Jump to content

Director Election Candidacy - Kenny Morrison


TsuMirren

Recommended Posts

There are, and have been people with relevant business and professional experience on the Smisa committee. Thats not the problem, what causes the issues is the committee completely now intertwined with the club.

as soon as the takeover was completed the club felt smisa was no longer independent and should merge with the fans council (all 12 of them). When that looked like it would be seen as too controlling/controversial a steady influx of Fc members onto the committee began. Again i dont believe any individual is doing anymore than what they think is right, but they are coming from the start point of what is good for the club, not the Smisa membership.

yes at lot of the time whats good for one is good for the other, but smisa is an independent legal entity, not the clubs plaything. I can see in the not too distant future moves being made by those now intertwined entities to change the status of smisa to allow the club full control.   And i am sure we will see a case being made to 'Water down' fan ownership. In fact its actually been happening for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


17 minutes ago, Drew said:

I was thinking about someone in a Brian Caldwell Lite type of role. Wouldn't matter to me whether he was a supporter.

If s/he isn't a supporter then surely they'd want paid which wouldn't be feasible IMO.

From what I've read on the thread over the last coupla days I get the impression that the independent nature of SMiSA is not what it was and the suggestion the Fans Council get involved kinda makes me think the game's a bogey.

Anyway long may the carnage amongst the sausage roll brigade continue! :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

If s/he isn't a supporter then surely they'd want paid which wouldn't be feasible IMO.

From what I've read on the thread over the last coupla days I get the impression that the independent nature of SMiSA is not what it was and the suggestion the Fans Council get involved kinda makes me think the game's a bogey.

Anyway long may the carnage amongst the sausage roll brigade continue! :lol:

 

I genuinely have never seen the Fans Council get involved, none of the more recent people to join the committee came from the FC. Maybe this was pre-me, I'm not even sure who on the Board/Committee during my time were former FC. The poll options go past Gordon, not the Fans Council. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

I genuinely have never seen the Fans Council get involved, none of the more recent people to join the committee came from the FC. Maybe this was pre-me, I'm not even sure who on the Board/Committee during my time were former FC. The poll options go past Gordon, not the Fans Council. 

Fair enough although at odds with what LPM says above.

I'm doubleplusglad I never signed up after reading the last couple of pages of this thread.

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/02/2018 at 9:37 PM, TsuMirren said:

You can't stop it Neil, it's the only real engagement the members get and at least everyone is committed to facilitating it. Remove the £2 pot and the SMISA committee would have no real duty to update members. Heck, you could have a committee of about three at that point. Chairman, Secretary and a Treasurer. No £2 pot, no additional cash and it all goes very ad-hoc.

Cheers Kenny, I appreciate what your saying.

I would be agreeable for the collection of the £2 to continue but not spending it until there has been a proper look at conflicts of interest (amongst other things) and  that can only really come from someone from the outside having a look at things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

I genuinely have never seen the Fans Council get involved, none of the more recent people to join the committee came from the FC. Maybe this was pre-me, I'm not even sure who on the Board/Committee during my time were former FC. The poll options go past Gordon, not the Fans Council. 

There are some people posting on here trying to turn a resignation from the SMISA committee in to a drama. Hints of all sorts of Machiavellian shenanigans going on. Covert Fans Council spies infiltrating their way on to the SMISA board to try and report back to GS and the club and fleece SMISA of that £2 per month that equates to £8k per quarter.

Am I missing something.

SMISA was originally formed as an independent group of fans to assist the club where it could but also as a group to ensure that the board at the time were accountable to the fans.

SMISA kept that stance all the way through the proposed sale of the club to potential cashless groups. They showed no interest or desire to buy the club. (possibly as they knew they could not backroll it)

SMISA then made a decision to put together their own bid to ultimately buy the club. In doing so they need the financial support of both the fans and ultimately some sugar daddy to back roll the whole thing. This is the point where SMISA no longer became independent. You can’t be independent when you are in bed with the very people that you are supposed make accountable.

The bit I am missing is the constant debate and derision about committees/board members/£2 monthly spend/SMISA/SMFC/ FC and GS. When in reality they all have the same principal agenda at the end of the day. That agenda is hopefully SMFC. When people join groups/committees/boards they do so with a desire to work and promote the organisation. However they also join with their own agenda. Sometimes you quickly find out that your agenda does not align with the organisation or with the other agendas that individuals have.

