Explosive Smisa application

[beyond our ken]

17 hours ago, bazil85 said:

The thing that’s most clear to me, is no one else on the board seemed to care other than AW. If it was such a sneaky & damaging thing, why are the St Mirren board defending the Kibble? 
 

Doesn’t make sense to me unless it is (as it appears) a non-issue. 

Don't be daft. It is not clear at all.  If you look at the way that Wardrop has been treated by Needham then you can see why people who might also care are sitting tight lipped.

And maybe the board are keeping things tight because, if Wardrop is barking uo the right tree, then previous failure to act is also a failure to fulfil your duties as a director.

As I keep saying, thr board look like they were asleep at the wheel here, or possibly worse, were choosing to look the other way about something they knew they should be visible and vocal on.  

A proposal, with our name on it, was put forward to get funding that would TRANSFORM the area around the stadium.  But we weren't part of it and no tangible benefits have yet been identified.  To aid and abet that attitude is a serious dereliction of duty and as i said before, just because it was refused funding ond the club lost no money, still needs not only to be investigated but needs corrective actions put in place to ensure we either benefit from future proposals or are insulated from any possible harm.  None of that has been done yet.

Edited May 13, 2023 by beyond our ken

[billyg]

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" ? 🤣😆😂

[alanb]

Given recent revelations

 

Excellent marketing opportunity for latest PieSports creation..... The BLAGGIS

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

Don't be daft. It is not clear at all.  If you look at the way that Wardrop has been treated by Needham then you can see why people who might also care are sitting tight lipped.

And maybe the board are keeping things tight because, if Wardrop is barking uo the right tree, then previous failure to act is also a failure to fulfil your duties as a director.

As I keep saying, thr board look like they were asleep at the wheel here, or possibly worse, were choosing to look the other way about something they knew they should be visible and vocal on.  

A proposal, with our name on it, was put forward to get funding that would TRANSFORM the area around the stadium.  But we weren't part of it and no tangible benefits have yet been identified.  To aid and abet that attitude is a serious dereliction of duty and as i said before, just because it was refused funding ond the club lost no money, still needs not only to be investigated but needs corrective actions put in place to ensure we either benefit from future proposals or are insulated from any possible harm.  None of that has been done yet.

You really are a drama queen, aren’t you? 😂

[bazil85]

14 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

But was I wrong or inaccurate? 

Not at all, you were right to AGREE with the point I made.

Know what they say, stopped clock and all that. 

[beyond our ken]

14 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You really are a drama queen, aren’t you? 😂

Is that it, coming back with personal insults?

You really are a cowardly piece of crap

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Is that it, coming back with personal insults?

You really are a cowardly piece of crap

Personal insults 😂😂

Calm down man. 

[Sue Denim]

I don’t know much about all this but stopping 240 of your fellow fans from getting to the game has made my mind up about the character of Wardrope

And the reference to ‘Mr St Mirren’ is probably not meant to be a compliment, it’s more likely meant as in ‘that cunt thinks he’s Mr St Mirren’

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Sue Denim

[HSS]

Is the Club not open today?

[gomaster]

4 hours ago, Sue Denim said:

I don’t know much about all this but stopping 240 of your fellow fans from getting to the game has made my mind up about the character of Wardrope

And the reference to ‘Mr St Mirren’ is probably not meant to be a compliment, it’s more likely meant as in ‘that c**t thinks he’s Mr St Mirren’

 

I believe the club was open today. You also have to look at GDPR legislation in regard to who is the data controller I.e. who is the holder of the personal details of the members. If this is ultimately SMFC then yes the details should have been provided, if however the details are held under 1877 club with AW the data controller then legally he cannot pass on personal details without the explicit consent of the members who's details would be getting passed over. If he did he would be in breach of GDPR and would risk a fine. 

[gomaster]

8 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Don't be daft. It is not clear at all.  If you look at the way that Wardrop has been treated by Needham then you can see why people who might also care are sitting tight lipped.

And maybe the board are keeping things tight because, if Wardrop is barking uo the right tree, then previous failure to act is also a failure to fulfil your duties as a director.

As I keep saying, thr board look like they were asleep at the wheel here, or possibly worse, were choosing to look the other way about something they knew they should be visible and vocal on.  

A proposal, with our name on it, was put forward to get funding that would TRANSFORM the area around the stadium.  But we weren't part of it and no tangible benefits have yet been identified.  To aid and abet that attitude is a serious dereliction of duty and as i said before, just because it was refused funding ond the club lost no money, still needs not only to be investigated but needs corrective actions put in place to ensure we either benefit from future proposals or are insulated from any possible harm.  None of that has been done yet.

