Explosive Smisa application

[InMehmetWeTrust]

Do our accountants or auditors also need to be Saints fans, our COO, our manager… or can we just treat people like adults and stop gossiping about who we think someone supports/supported? 

 

If people ever want to be taken seriously when raising issues of club governance, potential director wrongdoing and all the rest - maybe leave the drivel about who supports who and similar to one side. 

[SamSmith99]

1 minute ago, doakie said:

"I’d wait until everyone has heard both sides before making any assumptions."

That's obviously a fair comment but I am a bit puzzled. Which potential Smisa board member has been withholding information? ("a potential board member withholding information like this from fans isn’t making me want to sign up any quicker.")

Surely you don't mean Alan Wardrop? I apologise in advance if I've misunderstood but it's been well documented that he went public on this issue a few months ago, revealing the alleged conflict of interest at a pretty stormy meeting. He followed it up at the last Smisa meeting, promising "there's more to come". In the interim, I'm sure he'd have sought legal advice and would only have issued his statement if he was confident that he was on solid ground. We'll soon find out.

"I’ve been put off joining Smisa for a while because of the secrecy of the whole thing"

Secrecy from Smisa? Sorry, but I disagree - nothing could be further from the truth. They send out updates regularly (including news about those being co-opted).....to members!

If you're not a Smisa member I struggle to understand why you'd expect to be kept fully informed about Smisa business - it is a member's organisation, after all. Having said that, it is obviously a practical idea to provide fans who aren't members with access to the Smisa website where up to date information is readily available even for non members like yourself. The information is out there - it just comes, quite rightly, to members immediately. There's also regular updates on Twitter, Facebook etc.

I myself was very critical about the previous board's "anonymity" but the current Smisa board are, in my view, much more pro-active, more transparent than what we've experienced in the past.

I hope this gives you food for thought and perhaps re-evaluate joining. The club needs to attract more fans to not only join Smisa but to get involved, to attend the meetings and to engage in the debate and I'm lead to believe that increasing membership is a top priority for the Smisa board. Increased membership is one certain way of guaranteeing a secure future for the club, a future when we will be entirely fan owned.

Alan Wardrop by the sounds of it is withholding information - he obviously knows more than he’s detailed in his application but again, we’ll need to wait and see what comes with that.

I think my point on secrecy is entirely fair to be honest. In the last few months we’ve had someone co-opted on to the board and made interim chairman on the fly along with the previous chairman leaving without any explanation.

I’m friends with members who say the same thing - communication is poor and it would need more than a handful of updates in 2 months to change their opinions. I think more needs to be done with this to encourage more members to join and also more needs to be done to include members who can’t make meetings due to other commitments or living away from Paisley. 
 

I’d be happy to sign up in the future but at the moment I just don’t see any real incentive to join, especially as I fall in to the younger fan category and not much is really done to encourage us to sign up.

[doakie]

5 minutes ago, SamSmith99 said:

Alan Wardrop by the sounds of it is withholding information - he obviously knows more than he’s detailed in his application but again, we’ll need to wait and see what comes with that.

I think my point on secrecy is entirely fair to be honest. In the last few months we’ve had someone co-opted on to the board and made interim chairman on the fly along with the previous chairman leaving without any explanation.

I’m friends with members who say the same thing - communication is poor and it would need more than a handful of updates in 2 months to change their opinions. I think more needs to be done with this to encourage more members to join and also more needs to be done to include members who can’t make meetings due to other commitments or living away from Paisley. 
 

I’d be happy to sign up in the future but at the moment I just don’t see any real incentive to join, especially as I fall in to the younger fan category and not much is really done to encourage us to sign up.

We'll have to agree to disagree, Sam, but, for me, the incentive for any fan to sign up is to safeguard the future of the club. That's the priority.

As far as Alex Dillon is concerned, I can tell you that Eddie Devine resigned suddenly and an interim chairman was required to take the chair for a short period i.e. until the AGM. Alex was voted in and again my view is that it's no coincidence that communication has increased very noticeably in that short time.

You make valid points but the only way to have any real influence is to join and help shape the direction of the club - that's an incentive in my book. The current board are evidently listening to the younger fans hence Jack and Stuart being co-opted. 

I hope you - and many other younger fans - change your mind. 

[Albanian Buddy]

47 minutes ago, doakie said:

We'll have to agree to disagree, Sam, but, for me, the incentive for any fan to sign up is to safeguard the future of the club. That's the priority.

The current board are evidently listening to the younger fans hence Jack and Stuart being co-opted. 

I hope you - and many other younger fans - change your mind. 

