Jump to content

SMiSA's Latest Update


Recommended Posts


I also voted no. Pretty sure funds could've been made available by shifting players out or cancelling loans.

Thought saving money and having cash in the kitty was high up on the list in the summer, now after 6 months we have nothing. Pretty disappointing.

I can only hope that the £9000 plus can be put to good use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rebella15 said:

The wording is player buget , not new players , do you consider it gamble to give the young players new extended contracts or should we just lose them in the summer?

There you go again. 

It's not the responsibility of SMiSA Members to pay players wages - particularly not if they are the only shareholders being asked to dig deep. If there isn't sufficient money in budgets for players and contracts then that is the fault of the chairman and the board of directors who would have sanctioned the spending of the budget to date. If a promising youngster passes through the clubs fingers as a result of the boards mismanagement then it's certainly not the SMiSA membership that is to blame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go again. 
It's not the responsibility of SMiSA Members to pay players wages - particularly not if they are the only shareholders being asked to dig deep. If there isn't sufficient money in budgets for players and contracts then that is the fault of the chairman and the board of directors who would have sanctioned the spending of the budget to date. If a promising youngster passes through the clubs fingers as a result of the boards mismanagement then it's certainly not the SMiSA membership that is to blame. 


What part of the collective £2 fund being a discretionary pot of money is it that you don't understand? One minute you go on about factions and the next you want SMISA to go tell the club to get screwed.

It's currently the responsibility of SMISA to gain control of St Mirren and part of that has to be looking at ways to contribute to or develop various areas of the club's operations. So far we've seen community projects, infrastructure and now the playing budget being focus of that assignment of funds. It's been a decent spread and not a begging bowl by any means. As for what is next, for April spend, I'm absolutely certain the views of the club, SMISA members and others will be taken on board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

What part of the collective £2 fund being a discretionary pot of money is it that you don't understand? One minute you go on about factions and the next you want SMISA to go tell the club to get screwed.

It's currently the responsibility of SMISA to gain control of St Mirren and part of that has to be looking at ways to contribute to or develop various areas of the club's operations. So far we've seen community projects, infrastructure and now the playing budget being focus of that assignment of funds. It's been a decent spread and not a begging bowl by any means. As for what is next, for April spend, I'm absolutely certain the views of the club, SMISA members and others will be taken on board.

 

I understand perfectly well that the £2 per member per month is a discretionary pot of money. What I don't understand is why the SMiSA Committee have taken it upon themselves to be the sole purveyors of this discretion. Only if the committee deem a suggestion worthwhile is it put to the membership. My suggestion for the first vote - a community spend likely to generate funds - was left off the ballot paper completely with no explanation. The suggestion this month that some of the funds be used for the portable bus stop style shelter was left off the ballot paper completely. How can anyone on the SMiSA committee look members in the face and say they are giving members a voice? Did anyone actually ask the question I put forward for the AGM tonight? I've certainly had no feedback - surprise surprise. :rolleyes:

Have the minutes of meetings been published for members to read as yet? Has there been a proper explanation of why SMiSA has 13 committee members when the constitution says there should be no more than 12? Why were two new members co-opted onto the board without any consultation of the membership? You do understand that the purpose of a committee is to serve it's members not to rule over them, don't you? 

 

 

 

Edited by Stuart Dickson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time i looked, St Mirren was a football club that is struggling and needs a bit of help to get out of the situation it currently finds itself in.

If that help takes the form of the supporter's trust providing funding that the club either cannot currently afford or does not have available to keep the recently acquired momentum going, to protect the revenue that will come from financially lucrative matches or to enable the manager to attract players to the club to strengthen his squad and get us up the table, I don't see why some have a problem with either decision.

In short, if the club has reduced revenue from being unable to play scheduled home games or continues to limp along with a squad where certain positions have been identified as weak points, I can only see that having one result so it is surely a "no brainer" that SMISA should assist, particularly as 88% of the membership that voted was in favour of investing in the playing squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DXBBud said:

Last time i looked, St Mirren was a football club that is struggling and needs a bit of help to get out of the situation it currently finds itself in.

If that help takes the form of the supporter's trust providing funding that the club either cannot currently afford or does not have available to keep the recently acquired momentum going, to protect the revenue that will come from financially lucrative matches or to enable the manager to attract players to the club to strengthen his squad and get us up the table, I don't see why some have a problem with either decision.

In short, if the club has reduced revenue from being unable to play scheduled home games or continues to limp along with a squad where certain positions have been identified as weak points, I can only see that having one result so it is surely a "no brainer" that SMISA should assist, particularly as 88% of the membership that voted was in favour of investing in the playing squad.

Last time I looked, St Mirren were a business with a £2.1m annual turnover, spending £1.26m per annum on wages and associated employee costs. Incase you've not noticed that is one of the highest wage bills in the division. Yet if we're to believe the pish you've just posted, and the shite the SMISA Committee peddled, £8k will make all the difference now. 

