Explosive Smisa application

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:

I’m with Doakie and trying to remain objective on this. However some of the stuff published that is allegedly aligned to both parties does not stack up.

I agree with you on being with dookie (💩), but only in the nonsense claim that either of you are trying to be in anyway, "objective" on this. You've never been anything like objective when it comes to the Kibble and fan ownership. 

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

😂

You hit nail on the head with this Stu!

A bit like when the club “fcuked” up the Season Ticket database and we all had to resubmit our details yet they still managed to fcuk that up by sending out the wrong seats or tickets. 

The databases were incompatible was the excuse peddled at the time. We saw through those lies Mr Needham.

 

Exactly, just one of the issues the club have made an arse of thst should be highlighted but this recent hysterical approach by a few who are willing to say anything to discredit the club for their own personal agenda IS out of order. 

It fecking stinks TBH. 

[Brilliant Disguise]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I agree with you on being with dookie (💩), but only in the nonsense claim that either of you are trying to be in anyway, "objective" on this. You've never been anything like objective when it comes to the Kibble and fan ownership. 

It’s clear from the article one of the two parties involved is being economic with the truth. 

Have you ever been critical on any point associated with the Kibble. If you have then I’m sure you will be getting a letter advising you that you are banned from the Kibble with immediate effect

[djchapsticks]

35 minutes ago, doakie said:

Has the concept of free speech been discussed at board level?

What next? Will local councillor Kenny McLaren be banned from the stadium after the article in the Daily Record?

Will any poster here be banned?

This is alarming.

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.

[StanleySaint]

I'm somewhere between Doakie and Baz, it seems to me that there has been some sort of misunderstanding regarding the application in both what land was to be used and how much had been discussed/understood before the application was made, both AW and the board are giving their side of things and the truth is somewhere in between, the disturbing thing is that another bad bout of communication has again reflected badly on the club.

[Albanian Buddy]

38 minutes ago, exiledfan said:

I hope the 1866 club vote with their feet and do not turn up on Saturday to the club. 

Did they lose some memberships?

Or has the club been renamed? 😂 

I agree. It’s pathetic. 

Out of interest, was Mr Needham banned from the club or boardroom after his public comments were made that brought unnecessary controversy to the club across many media outlets in the press?

 

[doakie]

4 minutes 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.

A well written response but there's a key element that no one has picked up on as far as I can see:  I could be wrong but weren't AW's criticisms (and the Herald article) aimed at Kibble rather than the club? If he has only had a go at Kibble then why have the club board banned him? As an aside, I strongly suspect that the board have exceeded their authority in banning him. I'm no expert in the club's constitution but I doubt if there's a clause insisting that one can't criticise Kibble without running the risk of being banned.

[Albanian Buddy]

7 minutes ago, StanleySaint said:

I'm somewhere between Doakie and Baz, it seems to me that there has been some sort of misunderstanding regarding the application in both what land was to be used and how much had been discussed/understood before the application was made, both AW and the board are giving their side of things and the truth is somewhere in between, the disturbing thing is that another bad bout of communication has again reflected badly on the club.

I still don’t see how Kibble can make an application for over £2M of funding and not put in the actual application where this well-ness centre would be built.

From the press article Kibble blamed the council for that land error. 

Seems a bit weird that something as critical as this would have such an oversight by the applicant or am I missing something?

 

[Slarti]

If the SMFC name was used in the first phase of the application, prior to the board being informed in September (?) then questions need answered. If the foundation's name was used to suggest a partnership without prior discussion, then that also should be questioned.

Has anyone identified the "adjacent land" that was supposedly where this centre was to be built? All I've seen said is that the cover had the wrong bit of land marked, without any clarification of what bit of land was the real bit.

I don't know what the truth is but, having known him for almost 50 years, AW is not stupid and I can't believe he would have made these accusations without evidence. Whether or not the evidence he has is as reliable as he thinks it is, is another matter.

[exiledfan]

20 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Did they lose some memberships?

Or has the club been renamed? 😂 

I agree. It’s pathetic. 

Out of interest, was Mr Needham banned from the club or boardroom after his public comments were made that brought unnecessary controversy to the club across many media outlets in the press?

 

Fat fingers !

[Albanian Buddy]

I saw today that “Kibble Community Services” have now acquired the care home on Ferguslie main road across from the old JN high school.

Not sure if this is a new acquisition but I’m sure it was a care home after the Covid lockdown.
Maybe this is where the wellness was centre was meant to be located? 😂 
 

[Albanian Buddy]

How much property do they now own across Renfrewshire and beyond?

I wonder who does all the property management services? 🤔 

Wonder if it’s the same people involved in the academy upgrade. 

