SMISA March Update

[buddiecat]

14 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Apologies if it's been explained earlier in this thread, but wouldn't joma want to cover over the jd adverts on the side of the stands?

AYE and hopefully replace YE with YOU on the COYS boards, i cringe when i see them.

[Kombibuddie]

Apologies if it's been explained earlier in this thread, but wouldn't joma want to cover over the jd adverts on the side of the stands?

Maybe i have missed something?

What business is it of Joma's whose advertising is within our stadium?
I thought
Joma are the kit suppliers
Skyview the sponsor

When does a supplier get a say in what can or cannot be advertised within the ground?

I cannae stand JD sports & look forward to St Mirren being rid of every trace of them but unless Joma are paying us, their opinion on advertising is immaterial.

[santaponsasaint]

Maybe i have missed something?

What business is it of Joma's whose advertising is within our stadium?
I thought
Joma are the kit suppliers
Skyview the sponsor

When does a supplier get a say in what can or cannot be advertised within the ground?

I cannae stand JD sports & look forward to St Mirren being rid of every trace of them but unless Joma are paying us, their opinion on advertising is immaterial.

JD sports have a contract with St.Mirren till the end of the season. so ads round stadium will be there a wee while yet

[Kombibuddie]

3 hours ago, santaponsasaint said:

JD sports have a contract with St.Mirren till the end of the season. so ads round stadium will be there a wee while yet

That's understandable but the point is, is their a need to replace all the JD advertising with Joma advertising. Is their a contractual obligation to do so?

[Kombibuddie]

7 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

 

Difficult to do anything else now as the vote is live and the links to the vote have gone out. I'll certainly take the Warriors suggestion and the netting idea that was also mentioned back to the committee.

"Difficult" but not impossible.

Can the vote not be suspended and an email sent to everyone advising of a wee rethink and a new vote will be up & running within a week or thereabours? Surely, there is no rush to spend the money immediately.

I'd like to suggest that every vote includes an option to "save for the next vote".  

Edited April 4, 2017 by Kombibuddie
typo

[buddiecat]

33 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

"Difficult" but not impossible.

Can the vote not be suspended and an email sent to everyone advising of a wee rethink and a new vote will be up & running within a week or thereabours? Surely, there is no rush to spend the money immediately.

I'd like to suggest that every vote includes an option to "save for the next vote".  

I am with you on the idea of saving money, we do have to increase our profile with those who don't currently go to games though, also it may convince others to sign up when they see we are using funds for good reasons (did i mention i don't think HoF boards are a good use of funds IMO) i'd say that after 2 seasons of promoting the trust, we should start saving for what we are going to need when we buy out the shares, surely we need to do that to give ourselves a running start.

[faraway saint]

IF we stay up that would hopefully, provide a platform for a push for new members. Cash in on the end of season form and hopefully get more to sign up.

[HSS]

I've been disappointed in the "how to spend our money" side of SMiSA.

Last time we got to "vote" SMiSA had already decided where the money was going.

This time they're asking me to vote for spending money just for the sake of spending money.

The Season Ticket idea is a nice idea for giving under privileged people a day out at the football.No matter how much they enjoy the day out they are not going to become customers in the future.

The HoF option?I like the HoF boards but why spend £1500 on them when there is a cheaper option?

Youth Football?If you pick one team to sponsor you immediately alienate the rest of the clubs.As has been mentioned earlier,either sponsor a League or Cup and involve all the clubs.

And finally there is no option to save the money.

It's a No,No,No from me.

[pozbaird]

Who would have thought a few boards affixed to the grey breezeblock would turn into a divisive £1500 public funding issue?

FFS indeed.

[munoz]

I reckon at least a quarter of the monthly payments should be getting put aside . 

[TsuMirren]

And finally there is no option to save the money.

Yes, certainly a different option to saying any money not voted to be spent will return to the pot.

[smcc]

2 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

That's understandable but the point is, is their a need to replace all the JD advertising with Joma advertising. Is their a contractual obligation to do so?

I find it hard to believe that Joma will provide the kit free of charge without there being a quid pro quo. Stadium advertising?

[Kombibuddie]

I find it hard to believe that Joma will provide the kit free of charge without there being a quid pro quo. Stadium advertising?

The kit is being supplied free of charge?

Then of course, I too would expect Joma will want advertising too..

[Drew]

There should always be an option available to vote in favour of saving the funds (or a proportion thereof) in a pot.

I won't criticise the suggestions that have been made as I appreciate that people are exploring ideas, trying to be creative, and generally mean well. I do think the process (and the suggestions) has to be a bit more thought through, however.

In fact, here's a suggestion. Rather than feel the need to spend the funds every quarter, the default should be to bank them. If SMiSA members have considered suggestions, these could be put forward on a 'from time to time' basis. The vote should then be whether the proposal is accepted, or that the money should remain where it is.

