti-A W? Because you certainly come across that way, I support neither side, but reading between those lines that seem unbiased..........clearly not yours, I would come out marginally in the A W camp, simply because of his longstanding support for the club, unlike Kibble who in my opinion are simply here to suck of the teat while the milk is flowing.  The majority of other comments are either for or against A W, but not demonstrably so, just yourself it would seem.  All I would say is give the bloke a chance and stop kicking him you know where, when he is in a poor situation, By the way; this is nothing personal from me, simply what I perceive in the posts.

[faraway saint]

4 hours ago, jaybee said:

Are you anti-A W? 

No, he's "anti" anything/anyone who doesn't agree with everything SMISA say/want. 

[bazil85]

4 hours ago, jaybee said:

Are you anti-A W? Because you certainly come across that way, I support neither side, but reading between those lines that seem unbiased..........clearly not yours, I would come out marginally in the A W camp, simply because of his longstanding support for the club, unlike Kibble who in my opinion are simply here to suck of the teat while the milk is flowing.  The majority of other comments are either for or against A W, but not demonstrably so, just yourself it would seem.  All I would say is give the bloke a chance and stop kicking him you know where, when he is in a poor situation, By the way; this is nothing personal from me, simply what I perceive in the posts.

On this topic I am absolutely anti-AW. He’s needlessly blown up a trivial situation that’s painted the club in a very poor light. That’s my view on it, others obviously disagree. 
 

As for the Kibble, I get for some they can do no right. But I’m not sure what they’re supposed to be ‘milking’ from the club? 
 

As for oor @faraway saint, he’s a great example of a one track mind. You either agree fully with what he says on BAWA, or you’re getting a response explaining (often poorly) why you’re wrong. Different opinions need not apply. 😅

[Callum Gilhooley]

On 10/24/2023 at 1:30 PM, 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.

Stop it !  
Far too sensible , if you carry on , I’m reporting you. 😏

[The Original 59er]

Just one wee contribution to make:

" generally in all legal disputes between parties there are only two parties that really make anything out of it and that is the lawyers".

Stopping the action is wise on all fronts, not a lot to be gained by anyone involved.

It was a lawyer advising me at one point quite a few years ago that gave me a very good bit of advice that I have adhered to ever since, I will share it with you if anyone is interested, if not scrub it from your memory and think otherwise: "illogical people go to illogical lengths to prove illogical ponts, don't go there"

Edited October 26, 2023 by The Original 59er
Added comment

[Albanian Buddy]

11 minutes ago, The Original 59er said:

"illogical people go to illogical lengths to prove illogical ponts, don't go there"

I’d pull him up about his spelling!

But he’d likely charge me for the privilege. 

[Slarti]

2 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

Stop it !  
Far too sensible , if you carry on , I’m reporting you. 😏

I've been accused of being many things in my life - but sensible????

[Slarti]

1 hour ago, Albanian Buddy said:

I’d pull him up about his spelling!

But he’d likely charge me for the privilege. 

I know, that's not how you spell "pants".

Edited October 26, 2023 by Slarti

[jaybee]

On 10/25/2023 at 7:50 AM, bazil85 said:

On this topic I am absolutely anti-AW. He’s needlessly blown up a trivial situation that’s painted the club in a very poor light. That’s my view on it, others obviously disagree. 
 

As for the Kibble, I get for some they can do no right. But I’m not sure what they’re supposed to be ‘milking’ from the club? 
 

As for oor @faraway saint, he’s a great example of a one track mind. You either agree fully with what he says on BAWA, or you’re getting a response explaining (often poorly) why you’re wrong. Different opinions need not apply. 😅

Ok, what is Kibble milking from St Mirren?, to begin with, it would seem they get first dibs on any business/work that is available and can somehow be structured into their captive workforce, which probably pays nothing to the workers I  would imagine I ( mean we are training these boys/girls) but the supervisor is probably very well paid and any profit is into Kibble's books no doubt. And it would appear that one needs to be careful not to upset their staff either otherwise, they use their position on the board of a football club to get you banned from the ground, how does that work with a minority shareholding?, that doesn't really look good for either large business that they need to gang together to ban this individual who has unpleasant things to say about them, (never heard of sticks n stones)?  and certainly does not show me an individual who I would be happy to see in positions of power in an organisation like Kibble.

 

[Kombibuddie]

On 10/25/2023 at 7:50 AM, bazil85 said:

On this topic I am absolutely anti-AW. He’s needlessly blown up a trivial situation that’s painted the club in a very poor light. That’s my view on it, others obviously disagree. 

What trivial situation has AW blown up needlessly that has painted the club in a very poor light?

[bazil85]

On 10/26/2023 at 8:00 PM, jaybee said:

Ok, what is Kibble milking from St Mirren?, to begin with, it would seem they get first dibs on any business/work that is available and can somehow be structured into their captive workforce, which probably pays nothing to the workers I  would imagine I ( mean we are training these boys/girls) but the supervisor is probably very well paid and any profit is into Kibble's books no doubt. And it would appear that one needs to be careful not to upset their staff either otherwise, they use their position on the board of a football club to get you banned from the ground, how does that work with a minority shareholding?, that doesn't really look good for either large business that they need to gang together to ban this individual who has unpleasant things to say about them, (never heard of sticks n stones)?  and certainly does not show me an individual who I would be happy to see in positions of power in an organisation like Kibble.

