SMiSA's Latest Update

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, notabuddie said:

Some people should really take a step back before they post.

A loan to the club means the club will be paying it back no issue with this as long as it does not affect the overall goal

People wanting more options you will only dilute the votes giving two options at a time should give a clear indication of what the members want.

Some should smell the coffee the high earners are not getting a game cause they are crap if they regain their form they will get back in the first team simple

If we go down there will be no community projects as you will be looking at another Gretna, clydebank etc we do not have the support to survive in the 3rd tier. We were struggling to get 4k in the top flight now we are struggling to get 2.5k how many will we lose if we go down.

The pot is to be used as and when. SMISA have given us two options this time next time I expect another two options and note they can not add to the player budget as Jan will be over. We will probably be offered the player budget in July and this time next year. How did you think fan ownership would work

Couldn't agree more! People thinking putting this money into a player is a massive gamble as well!  it's £6 per member and money that we wouldn't of had at all if it wasn't for fan ownership.  Who knows could get another Connor Newton! 

[Sonny]

In principal I am uneasy about our money being used to fund wages however in this case I will support the proposal as we are still in a perilous state and at the end of the day it's only costing me about a tenner.

[shull]

27 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

This isn't a rainy day? He inherited a squad with players that are not good enough. Clarkson, Webster, Baird, Hutton and no left back in the team. Also three loan signings that have been very disappointing. I have confidence this will be a one off. What better way to support the club than giving the money? People say a gamble, it's £6 per member. Hardly life changing sums. I have a lot more faith in Jack to spend wisely than that walloper Rae that's left us in this mess.

 

Hallelujah. 

Got it at last. 

You're correct. 

THIS ISN'T A RAINY DAY

So keep the funds in the SMISA Bank till it's pishing cats n dugs. 

PLEASE DO NOT GAMBLE THE FANS MONEY. 

Ross will save the Team with ease without spending. 

Sorry for my tone, but you deserve it. 

FFS 

Edited December 15, 2016 by shull

[shull]

22 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

And throw your toys out the pram and threaten to cancel your membership because people have a different opinion to yours? Boo goo cry me a river.

I signed up for 10 years and that's what I'll do. Anyone walking away will only hurt our club.

 

Bad Management hurts the Club. 

Not fans. 

SMISA could empty their Bank Account and hand it all to Ross who employs 2 or 3 Alan Gow types. 

Ta ta St Mirren Football Club. 

Do not gamble the SMISA FUNDS. 

And lose your Superfan SMISA default fud attitude. 

Dafty 

[shull]

19 minutes ago, notabuddie said:

Some people should really take a step back before they post.

A loan to the club means the club will be paying it back no issue with this as long as it does not affect the overall goal

People wanting more options you will only dilute the votes giving two options at a time should give a clear indication of what the members want.

Some should smell the coffee the high earners are not getting a game cause they are crap if they regain their form they will get back in the first team simple

If we go down there will be no community projects as you will be looking at another Gretna, clydebank etc we do not have the support to survive in the 3rd tier. We were struggling to get 4k in the top flight now we are struggling to get 2.5k how many will we lose if we go down.

The pot is to be used as and when. SMISA have given us two options this time next time I expect another two options and note they can not add to the player budget as Jan will be over. We will probably be offered the player budget in July and this time next year. How did you think fan ownership would work

Clubs survive in Leagues One and Two with Crowds of less than 500.

Good housekeeping is the key. 

Including Part Time wages. 

[garzo]

This is a 2 dimensional process and can't show or allow us to take full part in the debate at board or committee level. Given.
Suppose we have to trust those in position to act in our best interests.

I tend to look at these things from a business perspective and often not as a fan, although I am.

Imagine the scene at SMFC board meetings when all the fingers point towards SMISA rep and say - you get us the money, just you!
I'm not party to the inner workings of the board of SMISA committee and other funds may be forthcoming to match SMISA pledges in equal measure.
Would be good to know this.
Equal measure would be the principle to apply when investing in the business, or it becomes a loan, or is offset against shares.
Short term loans with agreed terms I have no problem with.

BTW,
I'd get a local refrigeration engineer to take a look at the USH system - see if there's a simple solution.
USH process cycle is refrigeration in reverse.
Just an observation and suggestion.

[shull]

15 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Couldn't agree more! People thinking putting this money into a player is a massive gamble as well!  it's £6 per member and money that we wouldn't of had at all if it wasn't for fan ownership.  Who knows could get another Connor Newton! 