It should be remembered that GS as 51% shareholder controls the club and everything about it. He as a Director of the club and with the other Directors should still be held accountable and it is SMISA role as a shareholder, having a Director on the board and purchaser of the club to do so.

 

There is so much debate about the £2 spend and who is influencing its expenditure. Its forgotten that the actual spend is ultimately based on a vote not an individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gruffalo said:

There are some people posting on here trying to turn a resignation from the SMISA committee in to a drama. Hints of all sorts of Machiavellian shenanigans going on. Covert Fans Council spies infiltrating their way on to the SMISA board to try and report back to GS and the club and fleece SMISA of that £2 per month that equates to £8k per quarter.

Am I missing something.

SMISA was originally formed as an independent group of fans to assist the club where it could but also as a group to ensure that the board at the time were accountable to the fans.

SMISA kept that stance all the way through the proposed sale of the club to potential cashless groups. They showed no interest or desire to buy the club. (possibly as they knew they could not backroll it)

SMISA then made a decision to put together their own bid to ultimately buy the club. In doing so they need the financial support of both the fans and ultimately some sugar daddy to back roll the whole thing. This is the point where SMISA no longer became independent. You can’t be independent when you are in bed with the very people that you are supposed make accountable.

The bit I am missing is the constant debate and derision about committees/board members/£2 monthly spend/SMISA/SMFC/ FC and GS. When in reality they all have the same principal agenda at the end of the day. That agenda is hopefully SMFC. When people join groups/committees/boards they do so with a desire to work and promote the organisation. However they also join with their own agenda. Sometimes you quickly find out that your agenda does not align with the organisation or with the other agendas that individuals have.

It should be remembered that GS as 51% shareholder controls the club and everything about it. He as a Director of the club and with the other Directors should still be held accountable and it is SMISA role as a shareholder, having a Director on the board and purchaser of the club to do so.

 

There is so much debate about the £2 spend and who is influencing its expenditure. Its forgotten that the actual spend is ultimately based on a vote not an individual.

First paragraph - just plain funny

The Rest - telling everyone what they already know.

Covert FC spies ffs... who ever alluded to that? There are, as is their right FC members working/advising with smisa. Theres nothing covert about st mirren fans getting involved in their club! But in saying that you are right about 'Some' people creating a drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gruffalo said:

There is so much debate about the £2 spend and who is influencing its expenditure. Its forgotten that the actual spend is ultimately based on a vote not an individual.

Aye, a vote only  on matters which have been approved by the Chairman of the club who's COMMUNITY smisa are set up to benefit., hence smisa are a Community Benefit Society. The club aint a Community Benefit Society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For avoidance of doubt with the odd poster perhaps not fully undstanding the legal responsibilities of the Smisa committee. The committee members are legally required to put the interests, (which includes independence) of smisa and its members first above all.

they are most definitely not required to put the interests of any other organisation first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
4 hours ago, melmac said:
Aye, a vote only  on matters which have been approved by the Chairman of the club who's COMMUNITY smisa are set up to benefit., hence smisa are a Community Benefit Society. The club aint a Community Benefit Society.

melmac you sure they need to be approved by GLS?

It's certainly going something very close to that way. "What does Gordon think..." hangs over a lot of the discussion. Again, a majority will not care and in theory it does allow for issues to be covered. Thing is, the majority of club related items come from the club or are directed to SMISA by the club. It's the community stuff that, in my view anyway, should be for SMISA to run with as they're a Community Benefit Society and have a duty to the wider community (something a lot of members don't understand). If SMISA were Friends of Hearts it'd be different, but they're not.

Prime example is the Glenvale option, with the club statement being wrong on numerous levels. Your view of the option aside, the club publicly trying to steer a SMISA voting option is wrong. But, of course, you also have the view that it's just part of the democratic process. Some members have recently left because they feel SMISA should do what Gordon wants, when he wants and how he wants. So, there's plenty of opinion either way. SMISA could easily evolve away from being a CBS, but then again they could put a community work donation programme together and run community options from that (at least then you see the will to do so). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



For avoidance of doubt with the odd poster perhaps not fully undstanding the legal responsibilities of the Smisa committee. The committee members are legally required to put the interests, (which includes independence) of smisa and its members first above all.
they are most definitely not required to put the interests of any other organisation first. 


And if the members vote in favour of supporting some other organisation first, any organisation, can the committee say no? The committee must put the interests of "any other organisation" first if that's what the members want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:


 

 


And if the members vote in favour of supporting some other organisation first, any organisation, can the committee say no? The committee must put the interests of "any other organisation" first if that's what the members want.

