Lord Pityme

Saints
  • Content count

    5,270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Lord Pityme last won the day on September 16 2015

Lord Pityme had the most liked content!

About Lord Pityme

  • Rank
    Panel Pundit on SKY

B&W Army Custom Fields

  • Top Man

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,966 profile views
  1. It is a huge and probably unecessary gamble. If they work out, great. Are they championship winning material though? That is the target Ross has set, win the league, or the play offs.
  2. I feel sorry for you, sorry you dont have the decency to delete this.
  3. No its a Co-operative and Community Benefit Society. Reg No 2624RSront Door #KTF #BUYTHEBUDS #COYS
  4. Summer of Beith... Rewind Festival?
  5. I think there could be a financial issue in the offing as Smisa have lent the club £15k since those accounts, and were in the throws of giving them another £50k. As well as any accelerated payment I am sure Smisa were due to make a hefty payment to the sellers in July anyway. So it could be the fantastic deal struck with the sellers means Smisa has to clear the lot in tne next month or so! perhaps we should asking for a clear pictiure, (i.e. Actual figures) on this. When I asked for an update on what Smisa's accounts looked like and its potential commitments in this scenario at the AGM all i got was "its ok".
  6. No chance, I've been commando for years!
  7. Gonnae be several 'who me' looks towards anyone shouting 'Ross... ya fanny' next season then.
  8. Its a shame you are the only voice of Smisa that will talk to people on here Kenny, poor form by the others who won't/can't do social media, which I hear may become popular at some point! for me the thing that is vitally important is for Smisa to remain as it says on the tin 'Independent', we can clearly see already that the committee are being sucked into making one decision, then feeling obliged to stick with it/re-inforce it, even it has breached the constitution, or broken cast iron guarantees, as they become mired in whats best for the club - v - the membership. there is a board at SMFC, and a group of employees charged with running that successfully, they should not be going after Smisa funds just because they see them as easy pickings. What happened to the assurances from GLS that the club would be "run within its means"..? the growing danger, as you can see on here is members becoming disillusioned as they feel they have no real say, no real options and are not consulted with because the trust is being run by the club and its majority on the smisa board. More than once the phrase 'cabal' has been used. If the Smisa board cant operate, and be seen to be operating as a group who inform and consult the people who are putting up the funds, then they will see membership drop off, not some big protest or stink... but a gradual shrug of the shoulders as direct debits are cancelled with people muttering 'whats the point, no one listens". edit: where you talk of Smisa's responsibility to ensure the facilities are repaired and maintained, I would counter that its Smisa's responsibility as a near 30% shareholder to hold the board of SMFC to account over their actions and words, not to fund and do their job for them!
  9. Are you running SMFC now? Will you be accountable for all its actions? if you seek to spend YOUR members funds, contrary to what you have guaranteed they would be spent on and refuse to consult them... are you working in their best interests, or are you being manipulated by an outside body? if you don't inform and consult you are wilfully breaching the governing legislation.
  10. Totally agree, up to Ross who he picks, and in that we have to trust. But he is picking up a number of lower league players he worked with in the past its not just the one. My comment was to urge caution, not to over egg the expectancy on all these lower league signings. Some will flourish, others will in time, some won't.
  11. The Smisa committee repeatedly assured members that as soon as the BTB funds had met its targets (to pay sellers and Gordon) then that is what would happen. depending on any unaccounted monies the club recieve i.e. Transfer/Sell on fees then The sellers are entitled to accelerated payments from Gordon & Smisa. If Smisa dies not have in its account the required accelerated repayment amount it, the club will pay Smisa's shortfall, and smisa will then owe the club it is seeking to buy..! which is even more bizarre when you think its loaned/ loaning the club £65k already. I have additionally heard that the cast iron guarantee given that Smisa would buy GLS out as soon as it has the necessary funds to do so, is being wriggled out of and that GLS intends to be there for the duration, additionally funded by Smisa loans, revolving credit, discretionary spends etc... ten years minimum now.
  12. No its not a balancing act! You really should read your constitution, and understand your responsibilities to the membership. smisa board members have absolute fiduciary responsibility to its members. The club is a seperate PLC
  13. There is a monetary amount the smisa board are committed to put to the membership if they seek approval to spend over. its £500.00. big jump from there to £15000.00 or even £50,000.00
  14. Funny that! I through contacts built up over many years had a proposal drawn up to conduct a individual and group development plan, on the skills, knowledge and expertise required by committee members/ board directors in governance of organisations like Smisa. It would have been run by the Co-operative College using a consultant who was not only hugely experienced in how these organisations work, but also the responsibilities of a board member. In addition He had and continues to work with numerous Supporters Trust's, the FA and ironically the main Supporters Direct, desiging and running interventions on their behalf. have a guess how that was received by the majority of Smisa board members? Gift Horse doesn't even cover it.
  15. And right there is the reason people are losing faith in Smisa's willingness to consult with its members. I would assume with the club asking so ridiculously late in the day for a loan on 12th December to enable repairs to the USH to protect the Hogmanay game, they were not going to pay up front for the repairs, but settle the bill on satisfactory completion? that is how invoices are settled, and it was obvious at the time of the request the repairs would not be done in time, indeed Gordon told us in an update only one firm based in Hull was experienced enought to do the repairs, so the notion they would drop every other contract in the UK and rush to paisley to work through Christmas was fanciful at best. so given it would be weeks before the repairs could be made, why were the members not consulted? There was more than enough time to do so, and the general feeling is a majority would have backed it (we have to remember at this point though the Smisa committee gave repeated cast iron guarantees that the funds this loan came from were Ring-Fenced to buy and only buy the majority shareholding in SMFC) even though it was contrary to what the Smisa committee had promised. The only reasonable answer to why the membership were not consulted is that they were not 100% trusted to comply with Gordon's request for their own funds. That is why the committee were steered to give a knee-jerk approval, to an impassioned plea tugging at fans heart and purse strings. In short a shocking abuse, and downright disregard for what the Smisa committee had promised throughout BTB... to consult, to ringfence funds, to be open and transparent. to say now 'oh well it was just a mistake' is risible, everyone who voted knew they were using funds they had guaranteed were ringfenced solely to BTB, and if anyone actually thought the club needed the money then, before a repairman had even started work isnt working in the membership's best interest. you can plea till the cows come home, 'it was a one-off' or 'we were acting in the members best interests' or 'we only do this part time so do pick us up on stuff'.... but collectively as a committee if you get the biggest decisions to have faced Smisa so far, so wrong... you have to look at your capabilities, knowledge and real understanding of how an organisation like Smisa should actually be run.