Not only that but there is a SMISA entry level at £5 PM for younger fans or those on low income.

 

 

[Tommy]

2 hours ago, alanb said:

And the other K director supports the other cheek (alledgedly)

Doubt anything could surprise me about the club now.

If true, do they actually go to home games or just when the 2 cheeks are playing   🤔

Guess they didn't vote for giving the bigots 1 stand .

[Albanian Buddy]

The larger the membership - the stronger we become. @SamSmith99

Not only that but once a member you can attend AGM, Q&As with manager, and become involved with the organisation and therefore make changes happen that you 

SMISA has always supported investment into the youth academy and also supports other projects like the Paisley Panda pre-match entertainment, the community season tickets and the Women’s football club.

There are a number of SMISA members who have been members for over 20 years who have been involved in the Marching On group that resulted in one of the projects that resulted in the painting of the West Stand. 

It is vital that everyone has a voice within our great club. 

SMISA is now the majority owner of the club. 

Many of the supporters that go to the games alongside you were responsible for taking ownership of our club. 

Just because the deal is complete does not mean there is no reason to join. 

It really is not a secret society.

Everyone is welcome.

Please consider joining up and make the change necessary for future generations of Saints fans.

https://www.smisa.net/signup

 

[ALBIONSAINT]

1 hour ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Not only that but there is a SMISA entry level at £5 PM for younger fans or those on low income.

 

 

Looks like a load of draws 

[Albanian Buddy]

47 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Looks like a load of draws 

[TPAFKA Jersey 2]

4 hours ago, doakie said:

"I’d wait until everyone has heard both sides before making any assumptions."

That's obviously a fair comment but I am a bit puzzled. Which potential Smisa board member has been withholding information? ("a potential board member withholding information like this from fans isn’t making me want to sign up any quicker.")

Surely you don't mean Alan Wardrop? I apologise in advance if I've misunderstood but it's been well documented that he went public on this issue a few months ago, revealing the alleged conflict of interest at a pretty stormy meeting. He followed it up at the last Smisa meeting, promising "there's more to come". In the interim, I'm sure he'd have sought legal advice and would only have issued his statement if he was confident that he was on solid ground. We'll soon find out.

"I’ve been put off joining Smisa for a while because of the secrecy of the whole thing"

Secrecy from Smisa? Sorry, but I disagree - nothing could be further from the truth. They send out updates regularly (including news about those being co-opted).....to members!

If you're not a Smisa member I struggle to understand why you'd expect to be kept fully informed about Smisa business - it is a member's organisation, after all. Having said that, it is obviously a practical idea to provide fans who aren't members with access to the Smisa website where up to date information is readily available even for non members like yourself. The information is out there - it just comes, quite rightly, to members immediately. There's also regular updates on Twitter, Facebook etc.

I myself was very critical about the previous board's "anonymity" but the current Smisa board are, in my view, much more pro-active, more transparent than what we've experienced in the past.

I hope this gives you food for thought and perhaps re-evaluate joining. The club needs to attract more fans to not only join Smisa but to get involved, to attend the meetings and to engage in the debate and I'm lead to believe that increasing membership is a top priority for the Smisa board. Increased membership is one certain way of guaranteeing a secure future for the club, a future when we will be entirely fan owned.

I’m reluctant to join this debate as I have no real axe to grind either way on the topic. I’ll confess to just “blindly” paying my SMISA subs and justify it as supporting the club I love. 
However, just one point of order. In the above post (and others) you appear to be using the regular SMISA updates as evidence of transparency. I’m not sure that is necessarily the case is it? Surely it is only evidence of such, if it can be proven that those regular updates contain ALL of the pertinent information. 
I’m not saying they don’t by the way, just that one is not evidence of the other. 

[gorgo]

SMISA owns the majority ownership of the club. 

It may not be perfect but many of the problems have been as a result of the direct consequences of Gordon Scott wanting his money back via Kibble earlier than the original agreement.
SMISA have just released the annual accounts which demonstrate that being shite seems to be working not too bad.
Having over £320,000 cash at bank is a great position to be in.
How many other clubs of our size and stature have that accumulated?
You had an opportunity to change things if you were not happy. But you chose the easy option. [emoji112] 

 

SMISA is not St Mirren football club.
They are 2 different organisations



Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

[doakie]

52 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

I’m reluctant to join this debate as I have no real axe to grind either way on the topic. I’ll confess to just “blindly” paying my SMISA subs and justify it as supporting the club I love. 
However, just one point of order. In the above post (and others) you appear to be using the regular SMISA updates as evidence of transparency. I’m not sure that is necessarily the case is it? Surely it is only evidence of such, if it can be proven that those regular updates contain ALL of the pertinent information. 
I’m not saying they don’t by the way, just that one is not evidence of the other. 