Correct. Have some of the Smisa appointed directors been influenced by Kibble directors in all of this? Also, there is currently no mechanism for the Smisa appointed directors on the club board to seek re-election after any given specified period of time. That would appear to be a failing as in effect they can remain in position for as long as they wish probably unless they do something which would constitute their removal. It could also beg the question as to whether or not they were the right appointments in the first place given they are supposed to be looking after the interests of the club and Smisa members/shareholders who have put their trust in them to make correct decisions. 

[Cookie Monster]

I believe the club was open today. You also have to look at GDPR legislation in regard to who is the data controller I.e. who is the holder of the personal details of the members. If this is ultimately SMFC then yes the details should have been provided, if however the details are held under 1877 club with AW the data controller then legally he cannot pass on personal details without the explicit consent of the members who's details would be getting passed over. If he did he would be in breach of GDPR and would risk a fine. 

So if Mr St Mirren isn't available, there is possibly no backup to who can get in.

[gomaster]

16 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

 

So if Mr St Mirren isn't available, there is possibly no backup to who can get in.

 

Depends how it has all been set up. 

[doakie]

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.

 

[Albanian Buddy]

Does the “indefinite stadium ban” by the club board of directors now stop Alan Wardrop from attending the SMISA AGM this Wednesday?

 

[doakie]

Interesting question, @Albanian Buddy

Edited May 14, 2023 by doakie

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, doakie said:

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.

 

It may not be as dark as collusion and dece[tion on the part of the board, it could possibly be that they are just mortified at being out-manouvred and forced into going along with the idea as a way of saving a little face.  One way or another thoiugh the idea that the board were not on the ball has to be dealt with.

[Albanian Buddy]

There was encroachment by Hearts and St Mirren supporters yesterday after the penalty in the final seconds. 

It was just posturing thankfully and no physical clashes took place as far as I’m aware. 

But given the strict policies in place are those individuals from both clubs now issued with “stadium bans”?

https://www.stmirren.com/images/downloads/policies/2019/Supporters-Code-of-Conduct-2019.pdf

Will they get banning letters in the post?

[Albanian Buddy]

How many supporters went onto the pitch immediately after the Dundee Utd play off penalty shootout or the championship win under Jack Ross?

Hundreds?

Did the club issue letters then?

If Alan Wardrop has received a ban for answering questions posed by a journalist then the club are duty bound to issue many others for violation of the rules of the match-day ticket. 

I will confess. I was on the pitch after immediately after the conclusion of the United game.

What I did was wrong and against the stadium rules. I’m sorry. 

I never got a letter. Will I get one retrospectively?

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, doakie said:

I suggest that there are a few individuals who may have to reconsider their position.

 

Don’t see how.

it was STILL a very early stage proposal.

It STILL would have required St Mirren’s engagement & approval to use their land. 

people are STILL to highlight any negative if this facility was built in Paisley, St Mirren owned (otherwise unused) land or otherwise. 
 

I don’t see any contradiction, only confusion/ different interpretations in peoples understanding of events regarding the proposal. 
 

Still, now that our season is all but over, why not waste some time on this trivial ‘closed’ matter. 🤷‍♂️

Shame really, who knows what impact this behind the scenes, pointless squabble & bad blood has had on preparation for the last three games.  
 

Extremly disappointed in Alan Wardrop, it could have comfortably waited a few weeks. 

[Jockmd]

17 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

don’t see any contradiction, only confusion/ different interpretations in peoples understanding of events regarding the proposal.

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

 

[doakie]

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Don’t see how.

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.

 

[Albanian Buddy]

Had Kibble involved St Mirren board and the charitable foundation prior to submitting an application for significant Government funding then all this controversy being played out in public now would surely have been avoided. 

No one comes out of this shitshow looking good. 

This was all so unnecessary.
 

 

 

[Callum Gilhooley]

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 ? 🤔

Edited May 14, 2023 by Callum Gilhooley

[glen]

44 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Don’t see how.

it was STILL a very early stage proposal.

It STILL would have required St Mirren’s engagement & approval to use their land. 

people are STILL to highlight any negative if this facility was built in Paisley, St Mirren owned (otherwise unused) land or otherwise. 
 

I don’t see any contradiction, only confusion/ different interpretations in peoples understanding of events regarding the proposal. 
 

Still, now that our season is all but over, why not waste some time on this trivial ‘closed’ matter. 🤷‍♂️

Shame really, who knows what impact this behind the scenes, pointless squabble & bad blood has had on preparation for the last three games.  
 

Extremly disappointed in Alan Wardrop, it could have comfortably waited a few weeks. 

As it is Sunday 

Jeremiah 5:21

‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’. 👂