Explosive Smisa application

[doakie]

17 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said:

Said it from day one mate, folk putting money in and don't have a clue what's happening. No updates, no say, board members coming and going...

No updates? no say? I' don't accept that. Since the so-called new Smisa board have taken over, communication has never been better. Four updates in March, three in April - communication has never been better. Check it out here https://www.smisa.net/

There's been regular meetings - some of which have involved robust debate. If you "don't have a clue what's happening" - your words, not mine - then I suggest you check your e-mail for the regular updates or attend the meetings. Smisa are putting information out so it's totally inaccurate to claim there's "no updates". The information is easily found even if your e-mail isn't working

There's a pretty important AGM coming up - why don't you attend and see the vital work that, for example, the likes of Stewart Gilmour, Alex Dillon and Willie Bell are doing.

Over and out.

[HSS]

14 hours ago, alwaystrue said:

I think you are right in everything you said above. I don't know if it is possible to move the two amigos out unless they volunteer to go and as 1 of them is the vice chair, I don't see that happening. As the amigos run kibble, even if other kibble employees were put into replace them, they would still be doing the amigos work for them.

Is Mr Wardrops aim not to get rid of Kibble completely rather than have the 2 current board members replaced?

[doakie]

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

IMO the last thing the club needs right now as our crowds soar, we push for European football and our income almost certainly increases significantly, is a civil war.

Continuity candidates for me, Wardrop can get right in the sea. As Billy says, two sides to every story. 

Ah, good afternoon Mr Gillespie. I wondered when your sycophant would raise his head above the parapet. 

[faraway saint]

It seems to me with certain names clamouring to get back on board we could be heading back to the bad old days of amateur decision making and penny pinching. 

Hardly moving forward. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by faraway saint

[W6er]

49 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

IMO the last thing the club needs right now as our crowds soar, we push for European football and our income almost certainly increases significantly, is a civil war.

Continuity candidates for me, Wardrop can get right in the sea. As Billy says, two sides to every story. 

We need stability, but we also need transparency. If folk are donating their money to the club, and are effectively owners of it, then they need to know what is going on behind the scenes, i.e. what decisions are being made and why.  

[bazil85]

46 minutes ago, doakie said:

Ah, good afternoon Mr Gillespie. I wondered when your sycophant would raise his head above the parapet. 

Mr Gillespie now… I must have changed my identity over the years more times than Richard Gere. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by bazil85

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, W6er said:

We need stability, but we also need transparency. If folk are donating their money to the club, and are effectively owners of it, then they need to know what is going on behind the scenes, i.e. what decisions are being made and why.  

Agree with that to an extent. I don’t think though, we need to know every detail/ decision that goes on in SMISA/ SMFC decision making. 
 

It’s good to see the goal of more transparency figuring highly on most communications & potential director profiles recently. 

[Albanian Buddy]

1 hour ago, Doakes said:

I'd be interested to hear Kibble's pov. They've not offered much in the way of transparency 

Is Bazil not Kibbles PR machine?

[Albanian Buddy]

1 hour ago, HSS said:

Is Mr Wardrops aim not to get rid of Kibble completely rather than have the 2 current board members replaced?

As I’ve indicated before I see a major obstacle in that plan coming to fruition unless there is something in the original 3 way agreement that allows SMISA to buy out Kibble shares.

[HSS]

3 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

As I’ve indicated before I see a major obstacle in that plan coming to fruition unless there is something in the original 3 way agreement that allows SMISA to buy out Kibble shares.

Could it be if the Kibble plan is deemed illegal it could make the whole partnership null and void?

[Albanian Buddy]

16 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said:

Can cover it up anyway u want but appears to be absolute shambles.....wouldn’t give SMISA a penny...

It’s an absolute shambles that St Mirren are one of very few fan owned clubs in Scotland that have achieved this goal without the club going into administration.

We are on target for our highest position in the top flight for 40years.

Absolute fcuking shambles. 

Imagine where the club would have been with you in charge?

 

[Albanian Buddy]

2 minutes ago, HSS said:

Could it be if the Kibble plan is deemed illegal it could make the whole partnership null and void?

I’m not sure they would walk away (although Gillespie is apparently a staunch Rangers fan) without demanding a settlement that suits them. 

I fear that we are stuck with them. 

Won’t be the first investors to try and leverage an investment to suit their agenda. 

[doakie]

57 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Mr Gillespie now… I must have changed my identity over the years more times than Richard Gere. 

You misunderstand - you're obviously such a Kibble cheerleader come what may that I guess you have him on speed dial and so I'm just welcoming him to the chat.

[doakie]

9 minutes ago, HSS said:

Could it be if the Kibble plan is deemed illegal it could make the whole partnership null and void?

Interesting viewpoint. Would the main Kibble board want to hang around if their representatives were indeed making false representations? What a scandal that would be but, at this point, I guess it depends on what further revelations come from Alan Wardrop. I look forward to the AGM more than ever.

[doakie]

33 minutes ago, Warrior Saint said:

Can cover it up anyway u want but appears to be absolute shambles.....wouldn’t give SMISA a penny...

