SMiSA's Latest Update

[div]

4 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Div

Your posts are usually well considered.

On this occassion, I think you may be off the mark.

What seems to be agreed by most, if not all, is that boosting the player budget short term, may be welcome, needed, save us from relegation etc.

What appears to be troubling some folks is whether or not SMISA should be making a contriibution or in fact whether this is within the rules.

If it is within the rules then it should be possible to quote the clause involved.

 

From SMISA.NET (http://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/faq)

Quote

And the £2 will give the trust an ongoing income to be spent on whatever the members decide. Over the years, SMISA has invested money in the club, through interest-free loans to help fund infrastructure (such as the Airdome behind the away stand) or through our sponsorship of the club’s youth academy. This would allow us to continue to help take the club forward, while creating opportunities and facilities for the wider Paisley community.

Our plan is to spend the contents of the £2 pot every three months. The point is we will be able to spend it wherever we as a trust feel we can make a positive impact on the club and the town.

I can't honestly see why there is any problem here over and above the lack of any other options on the ballot. I personally think it was a bit naughty to have no other alternatives but it doesnt' specifically in the blurb say there would be.

[St.Ricky]

1 minute ago, div said:

From SMISA.NET (http://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/faq)

I can't honestly see why there is any problem here over and above the lack of any other options on the ballot. I personally think it was a bit naughty to have no other alternatives but it doesnt' specifically in the blurb say there would be.

Thank you Div.

Assuming this excerpt is in line with the purpose and rules then I would have no objection to the members making the decision they did.

Might not be a good idea to offer only one option in the future I would think.

[Lord Pityme]

As previously stated the majority will decide, and the vote should be respected.

The biggest issue for me is one shareholder (smisa) is being asked for two (so far) emergency cashflow contributions/loans when what we all agreed on last summer was the absolute need to "live within our means".

I can't think of a single poster on here among those who supported the takeover, or the fans who abstained from it ever suggesting anything other than the importance of only spending what comes in. And yet in such a short period of time the club wants additional funding from one shareholder to pay wages and repairs when we started with money in the bank!

Thats the question for the AGM, why are we evidently not living within our means? Is there more funding requests to come for BAU budget items? This is the responsibility of a major shareholder at an AGM to get answers, and to illicit what plans are in place to negate having to seek external funding after a budget has been set.

if we can't stick to the one major fiscal policy we all seemed agreed upon after a matter of weeks, where will we be in five years?

it may be a worthless request, but before responding with vitriol and the old "i am a better fan than you because the club needs the money" line.... have a think??? Go do some research... find out what a major shareholder should be doing, and compare it to our start.

Sevconians pump millions into their club, and it is still losing millions, is that the right (pun not intended) blue print for our role as a major shareholder?

 

[div]

As previously stated the majority will decide, and the vote should be respected.
The biggest issue for me is one shareholder (smisa) is being asked for two (so far) emergency cashflow contributions/loans when what we all agreed on last summer was the absolute need to "live within our means".
I can't think of a single poster on here among those who supported the takeover, or the fans who abstained from it ever suggesting anything other than the importance of only spending what comes in. And yet in such a short period of time the club wants additional funding from one shareholder to pay wages and repairs when we started with money in the bank!
Thats the question for the AGM, why are we evidently not living within our means? Is there more funding requests to come for BAU budget items? This is the responsibility of a major shareholder at an AGM to get answers, and to illicit what plans are in place to negate having to seek external funding after a budget has been set.
if we can't stick to the one major fiscal policy we all seemed agreed upon after a matter of weeks, where will we be in five years?
it may be a worthless request, but before responding with vitriol and the old "i am a better fan than you because the club needs the money" line.... have a think??? Go do some research... find out what a major shareholder should be doing, and compare it to our start.
Sevconians pump millions into their club, and it is still losing millions, is that the right (pun not intended) blue print for our role as a major shareholder?
 

Don't disagree with any of this to be honest.

A good post.

I still think we are in fairly extraordinary times right now, and I've no idea how much money was in the bank when the club was passed over so I can't comment on that bit.