That money should have been invested in growth, not squandered on wages and the fact that only one option was presented to the membership is an utter disgrace. And as for your claim that 88% of the membership voted for the spend - well all I can say about that is that I thought I was supposed to be the one shite at percentages. Of 1300 odd members only 690 voted yes to the first vote and 672 in the second. That's nowhere near 88% of membership - unless of course they've lost nearly 500 members in the last month. :rolleyes:  

You're right about one thing though - no brains. St Mirren fans really are too stupid for fan ownership. :rolleyes:

Edited by Stuart Dickson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Last time I looked, St Mirren were a business with a £2.1m annual turnover, spending £1.26m per annum on wages and associated employee costs. Incase you've not noticed that is one of the highest wage bills in the division. Yet if we're to believe the pish you've just posted, and the shite the SMISA Committee peddled, £8k will make all the difference now. 

That money should have been invested in growth, not squandered on wages and the fact that only one option was presented to the membership is an utter disgrace. And as for your claim that 88% of the membership voted for the spend - well all I can say about that is that I thought I was supposed to be the one shite at percentages. Of 1300 odd members only 690 voted yes to the first vote and 672 in the second. That's nowhere near 88% of membership - unless of course they've lost nearly 500 members in the last month. :rolleyes:  

Oh my, someone's irritable this morning.

Your points regarding the club being a business are noted, but businesses often struggle with cash flow. Surely it is better that those who actually care about the club support it rather than find ourselves getting back into loans and overdrafts with banks.

As for your reading of my comment on the recent vote, take another look at what I wrote and, if necessary, follow the words with your finger before reading what you want them to say rather what they actually say, in order to continue your diatribe against a club that you so openly talk down yet are on this forum at 5.30 am!!!!

This is the first direct communication I've had with you here and it serves only to support everything that the majority have suggested in posts I have read here. 

Edited by DXBBud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as for your claim that 88% of the membership voted for the spend - well all I can say about that is that I thought I was supposed to be the one shite at percentages. Of 1300 odd members only 690 voted yes to the first vote and 672 in the second. That's nowhere near 88% of membership - unless of course they've lost nearly 500 members in the last month. :rolleyes:  
You're right about one thing though - no brains. St Mirren fans really are too stupid for fan ownership. :rolleyes:


You are certainly shite at arithmetic Stuart.

794 members voted in the ballot. The percentages are spot on.

The whole country didn't vote in the independence referendum, the general election or the EU referendum either.

Turnout was lower than I'd have expected but junior members don't get a vote, and the voting window was only a few days so I assume many might have missed it.

And there was two choices in the ballot, not one.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand perfectly well that the £2 per member per month is a discretionary pot of money. What I don't understand is why the SMiSA Committee have taken it upon themselves to be the sole purveyors of this discretion. Only if the committee deem a suggestion worthwhile is it put to the membership. My suggestion for the first vote - a community spend likely to generate funds - was left off the ballot paper completely with no explanation. The suggestion this month that some of the funds be used for the portable bus stop style shelter was left off the ballot paper completely. How can anyone on the SMiSA committee look members in the face and say they are giving members a voice? Did anyone actually ask the question I put forward for the AGM tonight? I've certainly had no feedback - surprise surprise. :rolleyes:
Have the minutes of meetings been published for members to read as yet? Has there been a proper explanation of why SMiSA has 13 committee members when the constitution says there should be no more than 12? Why were two new members co-opted onto the board without any consultation of the membership? You do understand that the purpose of a committee is to serve it's members not to rule over them, don't you? 
 
 
 



Who were the new 2 members appointed to the SMISA Committee?

Was this done at the AGM?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I looked, St Mirren were a business with a £2.1m annual turnover, spending £1.26m per annum on wages and associated employee costs. Incase you've not noticed that is one of the highest wage bills in the division. Yet if we're to believe the pish you've just posted, and the shite the SMISA Committee peddled, £8k will make all the difference now. 
That money should have been invested in growth, not squandered on wages and the fact that only one option was presented to the membership is an utter disgrace. And as for your claim that 88% of the membership voted for the spend - well all I can say about that is that I thought I was supposed to be the one shite at percentages. Of 1300 odd members only 690 voted yes to the first vote and 672 in the second. That's nowhere near 88% of membership - unless of course they've lost nearly 500 members in the last month. :rolleyes:  
You're right about one thing though - no brains. St Mirren fans really are too stupid for fan ownership. :rolleyes:



I would ask you to watch your mouth as you're claiming that SMISA members are stupid & as I am a member your saying I'm stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The product on the park has to start getting points on the board which will hopefully bring more punters through the gates. More punters through the gates, generates extra income. Its obvious as a short term measure investment on the squad is required and if 8k makes a difference then so be it. Its hardly a quarter of a million thats been handed over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




Who were the new 2 members appointed to the SMISA Committee?

Was this done at the AGM?