Valid post but, in my defence M'lud, I'm arguing that point to highlight that my instincts tell me that more regular updates is a positive, a step in the right direction. You are correct, however, in your view that one is not evidence of the other.  

Let's not be side tracked though - the burning question revolves around AW's statement and the implications.

[gorgo]

Don't know why you are all greeting as SMISA voted kibble in and SMISA represent the support (PMSL)

If you want to have a go at someone then have a go with the so called I'm a life long supporter and will do my best for SMISA and St Mirren.

Opps what a stupid idea they are hiding and not facing up to the mess the club. Is in.

Just as well the on park performance has over shadowed this

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

[Albanian Buddy]

4 minutes ago, gorgo said:

SMISA is not St Mirren football club.
They are 2 different organisations



Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
 

I said SMISA is majority shareholder and displayed a snapshot of the SMISA annual accounts.

Perhaps I never clearly stated that SMISA as an organisation has over £320,000 at the bank as well as majority shareholding of St Mirren FC Ltd. 

Sorry if that was confusing.

[W6er]

I amended my vote today, as I think I was too hasty in casting it initially.   I will admit to having been influenced by P&B posters, who don't seem to think much of us!  

[golf buddie]

I said SMISA is majority shareholder and displayed a snapshot of the SMISA annual accounts.
Perhaps I never clearly stated that SMISA as an organisation has over £320,000 at the bank as well as majority shareholding of St Mirren FC Ltd. 
Sorry if that was confusing.

One thing that I find hard to swallow is stating Simsa is majority shareholders of St Mirren but as Kibble are part of Simsa stake, can Kibble and rest of shareholders outvote Simsa
I know Kibble have veto but do Kibble and rest have bigger share than Simsa

Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk

[Albanian Buddy]

8 minutes ago, golf buddie said:

 but do Kibble and rest have bigger share than Simsa


 

No. SMISA has a total of 51%.

Kibble has a minority 27.5% share separate to SMISA. 

The remaining is the other minority shareholders who are not formally represented on the club board. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Albanian Buddy

[golf buddie]

No. SMISA has a total of 51%.
Kibble has a minority 27.5% share separate to SMISA. 
The remaining is the other minority shareholders who are not formally represented on the club board. 

So why do Kibble have veto?

Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk

[StanleySaint]

1 minute ago, golf buddie said:

So why do Kibble have veto?

Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk
 

Because they wanted one and Gordon wanted his cash and no one else was capable of seeing through it.

[Albanian Buddy]

2 minutes ago, golf buddie said:

So why do Kibble have veto?

Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk
 

Fcuked if I know. The Kibble played a blinder that’s for sure. 

@StanleySaint summed it up better than me.

 

[golf buddie]

There must be a way of trying to get rid of veto??

Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk

[alanb]

8 minutes ago, golf buddie said:

There must be a way of trying to get rid of veto??

Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk
 

That would be vetoed

[Maboza]

1 hour ago, StanleySaint said:

Because they wanted one and Gordon wanted his cash and no one else was capable of seeing through it.

Indeed. They certainly got handed a fairly disproportionate amount of power for their minority stake. 

[portmahomack saint]

2 hours ago, StanleySaint said:

Because they wanted one and Gordon wanted his cash and no one else was capable of seeing through it.

So that would mean if smisa/stmirren shareholders voted to remove kibble and buy out their shares kibble could veto it,  I Did and voted against it    

[portmahomack saint]

10 hours ago, InMehmetWeTrust said:

Do our accountants or auditors also need to be Saints fans, our COO, our manager… or can we just treat people like adults and stop gossiping about who we think someone supports/supported? 

 

If people ever want to be taken seriously when raising issues of club governance, potential director wrongdoing and all the rest - maybe leave the drivel about who supports who and similar to one side. 

 I'd maybe call it unbelievable 

Stmirren fans muster to raise the funds to buy their club and appoint a Rangers and Celtic fan onto to the board of directors with a veto,  Agatha Christie couldn't make that one up 

What's next Kibble Motorhome discovered under collapsed dome  

 

[StanleySaint]

5 hours ago, portmahomack saint said:

So that would mean if smisa/stmirren shareholders voted to remove kibble and buy out their shares kibble could veto it,  I Did and voted against it    

As did I, and I still can't see the logic behind them buying shares rather than a commercial arrangement but here we are.