Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Kombibuddie

The 3 Monthly Spend

43 posts in this topic

Dear SMISA,

As there is quite a healthy discussion/debate going on about the next 3 monthly spend on SMISA March Update thread in General St Mirren discussion, I'd like to propose to you, that, future "spend" votes are put to the membership 1 week in advance for similar discussion and ultimately, refinement of the options for the proposed vote.

As you can see, there are numerous additional suggestions/refinements being discussed which, if done before being put to the vote, we would not be in the position of it being too difficult to amend and will only serve to improve the options when they are put to a vote with the SMISA Membership.

I also propose that an additional option is included to each 3 monthly vote of "Do not Spend" and save when SMISA is in possession of the majority shareholding. I appreciate the discretionary £2 was presented as getting spent every 3 months but it would be prudent to retain an option of not to spend. If the £8K spend that was made available to strengthen the squad in January has had any effect, imagine what could be done with a larger pot when we return to the premier division (if the membership voted for it) or what it could be used for once the majority shareholding is in SMISA' hands and the club is in fan ownership.

Many thanks for considering.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

Dear SMISA,

As there is quite a healthy discussion/debate going on about the next 3 monthly spend on SMISA March Update thread in General St Mirren discussion, I'd like to propose to you, that, future "spend" votes are put to the membership 1 week in advance for similar discussion and ultimately, refinement of the options for the proposed vote.

As you can see, there are numerous additional suggestions/refinements being discussed which, if done before being put to the vote, we would not be in the position of it being too difficult to amend and will only serve to improve the options when they are put to a vote with the SMISA Membership.

I also propose that an additional option is included to each 3 monthly vote of "Do not Spend" and save when SMISA is in possession of the majority shareholding. I appreciate the discretionary £2 was presented as getting spent every 3 months but it would be prudent to retain an option of not to spend. If the £8K spend that was made available to strengthen the squad in January has had any effect, imagine what could be done with a larger pot when we return to the premier division (if the membership voted for it) or what it could be used for once the majority shareholding is in SMISA' hands and the club is in fan ownership.

Many thanks for considering.

Regards

Their not. :whistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear SMISA,
As there is quite a healthy discussion/debate going on about the next 3 monthly spend on SMISA March Update thread in General St Mirren discussion, I'd like to propose to you, that, future "spend" votes are put to the membership 1 week in advance for similar discussion and ultimately, refinement of the options for the proposed vote.
As you can see, there are numerous additional suggestions/refinements being discussed which, if done before being put to the vote, we would not be in the position of it being too difficult to amend and will only serve to improve the options when they are put to a vote with the SMISA Membership.
I also propose that an additional option is included to each 3 monthly vote of "Do not Spend" and save when SMISA is in possession of the majority shareholding. I appreciate the discretionary £2 was presented as getting spent every 3 months but it would be prudent to retain an option of not to spend. If the £8K spend that was made available to strengthen the squad in January has had any effect, imagine what could be done with a larger pot when we return to the premier division (if the membership voted for it) or what it could be used for once the majority shareholding is in SMISA' hands and the club is in fan ownership.
Many thanks for considering.
Regards


I'll copy this and paste across for consideration.
BuddieinEK likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 10:15 PM, TsuMirren said:

 

 


I'll copy this and paste across for consideration.

 

Tsu, any update on the consideration? Thanks

also, when does the vote for the £2 monthly spend close and when will it be published what has been voted/not voted for. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote closed wednesday night, believe the result will be going out to members alongside the notification on the AGM. I'd prefer to wait for the official update before discussing any results. I've passed on the note about the "save" option, but don't really have an update. Recent discussions have been focused on the boring stuff (for want of a better term) that will form part of the AGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TsuMirren said:

The vote closed wednesday night, believe the result will be going out to members alongside the notification on the AGM. I'd prefer to wait for the official update before discussing any results. I've passed on the note about the "save" option, but don't really have an update. Recent discussions have been focused on the boring stuff (for want of a better term) that will form part of the AGM.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Results out all proposals passed with sizeable majorities.

:withstupid

A total of 845 people voted and results were as follows:

Project one – community season tickets – 673 (80%) voted yes and 172 (20%) voted no.

Project two – hall of fame boards – 589 (70%) voted yes and 256 (30%) voted no.

