The 3 Monthly Spend

[Vambo57]

13 hours ago, gc_SMFC said:

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!
 

It's at 12.30, so you can make it.

[gc_SMFC]

It's at 12.30, so you can make it.

Unfortunately not, unless it's being held on a flotilla in the North Sea!

[DumboBud]

I need to declare I didn’t join buy the buds before I make any post, but there is something that is really confusing me just now. 

The statements that if this proposal isn’t funded by the £10 ring fenced money initially then the club budget for the year will be hit for £50k. If the proposal was for the £2 discretionary income to be used for several quarter then that would get over the ring fenced argument. 

The club are about to get a wad of ST money in to do it through the year, the players and staff will be payed weekly or monthly and bills will come in throughout the year so why is there a need to get the 50k in a lump sum?

Why isn’t the proposal for the next 4 and a bit quarterly funds to directly fund the pitch? If the club do really need this 50k lump sum now then I do really question the stewardship of the board. In addition if there is the need for this money should SMISA not be looking to further its community aims and squeeze a bit more of the community benefit out of the club. 

Please remember SMISA and the club are still two separate entities at the moment and it is incumbent on the office holders, including those that are also on the board to act within the rules, regulations, constitution etc of SMISA .

I reserved judgement on joining buy the buds waiting to see if it was going to become the bowling club committee that I feared, unfortunately I’m not seeing anything to allay my fears. 

[gc_SMFC]

I need to declare I didn’t join buy the buds before I make any post, but there is something that is really confusing me just now. 
The statements that if this proposal isn’t funded by the £10 ring fenced money initially then the club budget for the year will be hit for £50k. If the proposal was for the £2 discretionary income to be used for several quarter then that would get over the ring fenced argument. 
The club are about to get a wad of ST money in to do it through the year, the players and staff will be payed weekly or monthly and bills will come in throughout the year so why is there a need to get the 50k in a lump sum?
Why isn’t the proposal for the next 4 and a bit quarterly funds to directly fund the pitch? If the club do really need this 50k lump sum now then I do really question the stewardship of the board. In addition if there is the need for this money should SMISA not be looking to further its community aims and squeeze a bit more of the community benefit out of the club. 
Please remember SMISA and the club are still two separate entities at the moment and it is incumbent on the office holders, including those that are also on the board to act within the rules, regulations, constitution etc of SMISA .
I reserved judgement on joining buy the buds waiting to see if it was going to become the bowling club committee that I feared, unfortunately I’m not seeing anything to allay my fears. 

All fair points. I can't see any logic in the decision from the Smisa committee. Only they can explain why they've decided to let this go through to a vote, but unfortunately their response doesn't say anything apart from 'complex finances', supporters want a 'big ticket item' and we think the funds are still 'ring fenced'. Which makes me even more concerned. The guys on the committee have a tough job, they should be removing near to all the emotional attachment to the club to make decisions.


I've a massive issue with the committee deciding it's acceptable to touch funds that are clearly set aside. As you said if they put it forward of we'll pay in instalments out of the £2 fund they'd be zero issue.

To me the proposal means that the supporters are actually paying 50k more than the agreed price for the club. We give the club 50k then have to refund ourselves out of a pot of money set aside for other things.

There's also still room for improvement in community projects. Getting a St mirren youth team sponsorship doesn't cut the mustard
Get football accessible to any child who wants in Renfrewshire, if you want to do anything at youth level.

[gc_SMFC]

I really hope there is people that can make the Agm and ask the hard questions.

Even what do Smisa define as 'ring fenced'.

We're all St. Mirren fans but we have to look after the takeover process as well as the club.

[TsuMirren]

17 minutes ago, gc_SMFC said:

The guys on the committee have a tough job.

In all honesty, one man does and the rest really don't. If they had a forum, costed numerous options a month and looked in to a series of their own options then yes. They make it tough for themselves occasionally, but don't mistake that for it being tough.

[Lord Pityme]

28 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

In all honesty, one man does and the rest really don't. If they had a forum, costed numerous options a month and looked in to a series of their own options then yes. They make it tough for themselves occasionally, but don't mistake that for it being tough.

Amen

[Kombibuddie]

Bread'n'Butter and Luxuries

The Club should be budgeting for and paying for the bread & butter stuff.

SMISA could be asked for financial support for the luxuries.

The Astro is a bread & butter item.