Daft as a brush. 

[Stuart Dickson]

No you are aguing about a potential outcome not going your way, that is neither democratic or constructive.  Not only do you want a vote you want to be able to decide what goes on to the ballot paper in the first place, that is a dictatorship not a democracy.

Oh FFS. Did you miss the last two referendums where either side argued about the potential outcome?

Yep, definitely. St Mirren fans are too stupid for Fan Ownership

[Lord Pityme]

To state there would be challenges along the way on our journey to fan ownership seems already like a dim and distant little small print add on. I went into this with crystal clear vision and understanding that football clubs dont make money, they spend it, and the worst offenders spend their own and anyone elses money they can get their hands on, when it is obviously incapable of balancing its books.

So I believed and still do we could/can run the club differently, whilst meeting the challenges of cost, budget, turnover whilst involving the whole community to lift the club, town, team, and people

First thing that appealed to me in our current journey is to "live within our means", a phrase used time and again during "Buy The Buds" so I was pleasently surprised to see we had inherited a surplus at takeover with money in the bank, that I thought would be there for the unaccounted for expenses like USH repair, strengthening the squad in January, and actually building the disabled platform the previous owners abandoned after many promises.

within weeks though it seems the club board have totally abandoned the concept of "living within their means" and see whatever bank balance Smisa has as 'fair game' to plunder. First question is what happened to the surplus on the accounts?

does it currently reside in the bank accounts of messrs Rae & Farrell? Are they paid off in full, or is the club still paying them up in instalments. If ever there was a truly contradictory action to a commitment, then surely it was to say we have to live within our means, but then rack up the expense of paying off a management team, and hiring a new one after SIX league games.

Surely that was an act of folly, naivety, petulance, ego etc this club evidentially cannot afford?

Now it seems whatever the club ask for Smisa to fund... (which is bizarre when you think Smisa owes over £200k but is seen as an ethical choice to lend and seek funding from) they feel onliged to do. The whole concept of this ownership model to me was to put and keep the club on a sound financial footing, without throwing money down a pit, but it seems collectively most of us are doing, asking, suggesting that is what we do.

the club made profit in the last accounts, given where we are in the financial year a projection of end of year accounts would now be a fairly true reflection of the actuals at year end, so before we start throwing all sorts of money sticking plasters at it, should we not be asking for a full prognosis? What are the projected figures for year end, then a prudently run business can take decisions to cut costs if it is projected to miss target, or develop revenue streams to get back on track. Not pour petrol on the flames.

As a rule of thumb take a bankers approach to the club and finances, would they get a loan off a high street bank for the money they want from Smisa after full disclosure in their application???

Now the club need money seemingly just to pay wages, fix equipment etc. The Smisa members are in my opinion unfairly put in a yes/no postion in a highly evocative scenario, suggesting only their vote can "save our season"... what rot!

if Jack Ross was as billed a better manager than we sacked we would not be bottom feeding in a league with part time teams, if we need to free up funds lets start with the ageing goalkeeper who apparently is not going to play anymore, ditto the ageing centre back and the midfielder on a two year contract out on loan. Settle with them, and back the savings for essential needs. These things could 'Save our Season'...

however its a lot more easy to spend someone else's funds especially if you tweak that little think with the heart and not the head button of football fans. The vote and reasons why there even needs to be one are driven by failed business acumen, naivety, incompetence or a darker quest to control. 

The vote will be what it will be, the majority will decide, I and I suspect just about everyone lese will still be Fully paid up Smisa members, but the innocence, hope and lost belief that we are doing it differently will be damaged, and as sure as eggs are eggs they will be back for more, C'mon... why wouldn't they? The money as we are told is just sitting there.

I actully thought it was in bank acounts to pay off our debts, and buy a majority shareholding in SMFC, not to make up the wage and maintenance bill of a multi million business! Still I am sure the directors will be matching everything Smisa funds?

[Drew]

1 minute ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 

Oh FFS. Did you miss the last two referendums where either side argued about the potential outcome?

Yep, definitely. St Mirren fans are too stupid for Fan Ownership

 

Seriously Stuart, I appreciate that it's your shout, but why are you persevering with this given that the rest of us are all too stupid?

Surely you could find another use for your £25 each month?

