Explosive Smisa application

[bazil85]

13 hours ago, gorgo said:

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
 

What mess is the club in? Off the park we are seeing record crowds, players sold for cash, other sellable assets, income from a league position we haven't met in over 30 years and potential income from European football. SMISA have over £1 million worth of assets saved up, which is going almost nowhere but to the betterment of our football club. 

There can't be many clubs in the UK that have had such a quick turnaround in fortune from disappointing annual accounts. 

If our biggest moan is a dispute over a small piece of land, between the Kibble and a former board member, I'm a happy man.  

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, golf buddie said:

So why do Kibble have veto?

Sent from my SM-S901B using Tapatalk
 

The veto only applies to a small number of points, aligned to other ownership structures with minority share holders to protect them.

It has been completely blown out of proportion, unless you are wanting a vote on us changing our strip colour or going with an astro pitch anytime soon? 

[doakie]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

What mess is the club in? Off the park we are seeing record crowds, players sold for cash, other sellable assets, income from a league position we haven't met in over 30 years and potential income from European football. SMISA have over £1 million worth of assets saved up, which is going almost nowhere but to the betterment of our football club. 

There can't be many clubs in the UK that have had such a quick turnaround in fortune from disappointing annual accounts. 

If our biggest moan is a dispute over a small piece of land, between the Kibble and a former board member, I'm a happy man.  

This isn't a dispute over "a small piece of land", Bazil, but your attempt to deflect is unsurprising.

So let's get back to the point: This thread is about Kibble employees who are directors of St.Mirren Football Club being accused of not acting in the best interests of the club and the shareholders.

This is about accusations of a lack of openness and transparency when an application for a £2.65 million grant has the name of the St.Mirren charity as a joint applicant with the Kibble while the charity knew nothing about it.

Furthermore, according to AW, the two Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St. Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members. At the club's AGM it was stated to the shareholders that the land concerned was not St.Mirren owned land. AW claims otherwise and, if he's right, the implication is that shareholders were lied to.

Smisa members and our supporters need to know what is going on at board room level and these accusations need to be answered openly and honestly.

[Albanian Buddy]

Kibble will probably just say that this was an “administrative error”.

Sweep sweep. Nothing to see here.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, doakie said:

This isn't a dispute over "a small piece of land", Bazil, but your attempt to deflect is unsurprising.

So let's get back to the point: This thread is about Kibble employees who are directors of St.Mirren Football Club being accused of not acting in the best interests of the club and the shareholders.

This is about accusations of a lack of openness and transparency when an application for a £2.65 million grant has the name of the St.Mirren charity as a joint applicant with the Kibble while the charity knew nothing about it.

Furthermore, according to AW, the two Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St. Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members. At the club's AGM it was stated to the shareholders that the land concerned was not St.Mirren owned land. AW claims otherwise and, if he's right, the implication is that shareholders were lied to.

Smisa members and our supporters need to know what is going on at board room level and these accusations need to be answered openly and honestly.

Meh, sounds like a dispute over a tiny bit of land to me. 
 

Until I see any, evidence, smoking gun on wrong doing or acting against the interests of the club, I’m inclined to believe AW is giving us just one side of a story. 

[doakie]

19 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Meh, sounds like a dispute over a tiny bit of land to me. 

Kibble employees who are directors of St.Mirren Football Club being accused of not acting in the best interests of the club and the shareholders sounds like "a dispute over a tiny bit of land" to you?

Your response simply lacks credibility.

Me? I'm inclined to believe AW but, either way, I'm not arrogant enough to casually downplay such serious allegations by labelling them as "a dispute over a tiny bit of land". Irrespective of how this plays out, it is undeniable that this is an extremely serious matter, no matter how much you try to paint it as something frivolous.

