Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bazil85

  • Rank
    International Call Up

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

842 profile views
  1. saints fans survey 2017

    Yeah we get it, we know your thoughts. Majority of paying SMISA members are happy with it though Stuart so you can drop it. I'm delighted the funds were there to help us through our relegation struggle last season like the majority of paying members.
  2. saints fans survey 2017

    My days! the 'fans' on their high horse about a very positive aspect of a football club moving into fan ownership is unreal. Without the discretionary fund we may of been playing league 1 football this season, our training facility's wouldn't be as good, we wouldn't have had some new gym equipment for the team, the disabled platform would of had to come out of the club fund and we wouldn't have a season ticket batch for underprivileged people in our community to use. People might think this shouldn't be what fans money is spent on, that's their right but I wish the same people were man enough to accept that the majority of fans that pay their money a month (especially when the people moaning don't even contribute to the buy-out) have thought these uses are perfectly justified. It's been a democratic vote so for the love of god drop it! The club aren't doing anything illegal, immoral or contrary to the wishes of the majority of fans involved in the club purchase. Points taken, now I wish you'd let it go. Stuey Dicky, you can let us know how you get on grassing on your club... in fact don't bother I know exactly what the outcome will be. [emoji23][emoji23]
  3. saints fans survey 2017

    Did report it? That again sounds very similar to a previous poster on here... Well why don't we just wait and see how that goes before commenting further? We know your thoughts but they don't speak for other fans. (And certainly not for the majority paying money to the fund)
  4. Ben Gordon

    Ben Gordon would be better on Saturday than only having one available centre back. Can he play as an emergency loan player even without a club? Thought he was decent, just very unfortunate with injuries.
  5. saints fans survey 2017

    Would that make you join back up? For me SMISA is the correct vehicle because the majority of members have voted in favor of proposals put forward when they've had the option to reject. If it ever gets to the point where we have a majority saying 'No these aren't the right ideas' then sure change it. A very vocal minority don't speak for me and many others, I'm more than happy for my money to go to my football club and would always vote as my club requests. As long as it's done legally and for lawful purposes. My opinion is there has been no law breaking at all. As I said previously, if you disagree then raise it with the regulator.
  6. saints fans survey 2017

    That sounds a lot like one of our former contributors on here... Killing a ref no matter how much of a bell-end they happen to be is breaking the law, regardless if you vote on it (I know to most that would be obvious but I'm not so sure in this case). As I stated previously my professional role is heavily linked to regulatory compliance I would be under the impression from my knowledge of the set-up (which i would consider to be more than most) that SMISA, St Mirren or anyone else involved are not breaking any laws here. You can associate it as St Mirren community, Paisley community or whatever you want but you'd have some job proving wrong doing. If you do think there is some law breaking why don't you go report it? You clearly have some issue with aspects that make this football club better and people democratically voting on spending their own money. Report it to whoever you feel will listen if you feel you have that time to waste of course. Otherwise let it go and let the paying members get on with it.
  7. 140th Anniversary Kit

    I liked it. Still as long as the usual suspects get a wee Booooooo all's right with the world.
  8. The 3 Monthly Spend

  9. St Mirren's stance on SFA EBT

    Had a wee read through the recent comments. I'm not too fussed about how Airdrie did it to be honest. They requested the rights to use the old clubs name what's wrong with that? I think it's pretty clear they aren't the same club and the history of that club is pretty much Clydebank. A name change or being allowed to use a name to me isn't a big deal. Same with the new Rangers club. Look at Livi, changed their name a few times but still with an unbroken history (as far as I'm aware) no one bats an eyelid. I'm all for an independent enquiry as well but the question of new club old club has already been answered and and answered very easily. Rangers are a new club and Airdrie are a continuation of Clydebank after buying them Out .
  10. St Mirren's stance on SFA EBT

    Hahaha I don't think I've ever agreed with a post more!
  11. St Mirren's stance on SFA EBT

    Surely you're not implying that Bellside Bud is in some way oor Dickie?..
  12. saints fans survey 2017

    It can't be far away haha
  13. saints fans survey 2017

    It's good to see Stuart Dickson has a new profile. Welcome back Stuart
  14. saints fans survey 2017

    I see what you're getting at. I just think some fans that feel 'mislead' have to consider that in every vote so far there has been either a community idea put forward or the option to role the funds over (by voting against any pledge) The harsh reality is a majority of paying members have wanted the discretionary funds to mainly go to the betterment of St Mirren football club. under those circumstances I don't see how changing it can be a 'better way' How can they justify making a change to something that majority of paying members thinks works fine? Would be a bit tail wagging the dog IMO. SMISA at no time said every penny would be going to community projects, they made it completely clear it would be a democratic vote and the way they run is very much within the regulatory boundary of being and acting as a Community Benefit Society. In my current role I have to deal very heavily with regulatory and legal adherence and they are doing so. Further more, I don't think they're doing anything underhanded or sneaky in their compliance, I'm very proud of the community work from SMISA, St Mirren and other groups of St Mirren fans. From where I'm standing the only way fans can claim to be 'mislead' is if they didn't think other fans might vote differently to them and that a majority of fans might want to see their money improve their football club. If fans genuinely thought that, have to say I'm surprised. I would also raise an assumption to fans making this point, that they must of initially signed-up surely? If a reason not to be involved is the belief of being mislead, surely they were signed-up in the first place before realizing it wasn't as expected?
  15. saints fans survey 2017

    yeah i guess so, could be something they put in place. Could be a promotional technique now, something like: **** Anyone already signed or that signs up between now and say September 2018 and continues to make their monthly commitment to completion as a token of gratitude will receive XX shares in St Mirren football club upon fan ownership being achieved**** I think that would be a really good idea.