The 3 Monthly Spend

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

So you're saying the "our chairman" isn't GLS and all the references below are nothing to do with St Mirren?

 

 

Edited to add. Contrary to your denial, you did reference the organisation smisa.

 

 

 

Arf, arf, arf, good luck with your solicitor then!

[Gruffalo]

58 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 This is also where members need to be careful about numbers falling. The bottom line is the will of the majority should not be negated for the will of the few just because they might phone the bank crying and cancelling their DD. 

Agree to your point in principal however by continually discounting the views of the minority and allowing that minority to leave SMISA will eventually erode your majority theory. 

The irony of this debate is that many of the contributors have openly admitted that they are not even in SMISA.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Gruffalo

[Lord Pityme]

3 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

I think it's only fair that I try again, are you or are you not willing to answer the question?

A simple yes (with the answer) or no you won't answer the question will suffice.

It's only right that someone that goes on about integrity acts or answers with the same.

They say god loves a trier!

[TsuMirren]

6 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Do the club get informed before the SMISA members what the result is?

David Nicol will know before the members, so by default the club will have been informed. 

Whilst I'm at it, keep remembering stuff, the SMISA committee weren't comfortable paying the women's team via a club related account as agreed with a club director. Yet they're perfectly happy to dip the ring-fenced account to pay the club. Every block possible for the women, red carpet down for Gordon's requests.

[gc_SMFC]

"We appreciate the latest April £2 ballot has generated a bit of debate and the finances are complex but hopefully I can answer your question.

While I fully understand the point you are making, we don't believe what we have asked members to vote on goes against the principle of how #BuyTheBuds has been set up and we wouldn't have put it forward if we did.

To be clear, the money set aside for the share purchase (ie the £10s) will still be used for the share purchase. So in that respect, we would still consider it ring-fenced.

Ultimately our contribution to the Ralston project will - if approved - be paid for by the £2s. All we have proposed is using money which would otherwise be sitting in the bank to allow it to happen now.

We put this project forward because we saw it as a good way to support what members told us was their top priority for £2 spends - ie the youth academy.

All we have done is put a proposal to members - it is up to them whether they are happy to vote for it or not.

I hope this helps but if you wanted to talk it through in any more detail please come along to our AGM on Saturday."

My response from SMISA. Rather meh, and doesn't actually address anything.

I'm thinking I may be out no matter the result of the vote. I'm happy with the £2 pot going to community and youth projects, but not mainly the the club. I'd be interested to see how much of the £2 spend has already been given to the club for the first team.

I'm unable to attend the AGM but will be responding with my thoughts over the whole matter. I like the idea of a fan take over, but I want it to be run as a business making sure that we are taking on minimal risk and that everything falls within what we bring in as a club without turning to supporters associations.

[TsuMirren]

10 minutes ago, gc_SMFC said:

"We appreciate the latest April £2 ballot has generated a bit of debate and the finances are complex but hopefully I can answer your question.

While I fully understand the point you are making, we don't believe what we have asked members to vote on goes against the principle of how #BuyTheBuds has been set up and we wouldn't have put it forward if we did.

To be clear, the money set aside for the share purchase (ie the £10s) will still be used for the share purchase. So in that respect, we would still consider it ring-fenced.

Ultimately our contribution to the Ralston project will - if approved - be paid for by the £2s. All we have proposed is using money which would otherwise be sitting in the bank to allow it to happen now.

We put this project forward because we saw it as a good way to support what members told us was their top priority for £2 spends - ie the youth academy.

All we have done is put a proposal to members - it is up to them whether they are happy to vote for it or not.

I hope this helps but if you wanted to talk it through in any more detail please come along to our AGM on Saturday."

My response from SMISA. Rather meh, and doesn't actually address anything.

I'm thinking I may be out no matter the result of the vote. I'm happy with the £2 pot going to community and youth projects, but not mainly the the club. I'd be interested to see how much of the £2 spend has already been given to the club for the first team.