No need to reply, everyone on this forum knows your response will be pro Kibble.....as always

[Cookie Monster]

At the club's AGM it was stated to the shareholders that the land concerned was not St.Mirren owned land. AW claims otherwise and, if he's right, the implication is that shareholders were lied to.
Smisa members and our supporters need to know what is going on at board room level and these accusations need to be answered openly and honestly.

Regarding openness, AW hasn't produced the evidence regarding the land and as you wrote "IF he's right" then I for one can't vote for someone that hasn't produced the evidence for what he claims on an IF accusation.

I've emailed SMISA regarding this asking for confirmation regarding the land ownership in question. I can't see them not being able to answer this and will post the reply.

[Kombibuddie]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Until I see any, evidence, smoking gun on wrong doing or acting against the interests of the club, I’m inclined to believe AW is giving us just one side of a story. 

You are right, AW is giving just one side of a story. His.

The allegations made are not trivial & shouldn't/can't be brushed under the carpet.

starting with getting The Kibble' side of the story

 

 

[waldorf34]

A board with SG and AW  on it ,have we not been here before?

[doakie]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

Regarding openness, AW hasn't produced the evidence regarding the land and as you wrote "IF he's right" then I for one can't vote for someone that hasn't produced the evidence for what he claims on an IF accusation.
 

 

Yes, I hear you but, for the record, I'm not advocating that you (or any Smisa member) vote for any particular candidate - that's a completely separate issue.

The purpose of my original post was to highlight/publicise what I perceive to be a hugely controversial issue. I admit that my gut instinct tells me AW would not make such an accusation without having solid evidence - he's not a stupid man - but I'm sure all will be revealed in the very near future. Time will tell.

Edited May 4, 2023 by doakie

[doakie]

17 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

A board with SG and AW  on it ,have we not been here before?

Just to be clear and I'm pretty sure you'll be aware of this: There is a difference between the Smisa board and the club board

Furthermore, neither served on the club board at the same time as the other.  Sorry if I'm being pedantic 😁😁

[bazil85]

3 hours ago, doakie said:

Kibble employees who are directors of St.Mirren Football Club being accused of not acting in the best interests of the club and the shareholders sounds like "a dispute over a tiny bit of land" to you?

Your response simply lacks credibility.

Me? I'm inclined to believe AW but, either way, I'm not arrogant enough to casually downplay such serious allegations by labelling them as "a dispute over a tiny bit of land". Irrespective of how this plays out, it is undeniable that this is an extremely serious matter, no matter how much you try to paint it as something frivolous.

No need to reply, everyone on this forum knows your response will be pro Kibble.....as always

Yep, that’s what AW is moaning about really, isn’t it? 

Credibility? Extremely serious matter?  People have been crying about SMISA & the Kibble on here for years. What have we seen during the fan buyout years? A club go from potentially one game away from a league 1 club, to a club fighting for European football. A club that’s stayed in the black during that time until a pandemic hit.
 

Just like all the naesayers before, there is NO credibility in this latest round of drama. Once again, I’ll believe it when I see it. 
 

My response is pro-St Mirren & for good reason given where our great club is right now under this successful board structure. 
 

 

[Tommy]

I just wish all the BOD were pro -St Mirren  fans regardless if they work for Kibble or not, since we are doing ok on the pitch. 

[alwaystrue]

I dont really have anything to add to this topic now, I will wait and watch how things develop, I simply hope if AW has a smoking gun we see it soon for the good of the club and similarly if there I'd no gun then he enjoys his retirement and enjoys the games as a fan nothing else. 

My final point is a repeat of my first post, my votes are John and Stuart, I like what they say and stand for. And to declare bias I know John very slightly and Stuart even less than that 😁

[WeeBud]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Yep, that’s what AW is moaning about really, isn’t it? 

Credibility? Extremely serious matter?  People have been crying about SMISA & the Kibble on here for years. What have we seen during the fan buyout years? A club go from potentially one game away from a league 1 club, to a club fighting for European football. A club that’s stayed in the black during that time until a pandemic hit.
 