[bazil85]

Hallelujah. 
Got it at last. 
You're correct. 
THIS ISN'T A RAINY DAY
So keep the funds in the SMISA Bank till it's pishing cats n dugs. 
PLEASE DO NOT GAMBLE THE FANS MONEY. 
Ross will save the Team with ease without spending. 
Sorry for my tone, but you deserve it. 
FFS 

But it's a deal breaker for you in regards to the fan ownership idea? Why not just vote against it and respect the outcome of the vote?

If memberships stay the same level as right now we're looking at an additional £320,000 being raised over the 10 year course to spend on our club. That's fantastic and it's all money that wouldn't be there without fans commitment. For the sake of £10,000 being put into the player budget that who knows could go towards a quality signing you're willing to completely pull out? What if everyone cancelled? What state would that leave us in?

[bazil85]

Oh FFS. Did you miss the last two referendums where either side argued about the potential outcome?

Yep, definitely. St Mirren fans are too stupid for Fan Ownership

Attention seeker. Does everyone know he pays £25 oh maybe he'll stop paying it. By the way he spends £25 a month. But he might stop, pay attention to him. You know why? he pays £25 but he can stop it anytime.

Did I mention he pays £25 a month?

[Drew]

7 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 

Oh FFS. Did you miss the last two referendums where either side argued about the potential outcome?

Yep, definitely. St Mirren fans are too stupid for Fan Ownership

 

.

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Drew
Duplicate post

[ford prefect]

Maybe the fact that we were left a f**king mess in terms of the undersoil heating, a manager who wasn't for purpose and who's recruitment policy was woefully unbalanced means that extraordinary measures like the supporters putting up money for a signing is needed. Maybe the previous incompetents in charge should be getting it in the neck rather than the people trying to clean up the mess? Don't let that get in the way of getting your frillies in a twist over a few grand

[ford prefect]

Thank God the internet wasn't around when the support paid for jack Copeland

[Pidge]

Im going to regret sticking my oar into this shitshow but here goes. 

Its hardly a gamble using the £2 pot money, which is discretionary extra cash, that SMISA can use for whatever the membership pleases, I have no problem with this at all as it doesn't adversely affect the Club or SMISA in any way. If it gives Saints a leg up in January then i'm fine with that. 

I think it is good that the club and SMISA have a relationship where if the club needs help it able to ask for it. But I worry about giving funds or a loan towards upkeep of the stadium.  There comes a point where the club needs to take responsibility for the clubs assets and not fall into a habit of using SMISA as a crutch for short term funding whenever something unforeseen comes up.  

What I do have an issue with is SMISA giving the club a £15k loan without putting it to the members first.  For me that goes against the spirit of 1 member 1 vote organisation which the buyout plan was sold to us on. That for me is the only part of this email i have a problem with. 

[Stuart Dickson]

16 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

To state there would be challenges along the way on our journey to fan ownership seems already like a dim and distant little small print add on. I went into this with crystal clear vision and understanding that football clubs dont make money, they spend it, and the worst offenders spend their own and anyone elses money they can get their hands on, when it is obviously incapable of balancing its books.

So I believed and still do we could/can run the club differently, whilst meeting the challenges of cost, budget, turnover whilst involving the whole community to lift the club, town, team, and people

First thing that appealed to me in our current journey is to "live within our means", a phrase used time and again during "Buy The Buds" so I was pleasently surprised to see we had inherited a surplus at takeover with money in the bank, that I thought would be there for the unaccounted for expenses like USH repair, strengthening the squad in January, and actually building the disabled platform the previous owners abandoned after many promises.

within weeks though it seems the club board have totally abandoned the concept of "living within their means" and see whatever bank balance Smisa has as 'fair game' to plunder. First question is what happened to the surplus on the accounts?

does it currently reside in the bank accounts of messrs Rae & Farrell? Are they paid off in full, or is the club still paying them up in instalments. If ever there was a truly contradictory action to a commitment, then surely it was to say we have to live within our means, but then rack up the expense of paying off a management team, and hiring a new one after SIX league games.

Surely that was an act of folly, naivety, petulance, ego etc this club evidentially cannot afford?

Now it seems whatever the club ask for Smisa to fund... (which is bizarre when you think Smisa owes over £200k but is seen as an ethical choice to lend and seek funding from) they feel onliged to do. The whole concept of this ownership model to me was to put and keep the club on a sound financial footing, without throwing money down a pit, but it seems collectively most of us are doing, asking, suggesting that is what we do.

the club made profit in the last accounts, given where we are in the financial year a projection of end of year accounts would now be a fairly true reflection of the actuals at year end, so before we start throwing all sorts of money sticking plasters at it, should we not be asking for a full prognosis? What are the projected figures for year end, then a prudently run business can take decisions to cut costs if it is projected to miss target, or develop revenue streams to get back on track. Not pour petrol on the flames.