I'm unable to attend the AGM but will be responding with my thoughts over the whole matter. I like the idea of a fan take over, but I want it to be run as a business making sure that we are taking on minimal risk and that everything falls within what we bring in as a club without turning to supporters associations.

What an absolute cluster #### of a response. The £10 will still be used, albeit via some of the £2 and though we're using some £10 we still see it as ring-fenced. "All we have done...", like a child with chocolate on it's face denying he/she stole the easter egg then ate it.

Oh and "...complex...", really? Just total patronisation.

Edited April 11, 2018 by TsuMirren

[pozbaird]

I had to read that response twice to make sure I believed what I was reading.

 

[gc_SMFC]

What an absolute cluster #### of a response. The £10 will still be used, albeit via some of the £2 and though we're using some £10 we still see it as ring-fenced. "All we have done...", like a child with chocolate on it's face denying he/she stole the easter egg then ate it.
Oh and "...complex...", really? Just total patronisation.

Yeah I'm pretty disappointed with the response, seems to be a pawing off rather than offering anything direct.

If the agm is Saturday, I expect no one will be there, as we'll all be busy celebrating!

[BuddieinEK]

"We appreciate the latest April £2 ballot has generated a bit of debate and the finances are complex but hopefully I can answer your question.

While I fully understand the point you are making, we don't believe what we have asked members to vote on goes against the principle of how #BuyTheBuds has been set up and we wouldn't have put it forward if we did.

To be clear, the money set aside for the share purchase (ie the £10s) will still be used for the share purchase. So in that respect, we would still consider it ring-fenced.

Ultimately our contribution to the Ralston project will - if approved - be paid for by the £2s. All we have proposed is using money which would otherwise be sitting in the bank to allow it to happen now.

We put this project forward because we saw it as a good way to support what members told us was their top priority for £2 spends - ie the youth academy.

All we have done is put a proposal to members - it is up to them whether they are happy to vote for it or not.

I hope this helps but if you wanted to talk it through in any more detail please come along to our AGM on Saturday."

My response from SMISA. Rather meh, and doesn't actually address anything.

I'm thinking I may be out no matter the result of the vote. I'm happy with the £2 pot going to community and youth projects, but not mainly the the club. I'd be interested to see how much of the £2 spend has already been given to the club for the first team.

I'm unable to attend the AGM but will be responding with my thoughts over the whole matter. I like the idea of a fan take over, but I want it to be run as a business making sure that we are taking on minimal risk and that everything falls within what we bring in as a club without turning to supporters associations.

"so in that respect we still consider it ring fenced"!

Utter guff!

Be honest ffs.

We thought it a good use of money and aim to repay it into the share fund.

We hope the members will see that us using ring fenced money was well intended.

Two options.

In the meantime.

I smell shite!

[bazil85]

14 hours ago, Gruffalo said:

Agree to your point in principal however by continually discounting the views of the minority and allowing that minority to leave SMISA will eventually erode your majority theory. 

The irony of this debate is that many of the contributors have openly admitted that they are not even in SMISA.

True mate but it’s unfortunately how a democracy has to work, even at that expense. Can imagine it would be a hell of a lot worse if we continually ignored the majority in favour of the minority. 

Yeah true, some never, some spat the dummy ages ago, some recently. Oh well, opinion is opinion. 

[Lord Pityme]

10 hours ago, pozbaird said:

I had to read that response twice to make sure I believed what I was reading.

 

I wonder if the Smisa committee will share their 'alternative' definition of ring fence at the agm?  Would be good for a laugh if it wasnt for the fact that members are now voting with their feet. #smisashame

[Bud the Baker]

11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I wonder if the Smisa committee will share their 'alternative' definition of ring fence at the agm?  Would be good for a laugh if it wasnt for the fact that members are now voting with their feet. #smisashame

Do you have any evidence of this?

Worrying if true. 