I think I've fallen in to the trap of getting crossed wires a bit between board and committee. As a result I'll back track a wee bit and try to explain a bit better. The constitution sets out a limit and guidelines for the board, but the commitee is different. As far as I'm aware, only one external director has been co-opted to the board since the last AGM although. The commitee though is larger with I'd say 13 attending. My understanding may need tidied up, the whole organisation probably needs tidied up too since moving from a few hundred members to over 1K. At the moment I'm just glad, proud even, to be in a position to assist. Come the next AGM it'll hopefully, I know discussions are ongoing, all be sorted out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks that any other option on the ballet would of won other than player budget they are very naive. 80+% is a landslide and I don't imagine many of them would of changed to a community vote or they'd of voted no. Can say we'll never know but common sense says it would of been player fund. SMISA have clearly known this and that's why they've only put two options on the vote. No big deal in my opinion, a fraction of the money we will raise over next 10 years £500 to a local food bank this week among other great things they've done.

Few people spat the dummy because things didn't go their way. Like someone said earlier you're always going to get people that don't play nice when things don't go their way. It's now none of their concern the rubbings of SMISA and the fan buy out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tam M said:

Didn't vote for the money to go to the players budget, but my issue was the lack of alternative options. I hope we can get more options on the list going forwards.

Moving forward i`m sure we will Tam. But these are pretty desperate times and call for some pretty desperate measures.

My understanding of the pool of money was it was to be used for the overall common good of the club .

A Rainy day fund as some have called it..... Newsflash ... Its pissing down and we need an Umbrella !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, notabuddie said:

I would prefer that only two options are put to the vote each time as that way you will ensure that the winning option will have more than 50% if the votes cast. Any more options then you will run the risk of the winning option having less than 50%.

Can you imagine what the thread would be like if that were to happen

Completely agree, no point dilution the options.  Bottom line is as good as community programs and the likes are great, need to believe the club will put forward what's best for the club.  Right now that's survival.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, div said:

 


You are certainly shite at arithmetic Stuart.

794 members voted in the ballot. The percentages are spot on.

The whole country didn't vote in the independence referendum, the general election or the EU referendum either.

Turnout was lower than I'd have expected but junior members don't get a vote, and the voting window was only a few days so I assume many might have missed it.

And there was two choices in the ballot, not one.

 

 

English too, and just to be clear for the hard of thinking, that's saying that you're not very good at English as well as arithmetic, not that you are English

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goodness 88% voted for to give manager help with the players budget. 

Reading the nonsense on here about cancelling membership etc etc when quite clearly this is a very popular decision among the fans. God help us when we get a contentious issue that wins by about 52%. 

The other thing I find strange is only 12% of people voted no but reading above those 12% make up a large percentage of the people who post on here. Lots on here saying that they voted no.

Thank god for the HUGE silent majority.

ETA. Well done SMiSA 

Edited by Kendo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sonny said:

One poster resigned their membership so that should make it a bit quieter around here in future as SMiSA is no longer their concern.

Hmm, doesn't appear to have had that effect just yet.... :rolleyes:

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

 


I think I've fallen in to the trap of getting crossed wires a bit between board and committee. As a result I'll back track a wee bit and try to explain a bit better. The constitution sets out a limit and guidelines for the board, but the commitee is different. As far as I'm aware, only one external director has been co-opted to the board since the last AGM although. The commitee though is larger with I'd say 13 attending. My understanding may need tidied up, the whole organisation probably needs tidied up too since moving from a few hundred members to over 1K. At the moment I'm just glad, proud even, to be in a position to assist. Come the next AGM it'll hopefully, I know discussions are ongoing, all be sorted out.

 

This is how laughable SMiSA are. Even their own committee members don't understand their constitution. :rolleyes:

SMISA Constitution for anyone wanting to read it without having to hunt for the single word link hidden away on the SMiSA website

Kenny, read page 2. What I call the SMISA Committee, is defined as "the board". Committee meetings are defined as "board meetings". And Committee Members are terms "directors". So for clarity you were co-opted onto the board of the 1877 Society, which is a Community Benefit Society, and as a "Director" of this society, you are supposed to be upholding the constitution. 

Now check out this

Quote

56. The Society shall have a Board of Directors comprising not less than five and not more than twelve persons

Yet you've got 13. The latest two - one of which is you - were co-opted onto the Society Board of Directors without any consultation with the membership and no minutes of meetings provided to explain why the Society have breached their own constitution. 

Zip back again to this

Quote

3. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PURPOSE The Society’s purpose is to be the vehicle through which a healthy, balanced and constructive relationship between the Club and its supporters and the communities it serves is encouraged and developed. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members.

Has the Society conducted it's business for the benefit of the community served by the club? Has it achieved it's aim with an interest free loan to the £multi million business that is St Mirren FC, and with handing over money to contribute to players wages? 

I'm glad I resigned my membership. Imagine ever entrusting the current group of committee members with the running of St Mirren FC. By f**k they'd be hopeless. 

Edited by Stuart Dickson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you have had a suggestion refused?
Not sure what involment you have had in a community project but most are loss making. When you consider football as a business the only way to generate money is through footfall through the gates. Or leasing out the facilities however the major draw back on that is every second Saturday and some mid week slots are unavailable not taking into account rescheduled games replays international games leasing would really be as and when rather than a commitment over a period of time.

So basically you are asking SMISA to give money away for not a lot in return.

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...