The 3 Monthly Spend

[Callum Gilhooley]

I am the first to admit that i dont really understand fully the legal position on this ,nor indeed the moral or ethical side of what can and cant be done with the funds and this may well be a naive thing to say  but isnt the whole point of buying the buds and our contributions to ensure our club thrives and prospers.

What would the posistion be when we do own the club outright ? Would we have to foot the bill for things like this in the future ? Ceratinly that is my understanding so i cant see it makes a whole lot of difference now.  The surface needs replaced,surely  the options are the club takes on debt which we will inherit or we let Ralston wither and see severly restricted training and youth facilites.

As i said, i dont understand it all and i say this not to cause argument but if we want to own a club , we better prepare for things like this as the stadium and ralston need repairs etc. Some people have called for a rainy day fund to prepare for bills like this and i agree, surely this is a bit of rain come early ?

[Wilbur]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

How much more independent were you expecting for an organisation set-up specifically to buy St Mirren and ran by St Mirren fans? Of course they're going to work in partnership, whole thing would fall apart if they didn't. 

Maybe I should have paid more attention when I attended the meetings that were held when SMiSA was being proposed / set-up.

Maybe I should have asked more than the 2 or 3 questions I did about how significant "independent" was in the name of the proposed organisation. 

My understanding at the time (presumably completely wrong in light of your post) was that the principal aim of SMiSA would be to assist the club in any way possible at a time when St Mirren were in deep doo-doo financially.  The premise of SMiSA, as I understood at the time of its inception, was to raise finance from St Mirren fans to help to bail out the club during extremely difficult times (on and off the pitch) in exchange (hopefully) for (new issue) St Mirren shares which would give fans some influence with the Board and perhaps ultimately lead to a SMiSA member being offered a place on the Board. I hadn't realised at the time that total ownership was always to be the end-game.

My bad obviously.

[Stu]

53 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

I’m not a SMiSA member so have no bias towards either side of the argument here, but just out of interest. Trying to cut through everything - have I got this right.... punters who signed up were told that their £10 payment portion would be ring-fenced for the purchase of the shares.... now SMiSA want to use this money to fund a pitch at Ralston.

A simple yes/no would suffice to enlighten me if I’ve read this correctly.

Kind of 

Yes, the £50k will come from the money ringfenced for share purchase (the £10 a month). However, it will be topped back up from future £2 a month payments which are currently used to fund the ideas SMiSA members get to vote on.

I think 

[pozbaird]

Just now, Stu said:

Kind of 

Yes, the £50k will come from the money ringfenced for share purchase (the £10 a month). However, it will be topped back up from future £2 a month payments which are currently used to fund the ideas SMiSA members get to vote on.

I think 

If that’s correct Stu, how can SMiSA ask members to vote on the money being used for a new astroturf pitch, or anything, until they’ve actually asked them if they are happy for their money to be used for anything other than share purchases?

As an outsider, it smacks of arrogance.

[linwood buddie]

6 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

If that’s correct Stu, how can SMiSA ask members to vote on the money being used for a new astroturf pitch, or anything, until they’ve actually asked them if they are happy for their money to be used for anything other than share purchases?

As an outsider, it smacks of arrogance.

A can of worms has been well and truly opened.

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

If that’s correct Stu, how can SMiSA ask members to vote on the money being used for a new astroturf pitch, or anything, until they’ve actually asked them if they are happy for their money to be used for anything other than share purchases?

As an outsider, it smacks of arrogance.

Seems like a reasonable suggestion. I'm sure some foaming at the mouth loonies from both sides of the debate will be along in a minute to provide an answer.

[pozbaird]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Seems like a reasonable suggestion. I'm sure some foaming at the mouth loonies from both sides of the debate will be along in a minute to provide an answer.

No doubt.

[rea]

29 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

I am the first to admit that i dont really understand fully the legal position on this ,nor indeed the moral or ethical side of what can and cant be done with the funds and this may well be a naive thing to say  but isnt the whole point of buying the buds and our contributions to ensure our club thrives and prospers.

What would the posistion be when we do own the club outright ? Would we have to foot the bill for things like this in the future ? Ceratinly that is my understanding so i cant see it makes a whole lot of difference now.  The surface needs replaced,surely  the options are the club takes on debt which we will inherit or we let Ralston wither and see severly restricted training and youth facilites.

As i said, i dont understand it all and i say this not to cause argument but if we want to own a club , we better prepare for things like this as the stadium and ralston need repairs etc. Some people have called for a rainy day fund to prepare for bills like this and i agree, surely this is a bit of rain come early ?

Either the Club by generating its own funds (how it is supposed to work) or Shareholders have to fund the company.

 

When SMISA is the majority shareholder it will be them who are the first port of call if the Club needs more funds than  are available through trading or borrowing by the Club directly.

 

Thing is SMISA are not currently the majority shareholder, and the Club can afford to do the work itself.