[Lord Pityme]

10 hours ago, gc_SMFC said:

"We appreciate the latest April £2 ballot has generated a bit of debate and the finances are complex but hopefully I can answer your question.

While I fully understand the point you are making, we don't believe what we have asked members to vote on goes against the principle of how #BuyTheBuds has been set up and we wouldn't have put it forward if we did.

To be clear, the money set aside for the share purchase (ie the £10s) will still be used for the share purchase. So in that respect, we would still consider it ring-fenced.

Ultimately our contribution to the Ralston project will - if approved - be paid for by the £2s. All we have proposed is using money which would otherwise be sitting in the bank to allow it to happen now.

We put this project forward because we saw it as a good way to support what members told us was their top priority for £2 spends - ie the youth academy.

All we have done is put a proposal to members - it is up to them whether they are happy to vote for it or not.

I hope this helps but if you wanted to talk it through in any more detail please come along to our AGM on Saturday."

My response from SMISA. Rather meh, and doesn't actually address anything.

I'm thinking I may be out no matter the result of the vote. I'm happy with the £2 pot going to community and youth projects, but not mainly the the club. I'd be interested to see how much of the £2 spend has already been given to the club for the first team.

I'm unable to attend the AGM but will be responding with my thoughts over the whole matter. I like the idea of a fan take over, but I want it to be run as a business making sure that we are taking on minimal risk and that everything falls within what we bring in as a club without turning to supporters associations.

Yes its patronising suggesting 'finances are too complex for the likes of you), and just mainly waffle but the two things in that response that should sound alarm bells in all smisa members and saints fans heads are:

1. In spite of the assurances I,  and every committee member gave during BTB, the 'principle' to only use members subs (minus the £2 pot) to buy the club will be evidently broken by this proposal. And this will be the third time the committee have done so.

2. The very fact they reference taking money out of the ring fenced fund, to pay to the club, and acknowledging that fact, but stating thats ok because YOU get to pay yourself back will have qualified, reputable auditors breaking out in a cold sweat. Moving a member/investors funds between accounts to make up a deficit is shady beyond belief. And breaking a ring fence/asset lock to pay a Private Company for sponsorship rights is an illegal act under the governing legislation.

I read in that response they know their collective arses are oot the windae on this but instead of cancelling the vote and taking time to properly consult the membership they are trying to front it out in the hope a majority vote in favour will show approval of their despicable actions.

Newsflash Smisa Committee....... whatever the vote outcome, you will be held to account for your reckless handling of the Society funds. Members are walking because they simply do not trust you! How does that make you feel..? 

 

[Lord Pityme]

7 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Do you have any evidence of this?

Worrying if true. 

There's been a few on here stating they are out because of this, and given we only here from a percentage of members on here the likelyhood is there will be more. If theres one thing a fan ownership body, or indeed football club cannot comeback from, that is taking the members/fans money with a cast iron guarantee to ring fence it for the intended purpose, but then use it to fund whatever whim the chairman has at any given time. Look at football clubs up and down the land where the fans funds have been raided, they always end in collapse.

indeed someone asked me "how is this different to the stunt Craig White pulled at Sevco by raising funds from future ticket sales to buy something, then expecting the people whose money you had used to pay it back"..? Honestly I didnt know how to answer him.

[bazil85]

I didn’t win the SMISA raffle for a place at the POTY dinner. That’s it membership cancelled hahahaha

[pozbaird]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I didn’t win the SMISA raffle for a place at the POTY dinner. That’s it membership cancelled hahahaha

If anyone does cancel because they don’t agree that their money should be used for anything other than what it was ring-fenced for, then that is entirely their perogative, and is far from ‘throwing toys’.... your post above clearly is a ‘funny’ attempt to once more display the contempt with which you regard anyone who cancels. As I said in a previous post, your initial attitude towards anyone who did cancel was ‘hell mend them’ etc. Then, you said that was a misunderstanding, now you are back to insinuating people would cancel if they didn’t like the colour of GLS’ socks. The ring-fenced issue is a tad more serious. In so many posts, in what has been a decent debate, your true colours keep surfacing, and anything you say gets pretty much discredited at every turn. 