[stlucifer]

10 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 

It cannot go on the back burner. SMISA have set themselves up as a Community Benefit Society and as such they have legal obligations. If they've no interest in fulfilling them they should change the way its run so they aren't misappropriating their status when applying for grants and public money.

There is no legal or even moral grounds under which need for a community benefit society should be expected to fund the repair of plant for a business with a £multi million turnover and similarly there should never have been a request for that community benefit society to fund wages for staff at the business with a £multi million turnover.

If the membership thinks the SMISA committee, who can't even follow its own constitution, is doing a good job then God help you all.
 

 

You're right StuD. All they had to do was make a pretence of agreeing with you and requested you turn up at St. Mirren Park to host   a seminar on your business acumen. Jack Frost wouldn't have stood a chance!

[stlucifer]

2 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Thank you Div.

Assuming this excerpt is in line with the purpose and rules then I would have no objection to the members making the decision they did.

Might not be a good idea to offer only one option in the future I would think.

Wasn't there were TWO options. Yes or No. Why would alternative uses need to be mentioned? Surely the alternative would be simply to bank the cash.

[Stu]

6 hours ago, faraway saint said:

To be honest, you, and a few others, have just made this up.

The second bit is also a bit foolish as he's had plenty who seem to give a single f**k, looking at the angst that is posted against him. 

This thread is beginning to look like many of the threads in General Nonsense.

Well he started it.

3 hours ago, div said:

From SMISA.NET (http://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/faq)

I can't honestly see why there is any problem here over and above the lack of any other options on the ballot. I personally think it was a bit naughty to have no other alternatives but it doesnt' specifically in the blurb say there would be.

It's probably been lost amongst all the nonsense from a certain attention seeker, however I suggested the reason for this is it'll lead to a straight majority on what is clearly a touchy subject. Having four or five topics to choose from could have seen the option of increasing the playing budget come out on top despite only 30 or 40 per cent voting for it, thus annoying the majority of folk. Not really an issue if the options to be voted on were similar to last time around, however the transfer budget winning out with less than an overall majority could have been a problem.

[St.Ricky]

12 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

Wasn't there were TWO options. Yes or No. Why would alternative uses need to be mentioned? Surely the alternative would be simply to bank the cash.

I can't speak for Div but I guess he might mean that it would be good practice to offer choices to the membership which might well include keeping it in the bank or perhaps a social purpose.

[stlucifer]

3 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

I can't speak for Div but I guess he might mean that it would be good practice to offer choices to the membership which might well include keeping it in the bank or perhaps a social purpose.

That would be three options as, by the process of elimination, a vote not to use the cash for the proposed reason would mean it stays in the bank.

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

That would be three options as, by the process of elimination, a vote not to use the cash for the proposed reason would mean it stays in the bank.

We agree then? 

[kevo_smfc]

Hi Guys I'm trying to read this forum whilst at work and you folks are posting new threads faster than I can read the old ones. (NO wise cracks I keep getting called away from my computer and that's what slows me down, not illiteracy - is that how you spell it? I run the business so I can't get a row for not working) 
Anyway the Jist of the first six pages was Stu Dickson against the rest of the world. That's the case in most threads to be honest. I've been a saints fan since I could go to the football, a SMISA subscriber since its inception and a forum member for about a fortnight.  Stu D's obsession with Rangers and his  ability to wind you guys up appears to be a source of disagreement which brings out the best or the worst in everyone. If you cut through the crap though some of his points are valid. (Non Stu D fans don't switch off just yet)
Even if his approach is controversial. A lot of you agree that SMISA should not be subsidising the playing budget. Reading through the first 6 pages I would say the NO voters are in the majority. I think most of us agree we should be negotiating a better deal for our input. We shouldn't squander our money and Interest free loans cost us money as we lose bank  interest so I think the board are being shrewd businessmen taking advantage of our loan for the USH. Maybe we should be a bit more business like next time a loan is negotiated. We should work with the board but they maybe should be a bit fairer when working with us.
My personal opinion about funding the playing budget is that we should steer well clear of that path. How many times did you guys post about overpaid players not trying. How many moans about Rangers SEVCO and them living outwith their means. My personal opinion is the Board are well out of order even asking for us to pay players wages. That is their responsibility. Personnel additions should not be funded by SMISA. Why not just pass a couple of buckets around the terraces then anyone who wants to pay players wages can donate whether they are a SMISA member or not.
Use the funds to improve the club infrastructure and cement it's relationship with the community. If the players were performing the fans coming through the gate would fund their wages. Don't turn SMISA funds into a security blanket for subsidising Dud players wages. I haven't been on here long enough to grow to Love Stu D as much as you guys but I do agree with him that paying wages is not the way forward.
 