Whist I don't agree with the proposal, I will be surprised if it is not carried through. The good thing to take out of this is that, hopefully, a clear message has gone out that there is less sheep within the membership.

[Sonny]

Bread'n'Butter and Luxuries
The Club should be budgeting for and paying for the bread & butter stuff.
SMISA could be asked for financial support for the luxuries.
The Astro is a bread & butter item.
Whist I don't agree with the proposal, I will be surprised if it is not carried through. The good thing to take out of this is that, hopefully, a clear message has gone out that there is less sheep within the membership.

... and less members.....

[beyond our ken]

8 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Bread'n'Butter and Luxuries

The Club should be budgeting for and paying for the bread & butter stuff.

SMISA could be asked for financial support for the luxuries.

The Astro is a bread & butter item.

Whist I don't agree with the proposal, I will be surprised if it is not carried through. The good thing to take out of this is that, hopefully, a clear message has gone out that there is less sheep within the membership.

I don't think you could be more wrong than your last statement.  I cancelled at the first signs of gerrymandering and of interest other than the best interests of the membership.  It seems I read those early signs correctly.  at some point, there will be almost nothing but sheep in SMISA because this committee think they know better than the members.  Having got themselves into a tight knit group they vote as a consortium.

Please be clear on what is happening here, SMISA will NEVER own the club for as long as the committee recommend to an easily influenced membership ideas such as the one currently under discussion.  There will never be enough money in the coffers to buy the club when idiots like the one who replied to GC refer to the cash pot as just sitting in the bank, inferring it is doing nothing there.  It is YOUR money to buy YOUR club and nothing else.  Money is harder to come by these days and by hawking the share pot out to the £2 pot they have put a serious dent in it.

Mark my words, these creeps will be along some day, maybe not soon but some day, to say it looks like they won't be able to close the deal and ask that the funds just be handed over to the board and the purpose of SMISA be re-defined.

 

If this goes through then the precedent is set.

[Kombibuddie]

15 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

If this goes through then the precedent is set.

I completely agree.

29 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Mark my words, these creeps will be along some day, maybe not soon but some day, to say it looks like they won't be able to close the deal and ask that the funds just be handed over to the board and the purpose of SMISA be re-defined.

 Unfortunately, I cannot make the AGM but hopefully enough folk who disagree with this proposal can make it and give the SMISA committee a warning shot across their bows that they will be held accountable if they f**k about with our money and jeopardise the deal that takes us to fan ownership.

Still time for members to vote no.

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I completely agree.

 Unfortunately, I cannot make the AGM but hopefully enough folk who disagree with this proposal can make it and give the SMISA committee a warning shot across their bows that they will be held accountable if they f**k about with our money and jeopardise the deal that takes us to fan ownership.

Still time for members to vote no.

I get where you are coming from however the committee have and are intent on just putting on the tin hats and taking it. Especially if it is voted through as they will say we gave the members the option and the majority backed it. Will be interesting to see whatever the outcome how many of 1200 voted, and Of that how it breaks down for and against.

I can see a growing desire among members to overhaul how Smisa is operating in cahoots with Scott, that might necessitate a new order! 

[portmahomack saint]

2 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

I don't think you could be more wrong than your last statement.  I cancelled at the first signs of gerrymandering and of interest other than the best interests of the membership.  It seems I read those early signs correctly.  at some point, there will be almost nothing but sheep in SMISA because this committee think they know better than the members.  Having got themselves into a tight knit group they vote as a consortium.

Please be clear on what is happening here, SMISA will NEVER own the club for as long as the committee recommend to an easily influenced membership ideas such as the one currently under discussion.  There will never be enough money in the coffers to buy the club when idiots like the one who replied to GC refer to the cash pot as just sitting in the bank, inferring it is doing nothing there.  It is YOUR money to buy YOUR club and nothing else.  Money is harder to come by these days and by hawking the share pot out to the £2 pot they have put a serious dent in it.

Mark my words, these creeps will be along some day, maybe not soon but some day, to say it looks like they won't be able to close the deal and ask that the funds just be handed over to the board and the purpose of SMISA be re-defined.

 

If this goes through then the precedent is set.

What`s that your drinking Ken   must be real strong stuff

[Smithers Jones]

3 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

I don't think you could be more wrong than your last statement.  I cancelled at the first signs of gerrymandering and of interest other than the best interests of the membership.  It seems I read those early signs correctly.  at some point, there will be almost nothing but sheep in SMISA because this committee think they know better than the members.  Having got themselves into a tight knit group they vote as a consortium.

