Explosive Smisa application

[Kombibuddie]

16 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I don’t understand fans being so raging over a scenario that never happened a year ago.

Basil,

The scenario you now claim never happened, started with a funding application from Kibble to build on land, they didn't own & without the landowners knowledge.

Just because the stadium ban has been lifted for AW, I doubt the "scenario" is going to be simply brushed under the carpet as easily as you desire it to.

No matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't true that it is a trivial matter, especially not with the court action taken so far.

You are very mistaken in suggesting, the "scenario" didn't happen.

Without that funding application, this "scenario" would never have happened.

Hopefully, lessons have been learned & scenarios like this never happen again.

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Kombibuddie
Typo

[Slarti]

So , last year you say there was no plan put forward by Kibble , albeit at very early stage , to secure public funding for a project which used the name of other parties ( or party ) without their knowledge ?
So that did not happen at all - that’s what you’re saying ? Right ? [emoji848]

Apparently, someone thinks that because the funding wasn't granted and, even if it was, it would have required SMFC approval for the plan to go ahead, that nothing of note has occurred. The fact that Kibble used the SMFC charity name in their proposal without consent and presented SMFC land to be used in their proposal without consent, seems to not matter a jot to someone.

As I have previously said, it's about the trustworthiness of those involved.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Kombibuddie said:

Basil,

The scenario you now claim never happened, started with a funding application from Kibble to build on land, they didn't own & without the landowners knowledge.

Just because the stadium ban has been lifted for AW, I doubt the "scenario" is going to be simply brushed under the carpet as easily as you desire it to.

No matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't true that it is a trivial matter, especially not with the court action taken so far.

You are very mistaken in suggesting, the "scenario" didn't happen.

Without that funding application, this "scenario" would never have happened.

Hopefully, lessons have been learned & scenarios like this never happen again.

 

I have made this overwhelmingly clear, if you still can’t grasp it, that’s on you. I am NOT SAYING the initial application/ submission never happened. I’m saying the scenario never happened. As in, St Mirren land wasn’t sold, wasn’t built on, funding wasn’t secured, nothing crystallised. And it never would have without St Mirren board approval. 
 

As such, it’s a trivial matter that presented no material risk to St Mirren assets. Accept that, deny that, reject that, it’s irrelevant in it being fact. 
 

For people still to be crying about this a year later, after several fact finding meetings is ridiculous imo. But it shows a nature in some of our fans, that of just not being able to let things go.
 

Maybe I should take my own advice here & leave the moon howlers to fume over a bit of paper, while I enjoy the very successful ownership model that has supported us to 3rd in the league with our best league start for decades. 😀

[Shuggy B]

If the issue is as minor some would claim, why do two directors feel the need to raise a defamation against AW?

Surly something so minor and so trivial could not result in any harm to anyone’s reputation?

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, Shuggy B said:

If the issue is as minor some would claim, why do two directors feel the need to raise a defamation against AW?

Surly something so minor and so trivial could not result in any harm to anyone’s reputation?

Surely that’s literally the reality of a defamation case? They’re raising it because (in their view & as we may still see if it’s continuing) what AW has said & suggested about this isn’t true & is an attack on their character.

[Shuggy B]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Surely that’s literally the reality of a defamation case? They’re raising it because (in their view & as we may still see if it’s continuing) what AW has said & suggested about this isn’t true & is an attack on their character.

Is it?  You maybe know more about it than me but a quick Google search of defamation in Scotland would suggest that what is said has to cause serious harm to the reputation of another.

Defamation law in Scotland is governed by the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 (the Act). The Act defines 'defamation' as publishing a statement that has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of another.

 

If the matter is as trivial as you claim how does commenting on it cause harm?  

[bazil85]

19 minutes ago, Shuggy B said:

Is it?  You maybe know more about it than me but a quick Google search of defamation in Scotland would suggest that what is said has to cause serious harm to the reputation of another.

Defamation law in Scotland is governed by the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 (the Act). The Act defines 'defamation' as publishing a statement that has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of another.

 

If the matter is as trivial as you claim how does commenting on it cause harm?  

The claim by AW was, it wasn’t trivial & the Kibble directors had acted without integrity in what they had done. Hence why they’ve challenged him, it’s an attack on their character. 

[Shuggy B]

23 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The claim by AW was, it wasn’t trivial & the Kibble directors had acted without integrity in what they had done. Hence why they’ve challenged him, it’s an attack on their character. 

I suppose it is then for a judge to decide if alleging in public that submitting a multimillion application without the knowledge of two of the applicants on land owned by one of the applicants was defamatory.

In doing so you’d imagine they’d need to decide if the allegations put forward by AW are significant or as trivial as you claim.

[Kombibuddie]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I have made this overwhelmingly clear, if you still can’t grasp it, that’s on you. I am NOT SAYING the initial application/ submission never happened. I’m saying the scenario never happened. As in, St Mirren land wasn’t sold, wasn’t built on, funding wasn’t secured, nothing crystallised. And it never would have without St Mirren board approval. 
 

As such, it’s a trivial matter that presented no material risk to St Mirren assets. Accept that, deny that, reject that, it’s irrelevant in it being fact. 
 

For people still to be crying about this a year later, after several fact finding meetings is ridiculous imo. But it shows a nature in some of our fans, that of just not being able to let things go.
 

Maybe I should take my own advice here & leave the moon howlers to fume over a bit of paper, while I enjoy the very successful ownership model that has supported us to 3rd in the league with our best league start for decades. 😀

Dear oh dear oh dear.

 

I'm grasping the fact that you are keen to dismiss (selectively) the funding application that brought about this unfortunate "scenario"

You can spout as much bollox as you like. There is no mistaking, the funding application started this whole affair.