I think there is scope there already to work in the transfer window without the 8k. The difference over the 8k is that it could help fund an extra player on loan till end of season. My thoughts are that Hardie and Walsh are most likely to return to Sevco and we will either replace them with loanees or fund a permanent signing with the aid of the 8k.

[Stuart Dickson]

Call it what it really is. It's a deliberate attempt by the SMiSA committee to manipulate the outcome of a vote. It's not the first time they've done it either, they did it with the director nominations and elections too. 

[faraway saint]

I don't get all the bluster about a couple of people throwing their toys out of the pram and withdrawing their SMISA monthly fees. There was always going to be people who see some issues as important and as such are perfectly entitled to stop their direct debits. As long as it's only a few there is no real damage. Wonder how many actually have pulled out since the take over? Anyone?

[shull]

7 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Anyone?

Aye 

At least two. 

[Callum Gilhooley]

10 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

 

I'm sorry, but I didn't notice the gun to anyone's head.

Remember this is the real world and not the figment of your imagination.

Oops I forgot I'm on his imaginary ignore list.

 

You too ?

[div]

SMiSA this week, donating £500 to a local foodbank.

Doing nothing for the community though, eh.

[pozbaird]

4 minutes ago, div said:

SMiSA this week, donating £500 to a local foodbank.

Doing nothing for the community though, eh.

Whew, thought that was our new SMiSA-funded loanee in the black fleece pictured with his wife and sister behind the first of his new weekly wage cheques.

[buddiecat]

On the under soil heating,a £15k loan to fix it in time for the Morton game, which going by the almost 5000 crowd at the last one, means that for this match the club could take in £40k or more on top of the average gate receipts so far this season, led me to vote that it was given this time and that it be interest free,because i do not believe SMiSA should be making money from the club.I was initially against the idea but then considered the figures and decided it was better to loan it than not,because if the game was not able to go ahead then the re-arranged game possibly being a week night game would almost certainly have reduced the amount of gate money by a significant amount,and even if that was not the case,i believe the money would be of more use sooner rather than later,and on my other concern,i was advised that the repair work could be done within a week and have the heating ready if needed for the derby match.So all things considered i decided it was best to loan it and lose a very small amount of interest (approx., £5 a month as Div said) from the bank.

The money surplus noted in the accounts for the year ending in May 2016 has more than likely been spent by now,i will not know when and how until the next set of accounts are published and even then it may not be clear,but i can see that it was possibly spent on the managerial change or even on new contracts given to players before Gordon actually took ownership,i simply do not know.I do know that the club has a budget and that every penny gets allocated within that budget.Which takes me on to the request for additional funding for the player budget,the money could be used to part fund new players or to get young players signed to a new contract.The club asked for it to be considered for the £2 pot spend due in January and that is what the members have been asked to consider,spend on player budget or keep it in the bank.The majority vote will win and i will accept that.The manager would get that money and it's up to him on how it's spent.

I agree that ideally there should be more than a "spend it on only 1 proposal or save it" option every quarter,so i would ask all supporters to use the contact methods on the SMiSA website to suggest options,and be aware you don't need to be a member to make contact with SMiSA.