Please be clear on what is happening here, SMISA will NEVER own the club for as long as the committee recommend to an easily influenced membership ideas such as the one currently under discussion.  There will never be enough money in the coffers to buy the club when idiots like the one who replied to GC refer to the cash pot as just sitting in the bank, inferring it is doing nothing there.  It is YOUR money to buy YOUR club and nothing else.  Money is harder to come by these days and by hawking the share pot out to the £2 pot they have put a serious dent in it.

Mark my words, these creeps will be along some day, maybe not soon but some day, to say it looks like they won't be able to close the deal and ask that the funds just be handed over to the board and the purpose of SMISA be re-defined.

 

If this goes through then the precedent is set.

Absolute drivel.

[Kombibuddie]

Absolute drivel.

We should all hope so but once the pot's been opened once.........

[beyond our ken]

30 minutes ago, Smithers Jones said:

Absolute drivel.

Care to make a meaningful contribution rather than settling for being a snipey wee get?

 

[Smithers Jones]

4 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Please be clear on what is happening here, SMISA will NEVER own the club for as long as the committee recommend to an easily influenced membership ideas such as the one currently under discussion.  There will never be enough money in the coffers to buy the club when idiots like the one who replied to GC refer to the cash pot as just sitting in the bank, inferring it is doing nothing there.  It is YOUR money to buy YOUR club and nothing else.  Money is harder to come by these days and by hawking the share pot out to the £2 pot they have put a serious dent in it.

Mark my words, these creeps will be along some day, maybe not soon but some day, to say it looks like they won't be able to close the deal and ask that the funds just be handed over to the board and the purpose of SMISA be re-defined.

 

 

You've just completely made this up.

[beyond our ken]

Just now, Smithers Jones said:

You've just completely made this up.

You need to take some English lessons and understand how the words used can contextualise a statement.  Usually,  the phrase "mark my words"  are used in the context of a prediction.

As for the first part, that is all fact, Snipey Jones.

£50000 represents more than 3 months of the share purchase pot's take based on 1200 members.  it will take the £2 pot more than a year and a half to repay this  money to pot one, assuming the £2 pot is dedicated only to the repayment of the share money.  I haven't seen a proposal as to how long the loan from one pot to another is intended to run, but if SMISA use the bulk of the £2 pot for it's intended purpose and only make a percentage available to replenish the share fund, then there is a danger that the shortfall will never be made up and either the projected time taken to raise the share purchase monies will be extended to cover that shortfall or the committee (I won't call them SMISA as SMISA is more than a committee) are willing to chance their arm that contributions continue to amount to more than the projected amount required to buy the chairman out on the timeline already stated.  Now I know some of these guys run businesses and i doubt they'd take the same chance with their own money, unless they are as thick as the guy who replied to GC.  He seems capable of anything.  

What worries me is that someone has looked at SMISA being ahead of schedule in raising the purchase price and thought they can take some money from it and still deliver on time.  That is an abuse of their position, whether that position be in the committee or in the club, or indeed both.

Any more snipey one-line pish replies?

[FTOF]

13 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Bread'n'Butter and Luxuries

The Club should be budgeting for and paying for the bread & butter stuff.

SMISA could be asked for financial support for the luxuries.

The Astro is a bread & butter item.

Whist I don't agree with the proposal, I will be surprised if it is not carried through. The good thing to take out of this is that, hopefully, a clear message has gone out that there is less sheep within the membership.

And there's that arrogance again.

Insulting people who make up their own minds and disagree with your point if view.

In fact, if you read through the posts of individuals who seem to be trying so vociferously to try and influence people's votes, they're peppered with personal insults.

Great way to further your cause..............................

 

 

Edited April 13, 2018 by FTOF

[Smithers Jones]

10 minutes ago, FTOF said:

And there's that arrogance again.

Insulting people who make up their own minds and disagree with your point if view.

In fact, if you read through the posts of individuals who seem to be trying so vociferously to try and influence people's votes, they're peppered with personal insults. Sheep and idiots being the most recent.

Great way to further your cause..............................

 

 

Someone called me Snipey Jones. Think I will just cancel my membership now.

