gomaster

There would be a data protection breach if it is classed as 2 separate parties/organisations. You cannot share details between one party and the other without the express consent of the individual who's details you hold and plan to share. This type of question was asked at last Smisa q&a regarding promoting Smisa membership through existing details held by club and gdpr laws were quoted for that as consent of those who's details the club hold would be required before they could pass to Smisa. Basically similar scenario. Also remember there are only circa 240 1877 members but circa 2,000 season ticket holders before you add in non st holders who may be a member and buy tickets as and when they choose.

There would be a data protection breach if it is classed as 2 separate parties/organisations. You cannot share details between one party and the other without the express consent of the individual who's details you hold and plan to share. This type of question was asked at last Smisa q&a regarding promoting Smisa membership through existing details held by club and gdpr laws were quoted for that as consent of those who's details the club hold would be required before they could pass to Smisa. Basically similar scenario. Also remember there are only circa 240 1877 members but circa 2,000 season ticket holders before you add in non st holders who may be a member and buy tickets as and when they choose.

It questions whether the individuals SMISA have in the boardroom were the correct choice in the first place and whether some of their heads have been turned by the Kibble directors. What should be borne in mind is they were elected to act in the best interests of the club as well as the Smisa membership/shareholders. If they are not doing that then the current Smisa board along with whoever is voted to that board on Wednesday need to decide whether none/some or all should be removed through whatever the process actually is. 

It questions whether the individuals SMISA have in the boardroom were the correct choice in the first place and whether some of their heads have been turned by the Kibble directors. What should be borne in mind is they were elected to act in the best interests of the club as well as the Smisa membership/shareholders. If they are not doing that then the current Smisa board along with whoever is voted to that board on Wednesday need to decide whether none/some or all should be removed through whatever the process actually is. 

I spoke to a sensible fellow fan yesterday, whose opinions on business I massively respect.
He said in his experience Joint Ventures never, ever work because the interests of the two parties are never 100% fully aligned.
It's an interesting perspective as the power of veto pretty that both sides retain has pretty made the Kibble/SMiSA partnership a joint venture in all but name.
As I think I've said before I do not for one second believe Kibble to be a bad thing for the club, or a bad organisation.
Some of the people and practices they have brought into the club have made a very positive impact behind the scenes.
For me however the jury is very much out on the individuals they have in the boardroom though.
And to balance that out, I think the jury must also be out on the individuals SMiSA currently have in the boardroom too.
This has been a shit week in every possible way but the saddest and most alarming moment in all of it was the manager sitting there in his press conference two days before such a big game lamenting the negativity that the club has had to endure these last few days.
 

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. 

Firstly I can't imagine anyone firing a loaded gun publicly without having tangible evidence at their disposal. AW is not an uneducated person as far as I can see. Board statement left questions unanswered as ultimately the land issue aside they confirmed no-one knew about stage 1 application until after it had been made, what would have happened if it had reached stage 2 without anyone's knowledge? Very strange that any application especially given it passed stage 1 and went to stage 2 allegedly had incorrect land showing. Also strange the actions of the SMFC Board banning AW given from what I have read at no point has AW made any allegation against the club nor the club board but rather against Kibble so why the ban. Also, given another poster on this forum claims to have provided the initial story freelance to the press who in turn would naturally then contact parties for further comment. If that is the case then again it's not AW who has gone directly to the press. To my mind this is only going to be resolved by both sides putting respective evidence on table. Maybe it would be an idea for Smisa to appoint an independent auditor with no affiliation to kibble or any other party to investigate the allegations provided they are given access to all documents pertaining to the application from Kibble and the Council together with any associated Club Board minutes when it was discussed. The outcome of that investigation should in theory identify what actually happened and who is right/wrong and then any appropriate action could be taken thereafter.  We can all speculate as to who is right/wrong and statements can be worded in any way to potentially hide key facts or muddy the position without giving clear facts.  Only time will tell what the truth actually is and how this resolves one way or other for all parties. 

Firstly I can't imagine anyone firing a loaded gun publicly without having tangible evidence at their disposal. AW is not an uneducated person as far as I can see. Board statement left questions unanswered as ultimately the land issue aside they confirmed no-one knew about stage 1 application until after it had been made, what would have happened if it had reached stage 2 without anyone's knowledge? Very strange that any application especially given it passed stage 1 and went to stage 2 allegedly had incorrect land showing. Also strange the actions of the SMFC Board banning AW given from what I have read at no point has AW made any allegation against the club nor the club board but rather against Kibble so why the ban. Also, given another poster on this forum claims to have provided the initial story freelance to the press who in turn would naturally then contact parties for further comment. If that is the case then again it's not AW who has gone directly to the press. To my mind this is only going to be resolved by both sides putting respective evidence on table. Maybe it would be an idea for Smisa to appoint an independent auditor with no affiliation to kibble or any other party to investigate the allegations provided they are given access to all documents pertaining to the application from Kibble and the Council together with any associated Club Board minutes when it was discussed. The outcome of that investigation should in theory identify what actually happened and who is right/wrong and then any appropriate action could be taken thereafter.  We can all speculate as to who is right/wrong and statements can be worded in any way to potentially hide key facts or muddy the position without giving clear facts.  Only time will tell what the truth actually is and how this resolves one way or other for all parties. 

Firstly I can't imagine anyone firing a loaded gun publicly without having tangible evidence at their disposal. AW is not an uneducated person as far as I can see. Board statement left questions unanswered as ultimately the land issue aside they confirmed no-one knew about stage 1 application until after it had been made, what would have happened if it had reached stage 2 without anyone's knowledge? Very strange that any application especially given it passed stage 1 and went to stage 2 allegedly had incorrect land showing. Also strange the actions of the SMFC Board banning AW given from what I have read at no point has AW made any allegation against the club nor the club board but rather against Kibble so why the ban. Also, given another poster on this forum claims to have provided the initial story freelance to the press who in turn would naturally then contact parties for further comment. If that is the case then again it's not AW who has gone directly to the press. To my mind this is only going to be resolved by both sides putting respective evidence on table. Maybe it would be an idea for Smisa to appoint an independent auditor with no affiliation to kibble or any other party to investigate the allegations provided they are given access to all documents pertaining to the application from Kibble and the Council together with any associated Club Board minutes when it was discussed. The outcome of that investigation should in theory identify what actually happened and who is right/wrong and then any appropriate action could be taken thereafter.  We can all speculate as to who is right/wrong and statements can be worded in any way to potentially hide key facts or muddy the position without giving clear facts.  Only time will tell what the truth actually is and how this resolves one way or other for all parties. 

Very good analysis within the last post provided by @Doakie . I agree that it reads that other board members only became aware after application was submitted. One fundamental aspect of all this for me is who's name/s or signatures were on the stage 1 application in June 2022. Depending on exact wording in application has a person/s signature been applied in effect on behalf of the club or charity foundation without their knowledge/consent, if so that could have significant legal implications. I do not necessarily believe that this matter is closed and as such depending on what other information comes out in coming weeks or at Smisa agm, this could lead to an EGM being called of the club itself to discuss the matter in full with all parties present along with shareholders and all evidence presented by all parties to prove/disprove the allegations/situation.  The matter could also be referred to external parties to independently assess any allegation of wrongdoing.