There would have been no talk of any of this, if that funding application hadn't been made or & it is a big OR

Conversations & agreements in principle had been had with the club 1st.

You carry on sweeping Basil but that pile of shite you're trying to bury, isn't wanting to be buried just yet.

Enjoy the rest of the season. Here's hoping, it is as successful as the start so far.

 

[The Original 59er]

On 10/26/2023 at 12:32 PM, Albanian Buddy said:

I’d pull him up about his spelling!

But he’d likely charge me for the privilege. 

Sadly caught by cancer................... and no he didn't charge me for that little gem of advice, which I have tried to follow to the best of my abilities.

Checking and double-checking texts and posts on here is hard going, especially with so many "learned" obervers out there............ I might catch on in another 15 years!

[bazil85]

18 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

Dear oh dear oh dear.

 

I'm grasping the fact that you are keen to dismiss (selectively) the funding application that brought about this unfortunate "scenario"

You can spout as much bollox as you like. There is no mistaking, the funding application started this whole affair.

There would have been no talk of any of this, if that funding application hadn't been made or & it is a big OR

Conversations & agreements in principle had been had with the club 1st.

You carry on sweeping Basil but that pile of shite you're trying to bury, isn't wanting to be buried just yet.

Enjoy the rest of the season. Here's hoping, it is as successful as the start so far.

 

I think most have put it behind them (if they even cared in the first place) regarding our fanbase.
 

You’re almost certainly in a small minority. But there’s little change there, right? 

[Slarti]

Sadly caught by cancer................... and no he didn't charge me for that little gem of advice, which I have tried to follow to the best of my abilities.
Checking and double-checking texts and posts on here is hard going, especially with so many "learned" obervers out there............ I might catch on in another 15 years!

I'm going to assume that was deliberate. [emoji16]

[Kombibuddie]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I think most have put it behind them (if they even cared in the first place) regarding our fanbase.

You think? But you don't know 🤣🤣🤣

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

You’re almost certainly in a small minority. But there’s little change there, right? 

Almost 🤣🤣

 

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

But there’s little change there, right? 

Little change??

Basil's Bollox is how it was called. Absolutely no change 😁

[Jockmd]

This whole ongoing issue stinks.  Are there any American billionaires out there who have sympathy and ambition for St Mirren? 

[Jockmd]

6 minutes ago, Jockmd said:

This whole ongoing issue stinks.  Are there any American billionaires out there who have sympathy and ambition for St Mirren? 

Can you imagine if there were and wanted to buy the club totally and invest millions?  Kibble would then use its veto against it.

[buddiecat]

6 minutes ago, Jockmd said:

Can you imagine if there were and wanted to buy the club totally and invest millions?  Kibble would then use its veto against it.

The club cannot be bought as SMiSA are the majority shareholders and their shares cannot be sold. Quite possibly kibble shares can be sold as well as those of all other minority shareholders.

SMiSA shares can however be transferred to a similar community interest group but can never be sold.

[Jockmd]

1 hour ago, buddiecat said:

The club cannot be bought as SMiSA are the majority shareholders and their shares cannot be sold. Quite possibly kibble shares can be sold as well as those of all other minority shareholders.

SMiSA shares can however be transferred to a similar community interest group but can never be sold.

Well, I'm not familiar with the 'constitutional' restraints but as in most situations if 2/3rds of the SMISA members voted to change the rules then it would be executed.  

I know its fictional, but if someone was offering to invest millions in the club then it would happen.

[billyg]

18 minutes ago, Jockmd said:

 

I know its fictional, but if someone was offering to invest millions in the club then it would happen.

It might not be that far off , with Burnley looking for a tie-up with Dundee and the Bournemouth owner now looking to buy Hibs too , and there is allegedly one more club in talks with one from England , the rules are being re-written to accommodate the situation. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by billyg

[buddiecat]

27 minutes ago, Jockmd said:

Well, I'm not familiar with the 'constitutional' restraints but as in most situations if 2/3rds of the SMISA members voted to change the rules then it would be executed.  

I know its fictional, but if someone was offering to invest millions in the club then it would happen.

Knew I shouldn’t have posted.

[WeeBud]

51 minutes ago, buddiecat said:

Knew I shouldn’t have posted.

Debate gets stifled when someone who actually knows what they're talking about rocks up 😂😂

[buddiecat]

1 hour ago, Jockmd said:

Well, I'm not familiar with the 'constitutional' restraints but as in most situations if 2/3rds of the SMISA members voted to change the rules then it would be executed.  

I know it’s fictional, but if someone was offering to invest millions in the club then it would happen.

SMiSA constitution, asset lock section. Good read.

[rabuddies]

Welcome to football in the 21st Century! Or, should it be soccer?

[FTOF]

2 hours ago, Jockmd said:

Well, I'm not familiar with the 'constitutional' restraints but as in most situations if 2/3rds of the SMISA members voted to change the rules then it would be executed.  

I know its fictional, but if someone was offering to invest millions in the club then it would happen.

So we're in our best position on and off the park for years and you're advocating change?

As much as this is debated on here, the majority of St.Mirren fans, even those who are part of SMISA, couldn't give a shit a bout this matter, other than to point and laugh at "Mr.St.Mirren".

[billyg]

14 minutes ago, FTOF said:

 

As much as this is debated on here, the majority of St.Mirren fans, even those who are part of SMISA, couldn't give a shit a bout this matter, other than to point and laugh at "Mr.St.Mirren".

That just about nails it !

[Slarti]

So we're in our best position on and off the park for years and you're advocating change?
As much as this is debated on here, the majority of St.Mirren fans, even those who are part of SMISA, couldn't give a shit a bout this matter, other than to point and laugh at "Mr.St.Mirren".

How do you know the opinions of the majority of St Mirren fans?