 

[djchapsticks]

38 minutes ago, doakie said:

A well written response but there's a key element that no one has picked up on as far as I can see:  I could be wrong but weren't AW's criticisms (and the Herald article) aimed at Kibble rather than the club? If he has only had a go at Kibble then why have the club board banned him? As an aside, I strongly suspect that the board have exceeded their authority in banning him. I'm no expert in the club's constitution but I doubt if there's a clause insisting that one can't criticise Kibble without running the risk of being banned.

Initially yes. But the rebuttal didn't come from the Kibble, it came from the board. Wardrop has then disregarded this explanation and gone to the Herald to wilfully repeat his misinformation so has clearly also willingly made an enemy of the board in general.

[Albanian Buddy]

7 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Initially yes. But the rebuttal didn't come from the Kibble, it came from the board. Wardrop has then disregarded this explanation and gone to the Herald to wilfully repeat his misinformation so has clearly also willingly made an enemy of the board in general.

I’m not saying it is, but what if AW is actually telling the truth and it’s not misinformation?

 

[bazil85]

8 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

I’m not saying it is, but what if AW is actually telling the truth and it’s not misinformation?

 

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. 

[Albanian Buddy]

7 minutes 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. 

Really? 

AW has certainly highlighted that the land in question was not Kibble land and they said the council had made the error plus the “joint application” with the charitable foundation was without their permission or consent. 

I’m not sure even the Kibble lawyers would say there is not a “shred of evidence”. 

I certainly knew nothing about this until he brought it to our attention. 

I don’t think he has an anti-SMFC agenda. 

If you had said anti-Kibble then I’d agree.

[faraway saint]

10 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

 

I don’t think he has an anti-SMFC agenda. 

If you had said anti-Kibble then I’d agree.

The only agenda that AW, and supporting cast, have is to discredit the current board and get their feet, back, under the table.

The Kibble are a mere smokescreen and the damage this is doing to the club's image isn't even a consideration. 

[Family Stand]

Hi Guys, 

 

Given the strength of feeling over the situation I was reluctant to come on and post this as I attend games with my young children and could do without any unpleasantness with fellow supporters, however there are some strong accusations being banded around, so hard hat at the ready, here goes! 

 

I am almost 100% sure that the Herald article was taken from a freelance submission I sent to them last week. I am concerned, however, that the article appears to have led to a fresh round of accusations and recriminations and I am extremely uneasy about aspersions being cast about other people when I know that I was the original source.

 

I can swear, on the lives of my children, that I have no connection to Alan Wardrop; I have genuinely never even met or spoken to the man. I am a supporter of the club, a season ticket holder and a SMISA member, but as far as the influential cliques of St Mirren supporters go, I am a rank outsider.

 

I submitted the article (which was very different, particularly in tone, to the one the Herald printed several days later) purely because I felt there was a strong public interest justification in the situation being publicised and clarified. A lot has been circulated on the subject, but outwith a very small group of supporters who hold polarised views, I felt that the vast majority of St Mirren supporters were struggling to form any meaningful impression of what was going on.

 

Personally, I felt the salient points were whether the funding application was submitted without the knowledge of the full board, and whether the application contained plans to build on St Mirren owned land. The club has now confirmed that the answer to both of these questions was yes, and offered explanations on how it came about. I genuinely feel that this allows supporters to draw their own (relatively) informed on whether anything concerning has taken place ( and I promise that is not, in any way, a loaded statement.)

 

For me, the only show in town is what is best for St Mirren, and while I appreciate that many will disagree, I felt that it was in the best interests of the club that there was as much clarity and transparency around this as possible - irrespective of the eventual conclusions people might draw from it.

 

I should also add that I had requested to remain anonymous when I submitted the article to the Herald, and had they chosen to print it (rather than steal, butcher an sensationalise it..) I would have donated any fee from it to the club in some form, so there would have been no question of me trying to publicise my work or gain financially from an incendiary story about the club.

 

[StanleySaint]

26 minutes 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. 

Sorry Baz, no matter what the truth is I don't think trivial is the right description.

[Albanian Buddy]

Just now, faraway saint said:

The only agenda that AW, and supporting cast, have is to discredit the current board and get their feet, back, under the table.

The Kibble are a mere smokescreen and the damage this is doing to the club's image isn't even a consideration. 

It’s certainly a complete cluster fcuk.

I just don’t think their spokesman on here can say there is not a shred of evidence.

I stand by my reply to him. 

Fcuk knows what happens next?

Can anyone get me a pass for 1877 club this weekend?