Cover it up? I've just given you a detailed summary of the increased transparency and communications from Smisa i.e. the complete opposite of a cover up. Are you capable of sensible debate or are you simply trying to cause mischief? I suspect the latter. Cover up - what a nonsensical statement. 

[Maboza]

3 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

I’m not sure they would walk away (although Gillespie is apparently a staunch Rangers fan) without demanding a settlement that suits them. 

I fear that we are stuck with them. 

Won’t be the first investors to try and leverage an investment to suit their agenda. 

I’m sure we were told that SMISA would have first option to buy. 
 

As usual, it was a vague statement at the sales pitch stage that went by without due scrutiny. 
 

Here were/are the key questions:

1) Can SMISA trigger that purchase of the 27.5% Kibble shares unilaterally? 
2) Is the price; (A) fixed at what Kibble paid (as SMISA would originally have been entitled to); (B) is it adjusted for inflation, or (C) is it a valuation of Kibble’s determining?

3) If the scenario turns 2(C), what comeback to SMISA have if they are unable to meet the price set by Kibble and therefor render the ‘first refusal’ status useless? Is there any other control over who* Kibble would sell to beyond matching their sale price?  
 

*Presumably the existing powers of Kibble and 2 board seats would be up for grabs to anyone they sell to. 

[alanb]

13 minutes ago, Maboza said:

I’m sure we were told that SMISA would have first option to buy. 
 

As usual, it was a vague statement at the sales pitch stage that went by without due scrutiny. 
 

Here were/are the key questions:

1) Can SMISA trigger that purchase of the 27.5% Kibble shares unilaterally? 
2) Is the price; (A) fixed at what Kibble paid (as SMISA would originally have been entitled to); (B) is it adjusted for inflation, or (C) is it a valuation of Kibble’s determining?

3) If the scenario turns 2(C), what comeback to SMISA have if they are unable to meet the price set by Kibble and therefor render the ‘first refusal’ status useless? Is there any other control over who* Kibble would sell to beyond matching their sale price?  
 

*Presumably the existing powers of Kibble and 2 board seats would be up for grabs to anyone they sell to. 

Terms of Vote (smisa.net)

Not sure how to define "Vague" but this link does seem to set it all out clearly ( not vague )

This and other info freely available on SMiSA website.

Edited May 2, 2023 by alanb

[Maboza]

9 minutes ago, alanb said:

Terms of Vote (smisa.net)

Not sure how to define "Vague" but this link does seem to set it all out clearly ( not vague )

This and other info freely available on SMiSA website.

I’ve read but it doesn’t answer any of the points I raised.

[alanb]

22 minutes ago, Maboza said:

I’ve read but it doesn’t answer any of the points I raised.

Your questions probably best asked at a club AGM or the SMiSA one coming soon or have you asked and not been answered ? and did someone not recently approach Kibble and got chased.

If only SMiSA stuck to the original plan

[Jockmd]

Since Kibble have the power of 'veto',  presumably no one can force them to sell their percentage of ownership.  

Whoever sanctioned the veto didn't do so for the benefit of the club. 

The only apparent tactic to win back full control is litigation over the 'illegality' of the land issue. 

[alwaystrue]

Well this went down the usual pattern quite quickly. Not wishing to fuel the fire, but these are serious allegations that I can't imagine have been made lightly, as such has anyone seen any of the documents in question.  It strikes me that this is quite easily resolved, if AW has information of wrongdoing he has a legal obligation and a moral one to make this available. It can't be used solely as an election campaign point.

[doakie]

1 hour ago, alwaystrue said:

Well this went down the usual pattern quite quickly. Not wishing to fuel the fire, but these are serious allegations that I can't imagine have been made lightly, as such has anyone seen any of the documents in question.  It strikes me that this is quite easily resolved, if AW has information of wrongdoing he has a legal obligation and a moral one to make this available. It can't be used solely as an election campaign point.

I'd imagine AW will have more to say at the AGM and, yes, I agree that he won't be using it merely as a campaign point. After all, the key sentence in his statement is this:  “I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble’s directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them.”

[Albanian Buddy]

3 hours ago, Warrior Saint said:

Off the park it is a joke, u one of the bangers that actually thinks they own a football club😀😀pity u don't really believe what u r saying, facts are infront of u...

I d n w y a s?

 

[golf buddie]

Interesting that now people don't like off field aspects of how club run, presumably linked to losses over last year accounts, Kibble to blame, but many were all for them to begin with, as got voted in via landslide, personally was never happy as club didn't get anything from deal only GS gained by getting money early
My preference would always be totally supporter owned

Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk

[alwaystrue]

29 minutes ago, doakie said:

I'd imagine AW will have more to say at the AGM and, yes, I agree that he won't be using it merely as a campaign point. After all, the key sentence in his statement is this:  “I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble’s directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them.”

I hope so, as this specific point was raised at a previous SMiSA meeting a few months back, I'm surprised this hasn't been resolved already. If AW has the smoking gun, it will be interesting to see what happens when the dust settles.  @doakie good points you make and i appreciate the discussion