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Drew

[Lord Pityme]

Have to agree with Poz (yeah baby i went there) the HoF panels are a waste of money, re-sticker job!

the wider community youth football is a good idea in principle, and i know The difficulties experienced in making meaningful contact with them, so why not agree to offer the kit sponsorship as a prize to a nominated league or cup winner??? That way you get a whole season/competitions worth of sponsorship exposure, and set the groundwork to expand/innovate for the future?

the season ticket issue is the one that sticks in my craw, reason being it is the club who chose where smisa funds are spent, not the other way round, and they insist that everything has to be costed, so yeah they are going to push for yet another six grand of Smisa money coming in to fund a scheme they already run ad-hoc. Its a blatant cash-grab by the club, and will as sure as eggs are eggs see real, actual participation fall off after a few games, but the club will have £6k of season tickets they can flog again on matchday if no group takes them up.

[bazil85]

You know what's great about this thread? There's a lot of different opinions and people that are voting no to certain aspects of this proposal (including myself) but there is no one threatening to take their ball and go home if the vote doesn't go their way. It's really pleasing to see, bottom line is everyone wants what's best for the club and even if that opinion differers we have 1,300 people knowing paying the £12/£25 is still in clubs best interest. No Dicks (pardon the pun) lording it over their £25 a month

My points would be, there is an option to save the funds. The option is if no wins in any one of the suggestions the funds will carry. It says it in the update.

I voted yes to the season ticket idea, purely because it's £6,000 into next years budget that St Mirren wouldn't have and its mutually beneficial for the community. To me it's a win win instead of the club doing this for free (which I imagine they will do over and above the £6,000 of season ticket books) £6,000 is a decent amount of money for a club like St Mirren.

I voted no to the stadium boards, I think the money is excessive for what they're looking to do and don't think it'll dent the relationship with the new sponsor or provide any benefit to the club or community.

I voted yes to the sponsorship of the youth team. For the sake of what the money is why not? Helps some young lads out and promotes SMISA. I would love to see them sponsor a cup or league as stated before. Maybe next time.

As for suspending the vote, I think the proposals are good and there wouldn't be a great deal of point in doing that. If anything has a no majority the money will carry over anyway.

Some other good ideas but for the amount of money, SMISA need to be tactful.

[Tommy]

Won't be voting due to having no option to save money. Seem to me it is spending money for the sake of it.

[davidg]

As I've said before on here, this is why I only pay the £10 per month. 

The money should be accumulated for bigger ideas. 

[Lord Pityme]

12 minutes ago, davidg said:

As I've said before on here, this is why I only pay the £10 per month. 

The money should be accumulated for bigger ideas. 

Maybe thats a smisa membership option that should be offered, the '£10 buy-out only' option..?

[bazil85]

Won't be voting due to having no option to save money. Seem to me it is spending money for the sake of it.

If there is a majority vote no for any one of them the money roles over. How is that not an option to save money?

[bazil85]

Maybe thats a smisa membership option that should be offered, the '£10 buy-out only' option..?

Potentially a good idea but would it take away from a lot of £12 members? The £2 discretionary fund I feel is a great idea. Most people if they can afford £10 can afford £12 and it gives us more options. Who knows what player or players we might of missed out on in January. Did the £8,000 tip the scales for Stelios, McGinn, Billy... who knows.

The good thing for me is the majority of the funds will go to St Mirren budget if the £6,000 season ticket item passes.

[Julian Banjos]

This early on in the process I think it's worth experimenting and spending money on lots of different community projects like the season tickets and youth team sponsorship. Lets see how they play out over a season then think longer term.

[bazil85]

This early on in the process I think it's worth experimenting and spending money on lots of different community projects like the season tickets and youth team sponsorship. Lets see how they play out over a season then think longer term.

Agreed. Still like I say it's great to see debate without threats of cancelling direct debits

[div]

I like the idea of the community season tickets but the problem with it is that it becomes an annual decision so if we go ahead and spend £6k on it this season and it's well used then it becomes a £6k spend we probably need to make every year (unless we want to become the bad guys taking it away after a year).

The HOF boards don't bother me either way to be honest. Seems crazy to think we couldn't get a sponsor to cover the cost and have their logo on the boards.

For £1.5K that would be a steal for any local company.

The Youth Team sponsorship I don't massively get as I'd rather see the money spent on one of our own teams or as someone else has said on a St.Mirren womens team.

All in all a bit meh for me but I've voted for them all anyway as I don't really disagree with the sentiment of any of them.

I'm assuming if some of the options aren't voted through then the money set aside for that one is banked but like many others have said I'd like to see an option every month that says "bank the whole lot" as whilst it's all very noble spending £8k every quarter I don't think it would be a bad idea to build up a reserve of say £20k so that we could start to consider bigger projects or saving up for that "rainy day".

[Suggestion]

No, No, No for me. 

Rainy day / Big Project for me.

Like the idea of a sponsoring / creating a cup, having final played at St Mirren park giving SMISA / St Mirren great exposure and giving the club funds.