doakie

Maybe if supporters of a certain dead club had piped up about the state of their affairs during what was their best ever period they would still have their old club.
Success on the park doesn't necessarily mean good governance off it.

It was a dramatic evening as the video that was shot will show when Smisa release it. Amongst other things, it was decided by the members that Smisa will hold an investigation into the wellbeing application. AW took to the floor and had a "firm and frank exchange of opinions" with two members of the club board while Paul McNeil only spoke briefly to say that he'd resigned from the charitable foundation.  AW pointed out the coincidence of his resigning the same day that the complaint from the charitable foundation was given to Kibble to which he briefly replied that he resigned due to pressure of work. 

If its 4v 2 in favour of Smisa at board level then how have Kibble got their  way so often?

OH FFS!!! Get a grip. It was the players, Robinson and his management team who got us there, not the Board. How many goals (other than own goals!!) did the Board score!

Kibble’s activities 
* Report club to inland revenue
* Long term St Mirren supporting staff made redundant
* Kibble employee David Jamieson put in place as general manager
* David Jamieson replaced with another Kibble employee as 
general manager - L McLean
* Jim Gillespie interview on SMTV promises Kibble will bring greater 
financial expertise
* After the services of two Kibble general managers and Kibble’s improved financial expertise , club makes record loss in history, oddly close to the £1.5 million loss at Kibble’s failed Experience at Hillington that was managed by these two managers
* Kibble connected companies - Asigura Ltd, Renderworks awarded stadium security, stadium catering .
* Ticketing fiasco. Claims database has to be rebuilt. In reality contract broken with supplier. All fans asked to re-apply and chaos follows as does an inadequate system
* Covid blamed for no catering at stadium v Hearts. In reality all serveries stripped of catering equipment as owners refuse to deal with Kibble’s preferred ‘company’
* Fans told to bring own drinks etc to next match
* Fans then told not to bring controlled drinks containers to following matches as this is illegal
* Kibble connected companies Asigura Ltd, Asigura Facilities Management and Renderworks(now all shut down!) awarded work at academy. Academy remedial works over a year late and massively over budget, contributing to record loss
Installed domestic kitchen amongst errors and shoddy workmanship as it is ripped out and replaced with the necessary commercial version at a loss of thousands. Building work issues prevail to this day. What recourse does the club have? None
* Kibble (Allegedly) go to press re John Needham comments about Rangers supporters
* Kibble then go back to press to call for John Needham’s resignation 
* St Mirren reach out of court settlement with dismissed employee - compensation paid and legal fees incurred
* Jim Gillespie put in charge of academy (his son by now attends)
* Redundancies at academy
* Second offer to avoid court action to senior academy employee only just reached in April. Legal fees and compensation paid
* Kibble employees/children in ticket office wearing Kibble branded shirts not St Mirren
* Ticket office manager made redundant
* Senior Kibble management figure’s wife given job running ticket office
* Kibble paid £144,000 by club last year for catering etc services. So Kibble takes from the club
* Kibble applies for Government funding to build a well being centre
claiming it's a joint bid with St Mirren Charitable Foundation and with Renfrewshire Council. Bid reaches stage two
* Kibble directors on club board do not tell their SMISA nominated co-directors. St Mirren Charitable Foundation has no knowledge of this and only find out by accident. 
* Kibble directors on club board assure shareholders at AGM that proposed well-being centre is not and has never been connected to club owned land but is on adjacent land
* Jim Gillespie pulls microphone away from Mark McMillian to inform that it does not matter they lied because project did not go further. (Think about that)
* Club issues statement (through Kibble PR agency) to explain further.
* Explanation then changed by Kibble’s Jim Gillespie who says forget all that, it was a Renfrewshire Council error
* Renfrewshire Council deny this
* Team manager who has bemoaned lack of funds throughout the year backs Kibble in press
* Former board member, a true St Mirren supporter, AW who left due to Kibble’s actions calls both old firm supporting Kibble directors out for lying to the club’s supporters/SMISA members/SMISA nominated club directors
* Kibble PR ups a gear and tries to deflect
* AW banned from SMISA Stadium for speaking out against the Kibble not St Mirren which can only further suggest boardroom bullying and Kibble calling the shots.
It’s always the whistle blower who gets the blame (but only at first).
If Kibble directors who claim now to be Saints fans (how daft do they think Saints fans are) ever paid into SMISA STADIUM it was to support their teams, not ours.