 

[pozbaird]

1 minute ago, rea said:

Either the Club by generating its own funds (how it is supposed to work) or Shareholders have to fund the company.

 

When SMISA is the majority shareholder it will be them who are the first port of call if the Club needs more funds than  are available through trading or borrowing by the Club directly.

 

Thing is SMISA are not currently the majority shareholder, and the Club can afford to do the work itself.

 

Right on cue... a foaming at the mouth loony. 

[Gruffalo]

10 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

If that’s correct Stu, how can SMiSA ask members to vote on the money being used for a new astroturf pitch, or anything, until they’ve actually asked them if they are happy for their money to be used for anything other than share purchases?

As an outsider, it smacks of arrogance.

Come on you have to admire the audacity of the club. Rather than keep asking every quarter for SMISA to bank roll some club consumables/initiative they ask for a lump sum upfront to be bankrolled by future SMISA quarterly spend. Such a suggestion ties up practically every future quarterly spend for the next 2.5 years. 

On a separate partly related issue. Why are SMISA requesting to purchase tickets again from the Club for £3k under the masquerade its of for the community. Tickets bought at face value which equates to even more funds going to the club. Surely the club could make that gesture themselves or even offer to match the gesture by discounting the tickets.

Individuals on here are pointing the finger of blame at the club. The club is not the issue. They are only, as a business, trying to exploit every funding avenue open to them. Cheeky but fair play.

The real problem is the lack of leadership, innovation and foresight of the board that represent SMISA. I worry for the future. 

If SMISA want to be serious as being custodians of the club they need to start running SMISA as a business. Stop ego maniacs wanting to get involved and stop being the clubs lapdogs. 

 

[pozbaird]

3 minutes ago, Gruffalo said:

Come on you have to admire the audacity of the club. Rather than keep asking every quarter for SMISA to bank roll some club consumables/initiative they ask for a lump sum upfront to be bankrolled by future SMISA quarterly spend. Such a suggestion ties up practically every future quarterly spend for the next 2.5 years. 

On a separate partly related issue. Why are SMISA requesting to purchase tickets again from the Club for £3k under the masquerade its of for the community. Tickets bought at face value which equates to even more funds going to the club. Surely the club could make that gesture themselves or even offer to match the gesture by discounting the tickets.

Individuals on here are pointing the finger of blame at the club. The club is not the issue. They are only, as a business, trying to exploit every funding avenue open to them. Cheeky but fair play.

The real problem is the lack of leadership, innovation and foresight of the board that represent SMISA. I worry for the future. 

If SMISA want to be serious as being custodians of the club they need to start running SMISA as a business. Stop ego maniacs wanting to get involved and stop being the clubs lapdogs. 

 

Oh, I do admire the cheek. Even before asking members IF they want their £10s to be used for anything other than what members signed up for, discussions clearly took place about those monies funding a specific need - in this case an astroturf pitch. 

If it isn’t sheer arrogance, I don’t know what it is.

Me to Mrs Poz: Why don’t we stick £20 in a jar every month, save up for a new TV?

Mrs Poz: Sounds good, count me in.

(Fast forward a year)

Me to Mrs Poz: I really need new golf clubs, the money in that jar should do it.

Mrs Poz: Is that right?

Edited April 5, 2018 by pozbaird

[Lord Pityme]

Here is a genuinely possible scenario, if the vote goes ahead and is carried, and smisa give the club £50k out of the ring-fenced fund. Members will be entitled under the governing legislation, and constitution to request that ALL their contributions up to that point are refunded to them as they commitee have used them for a purpose other than that which was agreed, and carried.

theres a clue in the name that tells you if its above board "Ring-Fenced"

Edited April 5, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[gc_SMFC]

Voted no for both, and will be sending an email to SMISA to ask why the £10 fund is being put to vote, while limiting future £2 spends.

I have to agree with the majority of what's been posted above. Its a poor decision from SMISA to have accepted this proposal from the club, and put it to vote.

[Kombibuddie]

Here is a genuinely possible scenario, if the vote goes ahead and is carried, and smisa give the club £50k out of the ring-fenced fund. Members will be entitled under the governing legislation, and constitution to request that ALL their contributions up to that point are refunded to them as they commitee have used them for a purpose other than that which was agreed, and carried.
theres a clue in the name that tells you if its above board "Ring-Fenced"

All?

Including the £2's that have already been spent in the discretionary spend pots?.

As others have suggested, I don't blame the club for chancing its arm with this and if a pot had been allowed to grow for a big ticket item, alarms wouldn't have been raised as the ring fenced money wasn't getting touched.

As an aside, 3g/4g pitches have a lifespan of approximately 10 years.

If, in 8 years time, SMISA become owners of the club, they'll have roughly 2 years before the astro will be due for renewal. Where will that money come from if, they are not making plans now for ongoing work, repairs and replacements.
I expect they'll need more than £150k then.