Project three – youth team sponsorship – 610 (72%) voted yes and 235 (28%) voted no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hall of Fame boards could have been done a lot less expensively.  Are the SMISA board looking at that alternative?

David Mc likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really needs to be a bit more imagination re these suggestions, ie could the hospitality area not have been opened during the day with SMISA backing to allow a community group to use it; could a community development officer be hired, maybe on a temp / ad hoc basis, to work with the council and local housing associations.

Lord Pityme likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, melmac said:

There really needs to be a bit more imagination re these suggestions, ie could the hospitality area not have been opened during the day with SMISA backing to allow a community group to use it; could a community development officer be hired, maybe on a temp / ad hoc basis, to work with the council and local housing associations.

SMISA invite everyone to submit proposals for the spend, why not drop an email with your ideas ?  

As for opening the Hospitality suite for community events during the day ? Not sure about that one , isnt that what community centres etc are for ? What did you have in mind ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was endeavouring to get different people into the ground spending money and not just recirculating my (and everybody elses) smisa money to the club. Needs to be more bang for our buck, how much back do the club get for us updating the HoF boards? HeeHaw i would suggest. Is there payback to the club re comm season tickets n sponsorship measurable, nice gestures but i think not.

Lord Pityme likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vambo57 said:

Hall of Fame boards could have been done a lot less expensively.  Are the SMISA board looking at that alternative?

Yes they could have been done less expensively (and that would have been my choice,if they had to be done at all) the only option put to the vote was for completely new boards and the majority voted to spend on them, so that's what will happen. A waste of money in my opinion.

HSS, Vambo57 and Lord Pityme like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, buddiecat said:

Yes they could have been done less expensively (and that would have been my choice,if they had to be done at all) the only option put to the vote was for completely new boards and the majority voted to spend on them, so that's what will happen. A waste of money in my opinion.

Just another stream of money into the club. I think most smisa members may be unaware this is just a big game of "Gordon Says".

surprised the £2.50 youth team sponsorship made it to the vote, but then again it at least looks like its balanced.

buddiecat likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, melmac said:

I was endeavouring to get different people into the ground spending money and not just recirculating my (and everybody elses) smisa money to the club. Needs to be more bang for our buck, how much back do the club get for us updating the HoF boards? HeeHaw i would suggest. Is there payback to the club re comm season tickets n sponsorship measurable, nice gestures but i think not.

As mentioned above, all but the very cheap options put to the vote are simply the clubs wishlist. Things they could afford and should fund themselves, but given their control of smisa and its members subscriptions its just too dam tempting, and lazy to continually milk a fund that we all thought would see investment like you mention that generates a return.

the discretionary fund has in the main failed to deliver what it said on the tin! Why is theirbno option for the members to use their descretion, save the majority of quartely pot up to finance something The Members choose??? It is after all the members money, not Gordon's loose change bottle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Just another stream of money into the club. I think most smisa members may be unaware this is just a big game of "Gordon Says".

surprised the £2.50 youth team sponsorship made it to the vote, but then again it at least looks like its balanced.

It's a shame that when we got rid of the poison of Stuart Dickson that you saw fit to fill that void.

Can't remember the last positive post you made about anything do with the club. Every single post laced with negativity.

 

foxbar_bud and Smithers Jones like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

Just another stream of money into the club. I think most smisa members may be unaware this is just a big game of "Gordon Says".

surprised the £700 youth team sponsorship made it to the vote, but then again it at least looks like its balanced.

FIFY. Yes, as mentioned previously i think we should be saving the majority of the £2 for when we need it to finance the final purchase and any other emergencies we might have from now until then.

I have to disagree on it looking balanced though, £700 to get our name on shirts and thereby seen all over the Renfrewshire council area and beyond compared to £1500 to replace boards that just need a sticky back plastic overlay at most is not very balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, div said:

It's a shame that when we got rid of the poison of Stuart Dickson that you saw fit to fill that void.

Can't remember the last positive post you made about anything do with the club. Every single post laced with negativity.

 

Do you right the Daily Mail headlines too..?