 

[doakie]

1 hour ago, djchapsticks said:

Initially yes. But the rebuttal didn't come from the Kibble, it came from the board. Wardrop has then disregarded this explanation and gone to the Herald to wilfully repeat his misinformation so has clearly also willingly made an enemy of the board in general.

 

35 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Really? 

AW has certainly highlighted that the land in question was not Kibble land and they said the council had made the error plus the “joint application” with the charitable foundation was without their permission or consent. 

I’m not sure even the Kibble lawyers would say there is not a “shred of evidence”. 

I certainly knew nothing about this until he brought it to our attention. 

I don’t think he has an anti-SMFC agenda. 

If you had said anti-Kibble then I’d agree.

Those are the facts, @Albanian Buddy. Well said. Also - why has AW been banned by the club when his criticism was of Kibble and their alleged conflict of interest.

[djchapsticks]

25 minutes ago, Family Stand said:

Hi Guys, 

 

Given the strength of feeling over the situation I was reluctant to come on and post this as I attend games with my young children and could do without any unpleasantness with fellow supporters, however there are some strong accusations being banded around, so hard hat at the ready, here goes! 

 

I am almost 100% sure that the Herald article was taken from a freelance submission I sent to them last week. I am concerned, however, that the article appears to have led to a fresh round of accusations and recriminations and I am extremely uneasy about aspersions being cast about other people when I know that I was the original source.

 

I can swear, on the lives of my children, that I have no connection to Alan Wardrop; I have genuinely never even met or spoken to the man. I am a supporter of the club, a season ticket holder and a SMISA member, but as far as the influential cliques of St Mirren supporters go, I am a rank outsider.

 

I submitted the article (which was very different, particularly in tone, to the one the Herald printed several days later) purely because I felt there was a strong public interest justification in the situation being publicised and clarified. A lot has been circulated on the subject, but outwith a very small group of supporters who hold polarised views, I felt that the vast majority of St Mirren supporters were struggling to form any meaningful impression of what was going on.

 

Personally, I felt the salient points were whether the funding application was submitted without the knowledge of the full board, and whether the application contained plans to build on St Mirren owned land. The club has now confirmed that the answer to both of these questions was yes, and offered explanations on how it came about. I genuinely feel that this allows supporters to draw their own (relatively) informed on whether anything concerning has taken place ( and I promise that is not, in any way, a loaded statement.)

 

For me, the only show in town is what is best for St Mirren, and while I appreciate that many will disagree, I felt that it was in the best interests of the club that there was as much clarity and transparency around this as possible - irrespective of the eventual conclusions people might draw from it.

 

I should also add that I had requested to remain anonymous when I submitted the article to the Herald, and had they chosen to print it (rather than steal, butcher an sensationalise it..) I would have donated any fee from it to the club in some form, so there would have been no question of me trying to publicise my work or gain financially from an incendiary story about the club.

 

Disagree.

The Herald article contained quotes from AW himself that weren't attributed to any other press release prior to the Herald article. nor did they form any part of the SMISA application.

They may well have used your freelance article but it is almost certain that AW was involved also in order to give quotes and statements that had not been committed to any form of media before the herald article.

This is where the issue lies. If the were regurgitating week old quotes, this would have been over nothing but AW is not backing down on this, he's doubling down.

[Family Stand]

3 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Disagree.

The Herald article contained quotes from AW himself that weren't attributed to any other press release prior to the Herald article. nor did they form any part of the SMISA application.

They may well have used your freelance article but it is almost certain that AW was involved also in order to give quotes and statements that had not been committed to any form of media before the herald article.

This is where the issue lies. If the were regurgitating week old quotes, this would have been over nothing but AW is not backing down on this, he's doubling down.

Ye, there is no doubt they contacted both the club and Mr Wardrop and obtained supplementary quotes, I suppose I just felt that was fundamentally different from him going to the press to instigate a story. Either way, I'm certainly not looking to defend Mr Wardrop, I just felt it was only fair to qualify the assertion that he was responsible for the story.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Really? 

AW has certainly highlighted that the land in question was not Kibble land and they said the council had made the error plus the “joint application” with the charitable foundation was without their permission or consent. 

I’m not sure even the Kibble lawyers would say there is not a “shred of evidence”. 

I certainly knew nothing about this until he brought it to our attention. 

I don’t think he has an anti-SMFC agenda. 

If you had said anti-Kibble then I’d agree.

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? 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, StanleySaint said:

Sorry Baz, no matter what the truth is I don't think trivial is the right description.

People raking over the coals of a ‘closed’ matter seems pretty trivial to me. 
 

Silver lining, I’m certainly entertaining one stalker, I mean St Mirren ‘fan’ 😂