[Stuart Dickson]

13 hours ago, buddiecat said:

On the under soil heating,a £15k loan to fix it in time for the Morton game, which going by the almost 5000 crowd at the last one, means that for this match the club could take in £40k or more on top of the average gate receipts so far this season, led me to vote that it was given this time and that it be interest free,because i do not believe SMiSA should be making money from the club.I was initially against the idea but then considered the figures and decided it was better to loan it than not,because if the game was not able to go ahead then the re-arranged game possibly being a week night game would almost certainly have reduced the amount of gate money by a significant amount,and even if that was not the case,i believe the money would be of more use sooner rather than later,and on my other concern,i was advised that the repair work could be done within a week and have the heating ready if needed for the derby match.So all things considered i decided it was best to loan it and lose a very small amount of interest (approx., £5 a month as Div said) from the bank.

The money surplus noted in the accounts for the year ending in May 2016 has more than likely been spent by now,i will not know when and how until the next set of accounts are published and even then it may not be clear,but i can see that it was possibly spent on the managerial change or even on new contracts given to players before Gordon actually took ownership,i simply do not know.I do know that the club has a budget and that every penny gets allocated within that budget.Which takes me on to the request for additional funding for the player budget,the money could be used to part fund new players or to get young players signed to a new contract.The club asked for it to be considered for the £2 pot spend due in January and that is what the members have been asked to consider,spend on player budget or keep it in the bank.The majority vote will win and i will accept that.The manager would get that money and it's up to him on how it's spent.

I agree that ideally there should be more than a "spend it on only 1 proposal or save it" option every quarter,so i would ask all supporters to use the contact methods on the SMiSA website to suggest options,and be aware you don't need to be a member to make contact with SMiSA.

It was noticeable this time round that the committee didn't send out a request to the membership looking for proposals for what to spend the funding on. Why was that if it wasn't to manipulate the vote? On here I saw a request for the bus stop style shelters to be considered for the spend - that didn't feature on the ballot - and neither did any of the losing proposals from last time round which could also have been reconsidered. 

Will SMiSA be addressing the area's of concern that I had before cancelling my membership? Will there be a publication of the minutes of the meetings for all members to scrutinise if they wish? Will there be an explanation of why the committee has 13 members, when the constitution says there will be no more than 12? Will there be openness and clarity around why two new members were co-opted onto the committee without any vote from the membership? And will there ever be an attempt from SMiSA to put the club at the heart of the community rather than just exposing it's udders for milking any time the club wants some money? 

[antrin]

WP

[Hambud]

It was noticeable this time round that the committee didn't send out a request to the membership looking for proposals for what to spend the funding on. Why was that if it wasn't to manipulate the vote? On here I saw a request for the bus stop style shelters to be considered for the spend - that didn't feature on the ballot - and neither did any of the losing proposals from last time round which could also have been reconsidered. 
Will SMiSA be addressing the area's of concern that I had before cancelling my membership? Will there be a publication of the minutes of the meetings for all members to scrutinise if they wish? Will there be an explanation of why the committee has 13 members, when the constitution says there will be no more than 12? Will there be openness and clarity around why two new members were co-opted onto the committee without any vote from the membership? And will there ever be an attempt from SMiSA to put the club at the heart of the community rather than just exposing it's udders for milking any time the club wants some money? 

Maybe you should ask them directly?

[Stuart Dickson]

1 hour ago, Hambud said:

Maybe you should ask them directly?

[rebella15]

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?

[Sonny]

88% voted to give the money to Jack . Maybe this thread can now be moved to the SMiSA forum?

[Drew]

 

7 minutes ago, Sonny said:

88% voted to give the money to Jack . Maybe this thread can now be moved to the SMiSA forum?

I'm not surprised by that percentage, to be honest. I voted not to use the money for the player budget, but fully respect (and understand) the outcome. Hopefully we won't find ourselves in such desperate straits too often as to require a similar course of action in the future.

ETA - f**k that, I'm cancelling my direct debit ya bunch of thieving, conniving ratbags!

Edited December 19, 2016 by Drew