[TsuMirren]

It's all very lazy, to not even try any fundraising  whatsoever. We're about to win  league, you can't tell me an engaged fanbase wouldn't want to contribute. You may even have found individual SMISA members wiling to contribute a decent amount. Donation buckets at corporate, outside pre-match, on buses, in the members bar, get donation links up online. But no, instead it's this...the lazy option. How will you reach 1,400 members? Certainly won't be by treating 1,257 (7 down, 1 up this month) like idiots. 

How you can not be comfortable putting a 16K across 8 votes for the women's team option to members, yet put this vote out is beyond me. To be "uncomfortable paying for running costs" from the £2 pot, yet be comfortable replacing ring-fenced funds. 

Here's the text for your next recruitment drive:

"SMISA would like your money." It's short, sweet, open, honest and transparent. 

[davidg]

I voted yes and yes. 

I won’t be spitting the dummy and cancelling my membership if the majority vote no. 

[billyg]

I voted yes and yes. 
I won’t be spitting the dummy and cancelling my membership if the majority vote no. 

I did too , if it means there's more to spend on player contracts for next season , and one of said players scores the winner v the old scum , then yes and yes will have been a great idea !

[davidg]

Just now, billyg said:

 

I did too , if it means there's more to spend on player contracts for next season , and one of said players scores the winner v the old scum , then yes and yes will have been a great idea !

 

This is more what I got involved for to be honest. I would have been happier to increase my subscription if this was the type of thing we were investing in instead of local boys clubs, footballs, t-shirts and music bands. 

[Liverpool Bud]

I’m confused 

surely when the club make a capital investment like the purchase of an all weather facility they factor in the depreciation cost and the cost to replace it ?

without knowing the details of how Ralston is funded or the associated cost for community groups - is there not a fund built into the finances of the organisation that already have covered this?

i can’t believe any business model would be short sighted to have not considered the long term implications of this

my gut feeling is although the replacement of a 4g pitch is important- it should not be at the cost to the fans ?

 

[FTOF]

8 minutes ago, davidg said:

This is more what I got involved for to be honest. I would have been happier to increase my subscription if this was the type of thing we were investing in instead of local boys clubs, footballs, t-shirts and music bands. 

TBH I don't mind the money going towards both of the aspects that you have mentioned, as a result of a democratic vote.

I'll probably vote the same way as yourself and Billy G, as, in my opinion, I think that there is merit in the current suggested spend.

 

[pozbaird]

1 minute ago, FTOF said:

TBH I don't mind the money going towards both of the aspects that you have mentioned, as a result of a democratic vote.

I'll probably vote the same way as yourself and Billy G, as, in my opinion, I think that there is merit in the current suggested spend.

 

Isn't this money (I'm still waiting on definitive word) supposed to be the money ring-fenced for purchasing the shares though?

Incidentally, I'm happy for the club to put all or any of my £285 season ticket money towards this astroturf, or for new West stand bog rolls, or a new jockstrap for a youth player.... it's theirs to do with what they will.... they don't need to ask me first.

[FTOF]

1 minute ago, pozbaird said:

Isn't this money (I'm still waiting on definitive word) supposed to be the money ring-fenced for purchasing the shares though?

Incidentally, I'm happy for the club to put all or any of my £285 season ticket money towards this astroturf, or for new West stand bog rolls, or a new jockstrap for a youth player.... it's theirs to do with what they will.... they don't need to ask me first.

I seem to have more of a laissez faire attitude than some others on this matter.

Maybe I won't have on other matters.

 

[pozbaird]

6 minutes ago, FTOF said:

I seem to have more of a laissez faire attitude than some others on this matter.

Maybe I won't have on other matters.

 

I respect your view, but I'd be lying if I said I understand it. I could understand it with the £2 discretionary pot spend, I wouldn't have strong views on what they really spent it on, as long as it wasn't scud magazines... but not the money being set aside to buy the shares.

Edit: Can you actually still buy scud mags' or is it all online these days?

Edited April 5, 2018 by pozbaird

[FTOF]

4 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

I respect your view, but I'd be lying if I said I understand it. I could understand it with the £2 discretionary pot spend, I wouldn't have strong views on what they really spent it on, as long as it wasn't scud magazines... but not the money being set aside to buy the shares.

It states in the e-mail that I received that the money will be "reinstated" , "by committing £5,000 from each of the next nine quarterly spends – plus £5,000 available now of leftover funds which pre-date the #BuyTheBuds campaign.".

Good enough for me.

[BuddieinEK]

It states in the e-mail that I received that the money will be "reinstated" , "by committing £5,000 from each of the next nine quarterly spends – plus £5,000 available now of leftover funds which pre-date the #BuyTheBuds campaign.".
Good enough for me.

Sets a very dangerous precedence. Not good enough for me.