Kibble achievements
* Hospitality entrance painted by unpaid children.

The only thing the players and management staff should be interested in is winning football matches. They are professionals who will be on win bonuses and financial incentives to finish as high up in the league as possible. Sadly some might already have new clubs lined up and don’t care as much as others.
They certainly don’t give a flying fcuk about any Kibble well being centres or who the fcuk runs the 1877 private members club. Our team has run out of steam. They have taken 1 point out of last 12 available at precisely the wrong time of season. To blame any of that on this off field shitshow is fcuking ludicrous. 

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.

Alan Wardrop has just issued a statement to the members of the 1877 club:
1877 Club Update
Monday 15th May, 2023 at 17.05 (after the Smisa election voting closed)

Dear 1877 Club Member

You will no doubt be aware that I have been banned from the stadium by the St.Mirren Board of Directors.

Therefore, I believe this would be the right juncture to hand things over to a new committee of 1877 Club members to take the club forward. I welcome any interested member to get in touch and I will set up an initial meeting to take it forward.

However, I also need to make you aware  of a board plan to take away the kids zone in the 1877 club affecting 21 of our junior members and their parents and replace it with a sensory room.

Personally, I think a sensory room is a great idea but I think the area under consideration is wholly inappropriate due to the close proximity to a noisy and fun supporters club.

I have suggested what I believe is a far better location situated between the family stand and west stand corner where I had been working on building executive boxes. This area already has planning permission and could provide an excellent sensory room with dedicated access and fantastic views.

However, I now think this is getting personal and I believe this is the start of the dismantling of the 1877 Supporters Club to be eventually replaced by additional corporate hospitality and the club moved to an outdoor venue such as a fans zone.

If this proposal continues I would hate it to be because of me, so I will end my roles as club host and membership Manager as soon as a committee can be formed. Please contact me if you are interested in forming part of this 6 person (my suggestion) committee.

Our club Chairman John Needham, an 1877 club member. contacted me at very short notice requesting I pass on all your personal information to him as football club Chairman which I chose not to do. Your personal information was supplied to the 1877 club and requires your permission for it to be passed from one organisation to another organisation, albeit closely linked. The 1877 club is an independent supporters club , therefore the football club has no right to your personal information without your consent .If you wish me to pass your data to Mr Needham as club Chairman please email me with your consent and I will pass it on in due course.

The current situation is a sad state of affairs and if you want your voice heard please email club Chairman [email protected] or [email protected]

As I am banned I will not be attending the last game of the season but will pass on the POTY trophies to be awarded by the SLO’s who do a wonderful job as volunteers and I would like to highlight their efforts. I also have new membership cards ready for collection, so perhaps someone (new committee member) can organise their distribution at the same end of season home game.

Finally, this e mail gives me the opportunity to share a few wee secrets with you that only a few of my closest friends know. All the financing of the POTY trophies, buying memorabillia for display in the club, buying junior members Christmas gifts, buying food and drinks for members as a thank you for their support during Covid and providing the Buddy Bus service for free have all been at my expense.

Life has been good to me so I try to give it back to the people I care about, you, my fellow buddies.

Hope to see you all at away games in the future and thank you for making the 1877 Club the St.Mirren supporters club I dreamed of.

Best wishes

Alan Wardrop

I'd add the caveat that there is a second important question that remains unanswered i.e. why did Mr. Gillespie then say in his e-mail to Smisa that the council made an error in producing plans showing the development was taking place on St.Mirren owned land only to have, according to the Herald, the council contradict that statement.
The club's relationship with Kibble is supposed to be open, transparent and honest but the evidence suggests something else.