Just like all the naesayers before, there is NO credibility in this latest round of drama. Once again, I’ll believe it when I see it. 
 

My response is pro-St Mirren & for good reason given where our great club is right now under this successful board structure. 
 

 

So maybe, just maybe, the last great club that fell on it's arse was just a few miles up the road who's fans never asked enough questions.....other than being a SMiSA member and having a few original shares, pre-SMiSA, I have no real skin in the game but, f**k me, to not at least ask questions is bat-shit crazy.

I love the fact that we are top six and maybe heading for Europe (I've done all that before right enough) but would swap all of that for survival, we nearly lost all of that before. I'm not for a second suggesting that that's where we are but to not ask questions, especially when we are apparently fan owned, is beyond due diligence. I don't know AW personally but I've been around the club for a long time and don't believe he'd do anything deliberately to harm St Mirren.

The "nothing to see here" argument falls on it's fat arse every time and everything, in good business, is challenged every time....it's why it works.

Let it play out and hopefully the truth will out.

 

 

 

 

[doakie]

13 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

So maybe, just maybe, the last great club that fell on it's arse was just a few miles up the road who's fans never asked enough questions.....other than being a SMiSA member and having a few original shares, pre-SMiSA, I have no real skin in the game but, f**k me, to not at least ask questions is bat-shit crazy.

I love the fact that we are top six and maybe heading for Europe (I've done all that before right enough) but would swap all of that for survival, we nearly lost all of that before. I'm not for a second suggesting that that's where we are but to not ask questions, especially when we are apparently fan owned, is beyond due diligence. I don't know AW personally but I've been around the club for a long time and don't believe he'd do anything deliberately to harm St Mirren.

The "nothing to see here" argument falls on it's fat arse every time and everything, in good business, is challenged every time....it's why it works.

Let it play out and hopefully the truth will out.

 

 

 

 

Well said that man.

[hamlet]

4 hours ago, doakie said:

Just to be clear and I'm pretty sure you'll be aware of this: There is a difference between the Smisa board and the club board

Furthermore, neither served on the club board at the same time as the other.  Sorry if I'm being pedantic 😁😁

I declare that I am a shareholder in St Mirren Foootball Club. What I fail to understand is why SMISA and Kibble each are allowed to appoint, not nominate, two representatives on the Board of St Mirren Football Club.  When I purchased my shares I had the opportunity to vote in or out each and every Director at an AGM. This opportunity has now been removed. Even if Mr McMillan is found to have done a wrong, Kibble could continue with his appointment to the Club Board of Directors. If its true with the allegiance of two of the Directors elswhere they should be nowhere near our Boardroom. At least in the past we new the Directors were wearing Black and White scarves. Will they declare their interest in the event of any relevant matters that may come to a vote.  e.g B teams in the pyramid system. I would certainly not have voted for Mr McMillan, being polite, since his body language at the AGM to me said it all.

To continue to be successful on and off the field the Company require a united front and I dont think that is going to happen under the current convoluted management structure. 

[WeeBud]

7 minutes ago, hamlet said:

I declare that I am a shareholder in St Mirren Foootball Club. What I fail to understand is why SMISA and Kibble each are allowed to appoint, not nominate, two representatives on the Board of St Mirren Football Club.  When I purchased my shares I had the opportunity to vote in or out each and every Director at an AGM. This opportunity has now been removed. Even if Mr McMillan is found to have done a wrong, Kibble could continue with his appointment to the Club Board of Directors. If its true with the allegiance of two of the Directors elswhere they should be nowhere near our Boardroom. At least in the past we new the Directors were wearing Black and White scarves. Will they declare their interest in the event of any relevant matters that may come to a vote.  e.g B teams in the pyramid system. I would certainly not have voted for Mr McMillan, being polite, since his body language at the AGM to me said it all.

To continue to be successful on and off the field the Company require a united front and I dont think that is going to happen under the current convoluted management structure. 