[TsuMirren]

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I didn’t win the SMISA raffle for a place at the POTY dinner. That’s it membership cancelled hahahaha

Stunned you entered the raffle without first telling us all you had! As for "spitting the dummy", if you'd like to see how far I could spit it then just keep going. I've actually held off on a few things, which you'll know if you're as close to things as you've consistently displayed. So, for the good of SMISA and the club we love can you please stop patronising everyone.

[BuddieinEK]

If anyone does cancel because they don’t agree that their money should be used for anything other than what it was ring-fenced for, then that is entirely their perogative, and is far from ‘throwing toys’.... your post above clearly is a ‘funny’ attempt to once more display the contempt with which you regard anyone who cancels. As I said in a previous post, your initial attitude towards anyone who did cancel was ‘hell mend them’ etc. Then, you said that was a misunderstanding, now you are back to insinuating people would cancel if they didn’t like the colour of GLS’ socks. The ring-fenced issue is a tad more serious. In so many posts, in what has been a decent debate, your true colours keep surfacing, and anything you say gets pretty much discredited at every turn. 

"prerogative", ya dafty.
Just telling you before Drew ejukatez you likr wot he did me!
That aside, totally agree.

I had actually stopped posting in this thread as I had nothing new to add.

If only regurgitation Baz would do the same.

When did he last add anything factually new to the discussion?

Much easier just to insult and antagonise!

[pozbaird]

3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

"prerogative", ya dafty.
Just telling you before Drew ejukatez you likr wot he did me!
That aside, totally agree.

I had actually stopped posting in this thread as I had nothing new to add.

If only regurgitation Baz would do the same.

When did he last add anything factually new to the discussion?

Much easier just to insult and antagonise!

Ach, you want me to go back and edit that because I made an ‘Rs’ of it?

[BuddieinEK]

Ach, you want me to go back and edit that because I made an ‘Rs’ of it?

That's your prerogative! [emoji14]

[linwood buddie]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I didn’t win the SMISA raffle for a place at the POTY dinner. That’s it membership cancelled hahahaha

 

[beyond our ken]

On ‎11‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 9:08 AM, bazil85 said:

In your opinion. 

Maybe we should have a vote on that?

 

Mibbe no

[beyond our ken]

On ‎11‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 11:58 AM, bazil85 said:

Only one way to sort this... 

Really?  You are asking someone for a fight?

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Really?  You are asking someone for a fight?

FFS, it's another, failed, attempt at being amusing. 

Let Baz keep digging, no need for you to join him. 

 

[WeeBud]

I know it's not quite the same but I've been thinking quite a lot about this and also how a similar kind of situation at my Golf Club would be dealt with. The main difference is obviously that we pay "subs" to be a member and use the facilities of the club. However, those that can afford, can choose to put extra cash into various funds ie tree fund, continuous course development fund, clubhouse development fund and a couple of others. All of these funds have the monies ring-fenced and, as per the club constitution, cannot be dipped into or loaned from to cover any other costs within the club. There would have to be a vote to change the constitution first and if passed then new rules would have to be drafted and passed before any potential proposals for loans, gifts or any other disbursement of funds were even considered from "each" fund.  All this is for very good reason, to make sure that a) it's not a simple decision to take and gives everyone a voice at each stage of the process to either agree or disagree with each aspect in turn.

What I find staggering if I follow the  process above is that we have to go through all of that to deal with the "discretionary" funds rather than the main funds of the club and yet in our current situation it is the main funds that we are changing the process for with an apparent disregard for good governance and due process.

As I said earlier, despite my misgivings I voted yes but my real concerns now are what this disregard for due process and good governance could lead to in the future!!

Edited April 12, 2018 by WeeBud
Made an arse of it!!