 

No... they are legally bound to put the interests of smisa and it members first. Its a simple part of a constitution. Its not there for you, me or anyone to give our interpretation, its enshrined in law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No... they are legally bound to put the interests of smisa and it members first. Its a simple part of a constitution. Its not there for you, me or anyone to give our interpretation, its enshrined in law.
So the members, smisa after all, voting in favour of something, and the committee then actioning (is that a word?) what the members voted for is against the constitution?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:
20 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
No... they are legally bound to put the interests of smisa and it members first. Its a simple part of a constitution. Its not there for you, me or anyone to give our interpretation, its enshrined in law.

So the members, smisa after all, voting in favour of something, and the committee then actioning (is that a word?) what the members voted for is against the constitution?

You've missed the point here. As a director you have to act responsibly and protect the interests of SMISA, so in essence that's the elected or co-opted directors as opposed to the other committee members. Actioning a vote result is protecting SMISA's interests, failing to take action due to protecting the interests of others (individual, group or other)...or worse, not releasing information that could protect SMISA interests...is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither myself or my son's are one of the 1260 current members paying monthly amounts to allow "the fans" to take over ownership of the club so feel free to completely ignore my contribution to this debate. I am for now at least, only an interested bystander.

Having said that the current set up facilitated by the fans group enabled GLS to essentially invest his money (or his companies money) with as close to a virtual guarantee of it's return as could be. This appears to have been clear and unambiguous. 

He now gets to play with his shiny new toy....and so he should....and so far few if us would have many complaints on what he has done so far.

 The way things read regarding the "pot" seem to be portraying his involvement as the thin end of a very thick wedge.

The realty is that he has and will continue to have a controlling interest until he has been bought out. We best get used to it, however frustrating that might be for those serving on the committee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is it the fans who will actually own the club or SMiSA?

Im confused. The more i try and think about it the more SMiSA just looks like a company apart from the fans who will own the club.

From what i see apart from the £2 contribution spend are the fans involved at all?

Not having a moan or that, i just dont get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SaintGlenburn said:

So is it the fans who will actually own the club or SMiSA?

Im confused. The more i try and think about it the more SMiSA just looks like a company apart from the fans who will own the club.

From what i see apart from the £2 contribution spend are the fans involved at all?

Not having a moan or that, i just dont get it.

Only the fans who are members of SMISA will own the club Paul. At the moment, those members are part-owners via their SMISA membership and the majority owner is of course Gordon. There is no current plan for when SMISA take full ownership, though I'd imagine a board will be put in place to run the club with SMISA still having their own committee.

Aside from the £2, I suppose a fan can be as involved as they like so long as as he/she pays at least £144 a year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the fans who are members of SMISA will own the club Paul. At the moment, those members are part-owners via their SMISA membership and the majority owner is of course Gordon. There is no current plan for when SMISA take full ownership, though I'd imagine a board will be put in place to run the club with SMISA still having their own committee.
Aside from the £2, I suppose a fan can be as involved as they like so long as as he/she pays at least £144 a year. 
Cheers Kenny. I was just a bit confused.

Just the norm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:

You've missed the point here. As a director you have to act responsibly and protect the interests of SMISA, so in essence that's the elected or co-opted directors as opposed to the other committee members. Actioning a vote result is protecting SMISA's interests, failing to take action due to protecting the interests of others (individual, group or other)...or worse, not releasing information that could protect SMISA interests...is not.

Eh  :unsure:  Whats that got to do with the price of mince,  We would rather know why you cancelled your membership

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can see just after a few posts here that what people's understanding of what SMISA is, what it is bound to do, and how that should be independent of the club, whilst being intrinsically linked in general aims and goal is at best, muddled.

i think a good stating point is to understand that SMISA has been in place for years long before any thought/plan came about to look at fan ownership. So away from the BTB campaign Smisa actually has a day job that seems to have become much less visible, the result being a lot of buds being led to believe Smisa is the club, and the club is Smisa.

without going through the full definition, Smisa is, (and as long as it remains the 1877 Society)  totally independent of the club (although the club dont think, or treat it so). It is a legal entity in its own right, bound to put forward the interests of its members, the community and the 1877 Society above all others.

there have been attempts to suggest that the community that Smisa represents is exclusively St Mirren centric, but that is at odds with the legal status and framework a Community Benefit Society must comply with.