Alan Wardrop has just issued a statement to the members of the 1877 club:
1877 Club Update
Monday 15th May, 2023 at 17.05 (after the Smisa election voting closed)

Dear 1877 Club Member

You will no doubt be aware that I have been banned from the stadium by the St.Mirren Board of Directors.

Therefore, I believe this would be the right juncture to hand things over to a new committee of 1877 Club members to take the club forward. I welcome any interested member to get in touch and I will set up an initial meeting to take it forward.

However, I also need to make you aware  of a board plan to take away the kids zone in the 1877 club affecting 21 of our junior members and their parents and replace it with a sensory room.

Personally, I think a sensory room is a great idea but I think the area under consideration is wholly inappropriate due to the close proximity to a noisy and fun supporters club.

I have suggested what I believe is a far better location situated between the family stand and west stand corner where I had been working on building executive boxes. This area already has planning permission and could provide an excellent sensory room with dedicated access and fantastic views.

However, I now think this is getting personal and I believe this is the start of the dismantling of the 1877 Supporters Club to be eventually replaced by additional corporate hospitality and the club moved to an outdoor venue such as a fans zone.

If this proposal continues I would hate it to be because of me, so I will end my roles as club host and membership Manager as soon as a committee can be formed. Please contact me if you are interested in forming part of this 6 person (my suggestion) committee.

Our club Chairman John Needham, an 1877 club member. contacted me at very short notice requesting I pass on all your personal information to him as football club Chairman which I chose not to do. Your personal information was supplied to the 1877 club and requires your permission for it to be passed from one organisation to another organisation, albeit closely linked. The 1877 club is an independent supporters club , therefore the football club has no right to your personal information without your consent .If you wish me to pass your data to Mr Needham as club Chairman please email me with your consent and I will pass it on in due course.

The current situation is a sad state of affairs and if you want your voice heard please email club Chairman [email protected] or [email protected]

As I am banned I will not be attending the last game of the season but will pass on the POTY trophies to be awarded by the SLO’s who do a wonderful job as volunteers and I would like to highlight their efforts. I also have new membership cards ready for collection, so perhaps someone (new committee member) can organise their distribution at the same end of season home game.

Finally, this e mail gives me the opportunity to share a few wee secrets with you that only a few of my closest friends know. All the financing of the POTY trophies, buying memorabillia for display in the club, buying junior members Christmas gifts, buying food and drinks for members as a thank you for their support during Covid and providing the Buddy Bus service for free have all been at my expense.

Life has been good to me so I try to give it back to the people I care about, you, my fellow buddies.

Hope to see you all at away games in the future and thank you for making the 1877 Club the St.Mirren supporters club I dreamed of.

Best wishes

Alan Wardrop

Doakie there lies the problem. They have used the clubs name and land in order to feather their own nest. When challenged they have deflected from the truth and blamed others. Furthermore they have claimed it doesn’t matter, it never got passed stage 2 anyway. (The Kibble lackey says for goodness sake it was only a Well-being Centre) Lack of honesty is a terminology being used by some however if verges on corruption. If you do something wrong at least have the integrity to take ownership of it. 
The Kibble connection was supposed to bring honesty, collaboration, cohesion and governance, amongst other corporate bullshit. The actions of the board and AW have hindered the reputation of St Mirren and i now suspect the Kibble. The Council are less likely to assist them if they know that they are going to get thrown under a bus and used as scapegoat when things go wrong.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 
 
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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

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.

The term was clearly aimed at Donald Trump, who, as of two days ago, is a proven sexual predator.

I've tried to maintain objectivity but you remind me of Donald Trump's followers. Those people who blindly continue to support a proven sexual predator   As I've said, there are further revelations to follow but no doubt you'll continue to fly the Kibble flag.