As a rule of thumb take a bankers approach to the club and finances, would they get a loan off a high street bank for the money they want from Smisa after full disclosure in their application???

Now the club need money seemingly just to pay wages, fix equipment etc. The Smisa members are in my opinion unfairly put in a yes/no postion in a highly evocative scenario, suggesting only their vote can "save our season"... what rot!

if Jack Ross was as billed a better manager than we sacked we would not be bottom feeding in a league with part time teams, if we need to free up funds lets start with the ageing goalkeeper who apparently is not going to play anymore, ditto the ageing centre back and the midfielder on a two year contract out on loan. Settle with them, and back the savings for essential needs. These things could 'Save our Season'...

however its a lot more easy to spend someone else's funds especially if you tweak that little think with the heart and not the head button of football fans. The vote and reasons why there even needs to be one are driven by failed business acumen, naivety, incompetence or a darker quest to control. 

The vote will be what it will be, the majority will decide, I and I suspect just about everyone lese will still be Fully paid up Smisa members, but the innocence, hope and lost belief that we are doing it differently will be damaged, and as sure as eggs are eggs they will be back for more, C'mon... why wouldn't they? The money as we are told is just sitting there.

I actully thought it was in bank acounts to pay off our debts, and buy a majority shareholding in SMFC, not to make up the wage and maintenance bill of a multi million business! Still I am sure the directors will be matching everything Smisa funds?

Superb post. Absolutely spot on. 

 

[bazil85]

Im going to regret sticking my oar into this shitshow but here goes. 
Its hardly a gamble using the £2 pot money, which is discretionary extra cash, that SMISA can use for whatever the membership pleases, I have no problem with this at all as it doesn't adversely affect the Club or SMISA in any way. If it gives Saints a leg up in January then i'm fine with that. 
I think it is good that the club and SMISA have a relationship where if the club needs help it able to ask for it. But I worry about giving funds or a loan towards upkeep of the stadium.  There comes a point where the club needs to take responsibility for the clubs assets and not fall into a habit of using SMISA as a crutch for short term funding whenever something unforeseen comes up.  
What I do have an issue with is SMISA giving the club a £15k loan without putting it to the members first.  For me that goes against the spirit of 1 member 1 vote organisation which the buyout plan was sold to us on. That for me is the only part of this email i have a problem with. 

Can see your point mate but with it being a loan is there really any risk? The club will pay it back and if they didn't for any reason who would that impact? SMISA as an entity not the fan ownership deal from what I can see. As far as I know the money comes from SMISA members and isn't in anyway related to the fan buyout stuff. Would probably say that's not really something we should have a vote on? SMISA as a fan club can surely spend the money in their account anyway they please? Maybe that's just me.

[Drew]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

Can see your point mate but with it being a loan is there really any risk? The club will pay it back and if they didn't for any reason who would that impact? SMISA as an entity not the fan ownership deal from what I can see. As far as I know the money comes from SMISA members and isn't in anyway related to the fan buyout stuff. Would probably say that's not really something we should have a vote on? SMISA as a fan club can surely spend the money in their account anyway they please? Maybe that's just me.

 

Aye, but is the point not that we (1300 or so of us) are now SMiSA members. Whilst the main motivation for that may have been BuyTheBuds, we are fully signed up members nonetheless - ie: the 'they' is us. All of us.

Anyway, the USH heating thing is a slightly different matter. Personally, I wouldn't lose sleep over it being left as it is (buggered) unless there is potential for it to deteriorate further and cost more in the longer term. We're a diddy club, and if the cap fits.

 

[Stuart Dickson]

15 minutes ago, Drew said:

Seriously Stuart, I appreciate that it's your shout, but why are you persevering with this given that the rest of us are all too stupid?

Surely you could find another use for your £25 each month?

Absolutely Drew. There is a Fan Ownership bid just down the road from me here in Lanarkshire which already looks like it's been run by people more capable than the car crash SMiSA is turning out to be. 

