Lord Pityme Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 What's the ownership model then that would see every single rank and file St Mirren fan have real say in how the club is run, would see every fan who pays twelve quid a month make decisions, and see them all be joint partners who own the club, run the club and are equal partners in the decision making processes? I can't see one. Communism maybe? I am under no illusions - SMiSA is a vehicle which I personally put some petrol money into, but some other guys are at the wheel. I might get to vote the driver of the vehicle in or out in the future. I'm genuinely not having a dig, I just cannot see what model would satisfy what it is you seem to want, and are finding fault with, not just in the SMiSA/GLS bid, but the SG and Co ownership too. What would you propose? Your first paragraph is a bit far fetched. Simply a board elected by the people funding the club, tasked with doing the best for the club with a paid CEO to actually take care of business, who ia accountable to the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Optimistic Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 The only petty ranter here is you! I do not expect fans to be consulted on EVERY issue... I didn't even imply that. Major decisions like that one would merit consultation... and as I have already stated, had that been the case then the board would have had my support had that been the consented will of the majority. I do believe you are indeed singling me out. As it happens I DID write to the club. Isn't it interesting that a day later, Season Ticket holders were offered a £10 discount on their next ticket as the club admitted that the situation had been handled badly? The club itself admitted it, yet you still choose to attack fans who were well within their rights to protest. I think THERE would have to be a bad run of incredibly bad decisions for people to cancel THEIR direct debits under the proposed scheme... but hey... I am being the OPTIMISTIC one here! Dear Oh Dear seems like you make a habit of throwing the dummy out the pram Don't intend to get into a debate or discussion with you. Maybe you should take a deep breath and count to ten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimc87 Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Nice to see a good sensible debate about the future of our club. Main talking point seems to be about how those subscribers would have a say in the running of the club. Over the years, SMISA members have elected a committee to oversee the running of their affairs and that has worked well in the past therefore there is no reason that the same cannot apply to a new board of directors at St Mirren. We are all adults who have the best interests of St Mirren Football Club and the Community at heart. Jim C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Damn. My expectations were that my twelve quid a month would see me consulted on everything from appointing a new manager to changing the brand of coffee served in corporate. What a horrible thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Dear Oh Dear seems like you make a habit of throwing the dummy out the pram Don't intend to get into a debate or discussion with you. Maybe you should take a deep breath and count to ten. You're funny. You throw the strop and name call... Then when proven wrong do the playground thing... Lalalalalalala. Not listening. Priceless. Thanks for the laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Optimistic Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 You're funny. You throw the strop and name call... Then when proven wrong do the playground thing... Lalalalalalala. Not listening. Priceless. Thanks for the laugh. On Ignore. Don't waste my time with numpties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOWIE Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I'm in, to easy to find the negative in the bid the alternative is not worth thinking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 For those who are deeply sceptical about this, the answer is very simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mc Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Count me in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I'd call it realistic Pessimists often think that. So do narcissists in fairness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambud Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 Its not the individual, its the fact we will still, (even though we will be paying the fees) have no real say in how the club is run. And by that I mean the power to infuence how our community club is set up. One token Smisa board bod can be outvoted at every turn, whilst we pay for the privilege.... Bit like it is at present really. The names you mention all actually put their own, or at least someone elses money up front to gain complete control, we are basicslly buying Scott's shares and he gets to call the shots whilst we pay the piper. I might be wrong but pretty sure in stage 1 SMISA have the power to veto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted March 31, 2016 Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 I might be wrong but pretty sure in stage 1 SMISA have the power to veto. Correct. From my understanding there are safeguards in there that essentially make it a co-dependency with a transference of power over the term of the agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I might be wrong but pretty sure in stage 1 SMISA have the power to veto. Smisa have the right to veto GLS and whoever he appoints to the board? That would be fundamentally illegal. What Would the point of having a board if Smisa could spit its dummy out at every turn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure in this deal that SMiSA and the fans DO NOT have to buy back GS exiting Shares (8%). But that would not suit LordLookAtMe's agenda. Can you tell me what my agenda is? Dont you think perhaps there is more point in debating our thoughts, rather than posting sly comments designed to get saints fans fighting among themselves? Given your comment above, tell us what is your agenda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I don't have an agenda. I just deal with the facts. You have implied/stated that St Mirren fans are to pay back GS 8% current shareholding as part of this deal which is incorrect. I'm willing to back this deal - are you? Simple Yes/No would suffice. Where did i say smisa members were going to payback 8% to Scott? Insaid they would be paying back the debt/monies he puts up. I cast my vote in favour of the proposal, but hey dont let "facts" get in the way of the old pony you are trotting out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Two days into the debate and a certain forum user is embroiled in online in-fighting. I never saw that coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Two days into the debate and a certain forum user is embroiled in online in-fighting. I never saw that coming. Aye, stop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Face tae Face demands on the way .................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I'm just waiting for Somner9, Yul Brynner and his posse to turn up. Or are they all one of the same? Don't have a clue, and care even less. REA might know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I'm just waiting for Somner9, Yul Brynner and his posse to turn up. Or are they all one of the same? To be fair they are not....two very different people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Can you tell me what my agenda is? Dont you think perhaps there is more point in debating our thoughts, rather than posting sly comments designed to get saints fans fighting among themselves? Given your comment above, tell us what is your agenda? Isn't that what your doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I don't intend getting embroiled in tit for tat, point scoring debate over this one. I'll happily note the (often legitimate) concerns and queries of others, and any responses that might be forthcoming, but the future of the club is at stake here. I've decided that this is a punt I'm willing to take. I hope others feel confident in doing the same. There are no guarantees, but life doesn't come with many of those, and this seems to be an opportunity that might not come along again any time soon if we pass it up this time. It'll only work if we, as a collective, want it to, and put a bit of work and resource into achieving it, as others already have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I don't see a point scoring debate going on anywhere. Two legitimate points have been made and they are worth consideration. The first addressed the expectation some will have of fan power and the possible threat to finance and the second rightly points out that fans are being asked to finance Gordon Scotts Chairmanship of the club. Both points are valid and it may make a difference to how some view the takeover. For me personally I'm still in. SMISA always stated their aim was to purchase shares and to get fans represented in the boardroom. This is in line with their stated goals and the longer term objective is complete fan ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Agree with this Stuart. However I don't see any other way St Mirren fans can deliver Fan Ownership without the support of Gordon Scott. Not just financially, but someone who has inside knowledge on the inner workings of the club. The fact that he is not asking us to repay his existing 8% shareholding demonstrates that he is leaving behind a very large investment. That demonstrates to me that the SMiSA team negotiated well with him, as I think this is a very important point. Had the deal been to also repay Gordon Scott's 8% existing shareholding I would have had concerns about supporting such a bid. Put it this way how can you hard bargain with Douglas St if you had someone on your side of the table going to benefit from the same financial agreement. We won't have a better chance of gaining Fan Ownership. The time is now. I agree, obviously but if someone raises a concern it should be worth considering. Mr Optimistic raised a point yesterday about fickle people withdrawing their memberships and he was told that the point was to respect the majority decision but is it? I know its going back over old ground but if we rewind the clock back to the Rangers liquidation a few years back would I have been prepared to continue to pay funds to an organisation if its leadership had behaved in the same way that Gilmour, Campbell, and McAusland did? Or in an organisation whose membership voted in the same way others in that boardroom did that day (even if it was to save the ticket lady's job? Would I hell! So perhaps there does need to be some contingency outlined for what would happen in the event that a decision is taken that proves so unpopular it damages membership numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/st-mirren-fans-give-green-7662032#HQePHpR5ZkFevVLv.97Apologises if already posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.