The club, Smisa committee, members, observers can suggest till the cows come home its just about St Mirren... however the law and body responsible for ensuring Smisa operates and complies as a Community Benefit Society hold sway. I worked tirelessly during my time on the committee to make my colleagues and club fully understand that smisa not only operated within the legal framework set out for it, but was seen to. I worked for twenty years in that sector at senior level knowing everything about how I and the organisation operated had to be first and foremost in the members and society's interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

You can see just after a few posts here that what people's understanding of what SMISA is, what it is bound to do, and how that should be independent of the club, whilst being intrinsically linked in general aims and goal is at best, muddled.

i think a good stating point is to understand that SMISA has been in place for years long before any thought/plan came about to look at fan ownership. So away from the BTB campaign Smisa actually has a day job that seems to have become much less visible, the result being a lot of buds being led to believe Smisa is the club, and the club is Smisa.

without going through the full definition, Smisa is, (and as long as it remains the 1877 Society)  totally independent of the club (although the club dont think, or treat it so). It is a legal entity in its own right, bound to put forward the interests of its members, the community and the 1877 Society above all others.

there have been attempts to suggest that the community that Smisa represents is exclusively St Mirren centric, but that is at odds with the legal status and framework a Community Benefit Society must comply with.

The club, Smisa committee, members, observers can suggest till the cows come home its just about St Mirren... however the law and body responsible for ensuring Smisa operates and complies as a Community Benefit Society hold sway. I worked tirelessly during my time on the committee to make my colleagues and club fully understand that smisa not only operated within the legal framework set out for it, but was seen to. I worked for twenty years in that sector at senior level knowing everything about how I and the organisation operated had to be first and foremost in the members and society's interest.

Clear, concise and I suggest correct in outlining  the reasons for the existence of Smisa, it's brief and governance. Thanks.

However...your post appears certain to widen rather than bridge any gaps between the club and Smisa. 

There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with each of the two clearly separate organisations should have differing views from time to time. Smisa retains control over it's affairs and the club over theirs.

The belief  that these sorts of issues could arise was what led me to decide not to join in the Buyout.  It would be good to see these "issues" put to bed and more done to encourage doubters like myself to participate.

Whilst I am not yet certain of the long term benefits of fan ownership, I am fully convinced of the benefit that work in the community can bring to the local area. Combine that with a strong local brand like our club St Mirren and this can be (is ) a force for good. 

So come on folks from all sides....recognise and respect each other's positions and move on. Thus dirty linen is unedifying and it's washing in public unesscessary.

Edited by St.Ricky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

Only the fans who are members of SMISA will own the club Paul. At the moment, those members are part-owners via their SMISA membership and the majority owner is of course Gordon. There is no current plan for when SMISA take full ownership, though I'd imagine a board will be put in place to run the club with SMISA still having their own committee.

Aside from the £2, I suppose a fan can be as involved as they like so long as as he/she pays at least £144 a year. 

Kenny what happens if you are a member through the whole period of the takeover and you die does a family member take over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Kenny what happens if you are a member through the whole period of the takeover and you die does a family member take over. 

I think that question should be directed to SMISA . Kenny is no longer a committee member or indeed a SMISA member. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

You can see just after a few posts here that what people's understanding of what SMISA is, what it is bound to do, and how that should be independent of the club, whilst being intrinsically linked in general aims and goal is at best, muddled.

i think a good stating point is to understand that SMISA has been in place for years long before any thought/plan came about to look at fan ownership. So away from the BTB campaign Smisa actually has a day job that seems to have become much less visible, the result being a lot of buds being led to believe Smisa is the club, and the club is Smisa.

without going through the full definition, Smisa is, (and as long as it remains the 1877 Society)  totally independent of the club (although the club dont think, or treat it so). It is a legal entity in its own right, bound to put forward the interests of its members, the community and the 1877 Society above all others.

there have been attempts to suggest that the community that Smisa represents is exclusively St Mirren centric, but that is at odds with the legal status and framework a Community Benefit Society must comply with.

The club, Smisa committee, members, observers can suggest till the cows come home its just about St Mirren... however the law and body responsible for ensuring Smisa operates and complies as a Community Benefit Society hold sway. I worked tirelessly during my time on the committee to make my colleagues and club fully understand that smisa not only operated within the legal framework set out for it, but was seen to. I worked for twenty years in that sector at senior level knowing everything about how I and the organisation operated had to be first and foremost in the members and society's interest.

Think we have a vacancy coming up :rolleyes: you could be the guy that could lead us to the promise land, I will nominate you if you agree to push forward some of my ideas for the £2 spend :guinness :cheers :guinness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...