I would have walked away from my SMiSA membership months ago but I held out hoping to see some proper astute leadership. Even 36 hours ago I was busy telling someone who was giving me an insight into the shambolic factions within the club that despite what he said I was going to persist with my membership in the hope that we'd see some change in the coming months. Today I've got three choices as I see it. 

1. Persist with my £25 per month membership in the hope that one day common sense will prevail. 

2. Reduce my membership down to the standard £12 per month as an act of protest against the actions of the SMiSA committee and to continue to argue from within for change. 

3. To give up and simply walk away. Cancel my SMiSA membership, admit Fan Ownership at St Mirren is a massive disaster, write off the money I've paid in already, and face up to the fact that as shite a Chairman as Stewart Gilmour was, and how much I always disagreed with him, the truth is there are many worse people that could be running the club - and that sadly most of them are holding positions of influence within the club. 

Sadly the dream of fresh ideas, prudent management, and "putting the club at the heart of the community" have all remained just that. A cruel con trick to make mugs like me part with our cash to help a millionaire play with a business with a £multi million turnover, enjoying free admission to matches all round the country, luxurious hospitality - put on for other millionaires within football -  no matter how much money they've had to beg for off the supporters, whilst putting on a turgid low quality show for the same hard pressed customers. 

It's a sad, sorry car crash. Mismanaged to f**k by people with an utterly myopic vision. What a sad day it is for the club I grew up supporting. 

[Stuart Dickson]

15 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

Can see your point mate but with it being a loan is there really any risk? The club will pay it back and if they didn't for any reason who would that impact? SMISA as an entity not the fan ownership deal from what I can see. As far as I know the money comes from SMISA members and isn't in anyway related to the fan buyout stuff. Would probably say that's not really something we should have a vote on? SMISA as a fan club can surely spend the money in their account anyway they please? Maybe that's just me.

 

What? SMiSA is a fan club? FFS

SMiSA, incase you missed it, is an organisation set up within the Independent Supporters Association to buy shares in their football club to give members an influence in their own clubs boardroom and within football in general. SMiSA launched a fan ownership to buy outright control of the club. It's supposed to be using the money to buy shares in the club. Yet we learn last night that without any consent from any of the membership at all the committee has taken it on itself to give the club an interest free loan of £15,000 to put the undersoil heating back on - plant which we are told cost £4k to run every time the club wants to use it. This £15,000 soft loan comes directly from the funds banked to be used to purchase the said shares in the club. And then on top of that, and just to prove that Gordon Scott see's SMISA members as a cash cow to be milked as often as possible, there's a further request for SMiSA funds to be used to pay wages. 

Yep....too stupid to run a football club. 

[div]

Way I see it we've got 1300 buddies pitching in £12 or £25 a month towards ensuring the club is owned by the supporters in ten years time.

In the first 5 months we've helped build a disabled platform for our fellow fans, we're now helping the club fix the undersoil heating without affecting this seasons cashflow, and we're now being asked to consider helping the manager out in January.

Meanwhile we've saved up at least £65,000 towards the share purchase.

I'm staggered anyone could treat this all as a negative

[kevo_smfc]

2 hours ago, shull said:

Jack Ross has turned things round. We will not be relegated. The present Team is good enough without any additional money thrown at it. 

It is not a rainy day. 

The lunatics are taking over. 

So why does Jack Ross insist that he is hoping to bring in new players in January, which will most likely involve departures also? If Jack Ross believes he is going to turn things around and adding to his squad is going to help our survival, what's the problem? 

The team are starting to turn a corner on the park and we still can't shake off the negativity on this forum. If you feel withdrawing your monthly payments is helping the club, then that's your choice, as it is only the person themselves that is committed to the 10 year plan without the lock down. Why not go one further and stop paying to get into the games? The board is barely in the door and they are getting shot down at every opportunity.

[scabbydug37]

I will probably get dogs abuse for this.

Firstly, SMISA members elect a committee to act on behalf of them, but complain when they do act. A similar situation with UK Government, who have been elected by the public, but do what they think is OK for the country.

Secondly, when SMISA do get control of the Club, do members get a say in the running of the club? IMO, the committee (Directors) at that time will make decisions, which in their perception, benefits the club

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So why does Jack Ross insist that he is hoping to bring in new players in January, which will most likely involve departures also? If Jack Ross believes he is going to turn things around and adding to his squad is going to help our survival, what's the problem? 

Loan players who have barely featured under Ross, such as Walsh and Hardie, will almost certainly return to their parent club which should free up a bit of money to strengthen the squad.