"Crush The Saboteurs"....

the fact you seem happy to avoid is that, the club picks almost all the options on what the discretionary fund is spent on, and barring a couple of choices they are just plain lazy, unispiring bill payment options, that will never generate a return, or indeed a renewed interest in the community.

but hey i get that is easy to attack/smear the alternative voice, than it is to properly debate as Melmac is trying to do. Some of us would like to see bigger, better actual investments made with the fund, that have the potential to grow and generate a return. Sadly the club just want the spondulas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Do you right the Daily Mail headlines too..?

"Crush The Saboteurs"....

the fact you seem happy to avoid is that, the club picks almost all the options on what the discretionary fund is spent on, and barring a couple of choices they are just plain lazy, unispiring bill payment options, that will never generate a return, or indeed a renewed interest in the community.

but hey i get that is easy to attack/smear the alternative voice, than it is to properly debate as Melmac is trying to do. Some of us would like to see bigger, better actual investments made with the fund, that have the potential to grow and generate a return. Sadly the club just want the spondulas.

Do you have that violin playing,  tear stained post saved away for regular use as it's trotted out on a regular basis.

The £2 discretionary fund is for the SMiSA members to decide on. The options put to the SMiSA members are published and decided on by SMiSA.

If you have a problem with the way the options are chosen then you should be taking it up with SMiSA. If only you were on the committee there, eh?

FTOF likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, div said:

It's a shame that when we got rid of the poison of Stuart Dickson that you saw fit to fill that void.

Can't remember the last positive post you made about anything do with the club. Every single post laced with negativity.

 

You can't label LPM as being poison,in the same way as Mr, Dickson - nobody has ever been as bad as he is. LPM is stating his opinion here, the £2 spend can be for whatever members vote on, however there should be an option to save for when we need it rather than an option to save it an spend more on the wishes of the club board at a later date.

You're out of order comparing anyone with Mr, Dickson.

Are you looking to ban LPM at some stage ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, buddiecat said:

You can't label LPM as being poison,in the same way as Mr, Dickson - nobody has ever been as bad as he is. LPM is stating his opinion here, the £2 spend can be for whatever members vote on, however there should be an option to save for when we need it rather than an option to save it an spend more on the wishes of the club board at a later date.

You're out of order comparing anyone with Mr, Dickson.

Are you looking to ban LPM at some stage ?

I totally agree that there should be an option to save the 3 month pot and have said that myself several times.

If I had a real problem with it I'd communicate that with SMiSA though, I don't see what it's got to do with the board of the football club, and in particular the Chairman who LPM has mentioned twice in his postings above.

This coming just a couple of weeks after attacking our new major sponsor and that just days after he posted thinly veiled allegations about the agreement between SMiSA and Gordon.

If you think all of that is deemed to be positive and well intentioned then that's up to you.

I see it for exactly what it is.

FTOF and foxbar_bud like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, div said:

Do you have that violin playing,  tear stained post saved away for regular use as it's trotted out on a regular basis.

The £2 discretionary fund is for the SMiSA members to decide on. The options put to the SMiSA members are published and decided on by SMiSA.

If you have a problem with the way the options are chosen then you should be taking it up with SMiSA. If only you were on the committee there, eh?

Oh you are so wrong, and really make yourself look petty. 

Barring the very exceptional option (youth club sponsorship) the club tell smisa what they want funded, smisa dont tell the club. So in effect the membership are being asked to vote on options that in the main they did not choose.

they may still agree those are the best options, or if the comments on this forum are anything to go by they may becoming round to the view that its these options or no options??? 

On your last smisa committee comment.... at least its here for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Pityme said:

Oh you are so wrong, and really make yourself look petty. 

Barring the very exceptional option (youth club sponsorship) the club tell smisa what they want funded, smisa dont tell the club. So in effect the membership are being asked to vote on options that in the main they did not choose.

they may still agree those are the best options, or if the comments on this forum are anything to go by they may becoming round to the view that its these options or no options??? 

On your last smisa committee comment.... at least its here for all to see.

I'd have thought it only natural and sensible that the business we are in the process of buying, and the club we are in the business of supporting, tells us what it is they need help with.

I also thought SMiSA had a rep on the club board, but maybe you can correct me on that?

Vast majority of us are happy to let SMiSA and the club work together on these initiatives. If the club are proposing ideas for consideration and SMiSA take those on board and present them to the members then as far as I'm concerned that's good and healthy. The members still get to decide whether to take them forward, as they have done overwhelmingly in all cases to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0