 

That seems largely a dig at their operating model. They are a charity that do a lot of good for the people they serve & that capability to undertake projects has hugely benefited St Mirren. Especially at our training & youth academy facilities.  
 

As for AW getting banned, that wasn’t a Kibble director decision. He only has himself to blame for how it panned out. 

2 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

What trivial situation has AW blown up needlessly that has painted the club in a very poor light?

The nonsense over building on a plot of St Mirren owned land. Regardless of what people believe in the ‘he said, she said’ nature of it, it’s very trivial. 
 

All parties have confirmed nothing would ever have been progressed without the agreement of the football club. 

[alwaystrue]

Genuine question. Does Kibble not turn over something in the region of 10 times what we do? So who's milking who?

[FTOF]

11 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

What trivial situation has AW blown up needlessly that has painted the club in a very poor light?

I'll crack the jokes round here.😂

[Kombibuddie]

19 hours ago, bazil85 said:

All parties have confirmed nothing would ever have been progressed without the agreement of the football club. 

ach Basil, you describe it as trivial but to others, it matters & it matters a wee bit more than being trivial.

Surely, the first rule of planning applications is to have the landowners consent to use their land before submitting any planning application and not to seek their permission retrospectively? 

Not sure how it would have panned out if the planning application had been approved (without this furore) & then The Club declined a request to build on their land. The right thing to do was to ask first.

Are you sure you're not trivialising it to justify your anti AW view.

Thankfully, AW's stadium ban has been lifted and another Buddie fills another seat.

[bazil85]

20 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

ach Basil, you describe it as trivial but to others, it matters & it matters a wee bit more than being trivial.

Surely, the first rule of planning applications is to have the landowners consent to use their land before submitting any planning application and not to seek their permission retrospectively? 

Not sure how it would have panned out if the planning application had been approved (without this furore) & then The Club declined a request to build on their land. The right thing to do was to ask first.

Are you sure you're not trivialising it to justify your anti AW view.

Thankfully, AW's stadium ban has been lifted and another Buddie fills another seat.

Does it ‘matter’ to the extent it should still be topical for the club all this time later & responsible for so much friction & bad press? 
 

I mean, I know Shull is still hung up on a challenge cup game, almost a decade ago but are there not certain things we can just get over? 
 

AW being back feels like the right thing for everyone, if it’s part of just moving on past this. Losing his place in the 1877 club, no longer being a director, having a defamation case raised against him & generally being thought of poorly by a lot of St Mirren fans, I do wonder if he’ll consider it all worth it though. 

[Cookie Monster]

ach Basil, you describe it as trivial but to others, it matters & it matters a wee bit more than being trivial.
Surely, the first rule of planning applications is to have the landowners consent to use their land before submitting any planning application and not to seek their permission retrospectively? 
Not sure how it would have panned out if the planning application had been approved (without this furore) & then The Club declined a request to build on their land. The right thing to do was to ask first.
Are you sure you're not trivialising it to justify your anti AW view.
Thankfully, AW's stadium ban has been lifted and another Buddie fills another seat.

It wasn't a planning application. It was a grant application for funding. [emoji6]

[StanleySaint]

11 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

It wasn't a planning application. It was a grant application for funding.

 

And this is the reason it isn't trivial, at the very least it was misguided to apply for possible funding before all parties were onboard at worst it was misrepresentation, without having access to all the timeline and documents who can say, much as I wish like everyone else this would just go away now, I have to question why some people think there is nothing at all here to see.

[BuddieinEK]

34 minutes ago, StanleySaint said:

And this is the reason it isn't trivial, at the very least it was misguided to apply for possible funding before all parties were onboard at worst it was misrepresentation, without having access to all the timeline and documents who can say, much as I wish like everyone else this would just go away now, I have to question why some people think there is nothing at all here to see.

👏👏👏

[bazil85]

[Kombibuddie]

20 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

🤣🤣🤣

[Kombibuddie]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

It wasn't a planning application. It was a grant application for funding.

My apologies.

Application made for funding to finance a build on Club land without the required club permission.

Is that worse or better than a planning application?

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Does it ‘matter’ to the extent it should still be topical for the club all this time later & responsible for so much friction & bad press? 
 

I mean, I know Shull is still hung up on a challenge cup game, almost a decade ago but are there not certain things we can just get over? 
 

AW being back feels like the right thing for everyone, if it’s part of just moving on past this. Losing his place in the 1877 club, no longer being a director, having a defamation case raised against him & generally being thought of poorly by a lot of St Mirren fans, I do wonder if he’ll consider it all worth it though. 

Cheers Basil.

You've compared Shull's 10+year "hang up" to AW's stadium ban that was lifted less than a week ago. Yes, that is still topical.

I take it, the SMISA SGM that was due to take place last Tuesday had absolutely no bearing whatsoever.

We're agreed on it being the right thing that the stadium ban has been lifted.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Kombibuddie
Typo