I guess the answer is that now there are “voting blocks” that carry percentage (ie SMiSA’s 51%) and don’t really require the “show of hands” as before

[doakie]

2 minutes ago, hamlet said:

I declare that I am a shareholder in St Mirren Football Club. What I fail to understand is why SMISA and Kibble each are allowed to appoint, not nominate, two representatives on the Board of St Mirren Football Club.  When I purchased my shares I had the opportunity to vote in or out each and every Director at an AGM. This opportunity has now been removed. Even if Mr McMillan is found to have done a wrong, Kibble could continue with his appointment to the Club Board of Directors. If its true with the allegiance of two of the Directors elsewhere they should be nowhere near our Boardroom. At least in the past we new the Directors were wearing Black and White scarves. Will they declare their interest in the event of any relevant matters that may come to a vote.  e.g. B teams in the pyramid system. I would certainly not have voted for Mr McMillan, being polite, since his body language at the AGM to me said it all.

To continue to be successful on and off the field the Company require a united front and I don't think that is going to happen under the current convoluted management structure. 

Congratulations on what is, in my opinion, yet another meaningful post with some valid points. Well said.

p.s. My understanding is that Kibble's agreement means that they are allowed two directors on the board whereas Smisa are allowed four

[doakie]

Guys, there's been a few of you saying that evidence of these accusations is required. Statements such as:

AW hasn't produced the evidence.

If AW has a smoking gun.

I’m inclined to believe AW is giving us just one side of a story. 

I guess we’ll just need to wait and see if there is substance to his claim.

Alan Wardrop by the sounds of it is withholding information.

These are all valid points and part of what's been, in the main, a very healthy, respectful debate but can I just point out that every applicant to the Smisa board is limited to 500 words in their application form. Consequently, I imagine that the evidence that we're anticipating couldn't be explained in under 500 words. We'll just have to wait and see what comes next - probably at the upcoming AGM?

[Albanian Buddy]

If this “information/evidence” has been obtained via a freedom of information request then surely someone can find the relevant links/documents and post them online?

Apologies if I am missing something.

Aside from my brain.

 

[Cookie Monster]

If you hear beeping it's me in reverse gear regarding the Kibble or to be more precise the two representatives of the Kibble.

What I've found out tonight has astonished me in not a good way.

Not just that I believe they should not continue being directors of SMFC, I believe the trustees of the Kibble should ask them some pertinent questions.

Basil, it definitely isn't a wee bit of land. It's by my calculation 20% of the land owned by SMFC. [emoji44]

[Kombibuddie]

14 hours ago, doakie said:

This is about accusations of a lack of openness and transparency when an application for a £2.65 million grant has the name of the St.Mirren charity as a joint applicant with the Kibble while the charity knew nothing about it.

Surely trying to secure the funding in the way they are alleged to have done so, is tantamount to fraud?

[Cookie Monster]

If this “information/evidence” has been obtained via a freedom of information request then surely someone can find the relevant links/documents and post them online?
Apologies if I am missing something.
Aside from my brain.
 

I've been unsuccessful so far trying to find the disclosure log where the FOI requested would have the relevant information.

What I did find was the land registry documentation detailing the ownership of the land that was purchased by SMFC on 1st June 2007.

[Albanian Buddy]

9 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

If you hear beeping it's me in reverse gear regarding the Kibble or to be more precise the two representatives of the Kibble.

What I've found out tonight has astonished me in not a good way.

Not just that I believe they should not continue being directors of SMFC, I believe the trustees of the Kibble should ask them some pertinent questions.

Basil, it definitely isn't a wee bit of land. It's by my calculation 20% of the land owned by SMFC.
 

Can you please elaborate on what exactly you found?

Is this just regarding the land or the individuals? The reason I ask is that you make reference to the trustees of that “charity”. 

Btw you have no chance of getting Basil to change direction despite your U-turn.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Albanian Buddy