[Lord Pityme]

36 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

You need to take some English lessons and understand how the words used can contextualise a statement.  Usually,  the phrase "mark my words"  are used in the context of a prediction.

As for the first part, that is all fact, Snipey Jones.

£50000 represents more than 3 months of the share purchase pot's take based on 1200 members.  it will take the £2 pot more than a year and a half to repay this  money to pot one, assuming the £2 pot is dedicated only to the repayment of the share money.  I haven't seen a proposal as to how long the loan from one pot to another is intended to run, but if SMISA use the bulk of the £2 pot for it's intended purpose and only make a percentage available to replenish the share fund, then there is a danger that the shortfall will never be made up and either the projected time taken to raise the share purchase monies will be extended to cover that shortfall or the committee (I won't call them SMISA as SMISA is more than a committee) are willing to chance their arm that contributions continue to amount to more than the projected amount required to buy the chairman out on the timeline already stated.  Now I know some of these guys run businesses and i doubt they'd take the same chance with their own money, unless they are as thick as the guy who replied to GC.  He seems capable of anything.  

What worries me is that someone has looked at SMISA being ahead of schedule in raising the purchase price and thought they can take some money from it and still deliver on time.  That is an abuse of their position, whether that position be in the committee or in the club, or indeed both.

Any more snipey one-line pish replies?

The proposal from Smisa committee is to pay back £5k per £2 vote so ten payments that will take two and half years to pay back IF membership and subs are maintained at current levels or above. We already know some have chucked it over this, how many will that total, and will it make others question and withdraw as trust is lost.

it is without doubt the biggest single act of self-harm the committee could have inflicted, and people voting either way see that.

 

[Kombibuddie]

And there's that arrogance again.
Insulting people who make up their own minds and disagree with your point if view.
In fact, if you read through the posts of individuals who seem to be trying so vociferously to try and influence people's votes, they're peppered with personal insults.
Great way to further your cause..............................<_>  
 

Nice one.

You are quite selective in what you want to see and which side of this argument you want to dig out.

As some have already stated, they will vote in line with the proposal without thinking about it. I think there is a commonly used term "following like sheep". Never crossed my mind that referring to such a phrase for folk who blindly follow would be seen as arrogance.
Och well, it is what it is.

As for the potential consequences of that protected pot being opened just the once, the precedent will have been set and the temptation to do so again will always be there.

I hope Beyond our Ken is talking shite too.

[Kombibuddie]

The proposal from Smisa committee is to pay back £5k per £2 vote so ten payments that will take two and half years to pay back IF membership and subs are maintained at current levels or above. We already know some have chucked it over this, how many will that total, and will it make others question and withdraw as trust is lost.
it is without doubt the biggest single act of self-harm the committee could have inflicted, and people voting either way see that.
 

I think cancelling membership is a bit hasty for anyone.
Everyone makes mistakes at some time in their life. Committee's make mistakes too and I think SMISA have made a huge mistake with this proposal but I understand their intentions were well intended.
Hopefully, they'll learn from it (imo) and become better for it.

Won't give up hope on a No vote.

[Lord Pityme]

11 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I think cancelling membership is a bit hasty for anyone.
Everyone makes mistakes at some time in their life. Committee's make mistakes too and I think SMISA have made a huge mistake with this proposal but I understand their intentions were well intended.
Hopefully, they'll learn from it (imo) and become better for it.

Won't give up hope on a No vote.

Aye who knows what way the silent majority may go? Sorry to be the bearer of muting expectations but there is little to no chance of the dismay around this vote (whatever happens) being talked through at the agm. Last year at the agm because the committee got uncomfortable with questions being asked they shut the meeting down one and a half hours early!

indeed even during the meeting some questions to the committee had the club chairman jumping in to answer!!! Tells you all that you need know.

[smcc]

1 hour ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Nice one.

You are quite selective in what you want to see and which side of this argument you want to dig out.

As some have already stated, they will vote in line with the proposal without thinking about it. I think there is a commonly used term "following like sheep". Never crossed my mind that referring to such a phrase for folk who blindly follow would be seen as arrogance.
Och well, it is what it is.

As for the potential consequences of that protected pot being opened just the once, the precedent will have been set and the temptation to do so again will always be there.

I hope Beyond our Ken is talking shite too.

I suppose it never crossed your mind that some(perhaps even many) are not blindly following but have made up their minds after a great deal of thought? Perhaps that might be thought of as arrogance.