Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, StuD said:

Come on Scott you need to make your mind up here. Earlier in the thread you claimed that the £50k was vital to give St Mirren a chance of survival in the top flight. You highlighted the differences between SPL prize money and that given in the Championship and you told others arguing with you that if SMISA hadn't broken their constitution to give the club this money relegation would be the most likely outcome. Now you claim in this post that £50,000 is just a couple of quid on football tops, or a few pounds on ticket prices to cover the cost and that its not really that big a deal. One thing seems clear from your post - you think SMISA will come back and ask the same fans for more money and if they don't get what they want this will adversely affect the playing budget. 

St Mirren cannot rent out the astrograss pitch at Ralston. It's a condition of their rent. REA has told you that already. But even if they could have you worked out yet how many hours per week you need to rent it out for to cover the cost? Here's a clue - it's more than a "few hours a week". 

I have never said it was 'vital' I've said we can use any help we can get considering how difficult the league will be.

I fear you're mixing me up with someone else here in regards to the next two highlighted points (and the first for that matter), never have I said 'relegation would be the most likely outcome' if this £50k was rejected. Do you means SMISA will come back after completion of the deal? I've never said that either. They might, we'll own the club after all but who knows. I haven't said I 'think' that will happen. 

Last highlighted point, again we have the Dome that gets rented out (Why doesn't that form part of our facilities to rent out out of interest? Do these other clubs rent every inch of available playing surface?), we have other larger income streams and other means to cover the cost. They would ultimately come out of our budget as with the majority of clubs at our level when faced with one off costs. Given we can estimate when the park will be replaced, we can easily budget for it. I'm really struggling with how making this request now means we can't budget in the future as a fan owned club... 

I'm really not sure what your point is in all of this because you  haven't answered it.

Is it that St Mirren are in a unique situation where we have facilities (Assuming facilities relates to training ground, stadiums and any other facilities - See my point on clubs with much larger older grounds to worry about) outside our means and categorically can't budget for the replacement of said facilities without reliance on a membership financial commitment model? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I have never said it was 'vital' I've said we can use any help we can get considering how difficult the league will be.

I fear you're mixing me up with someone else here in regards to the next two highlighted points (and the first for that matter), never have I said 'relegation would be the most likely outcome' if this £50k was rejected. Do you means SMISA will come back after completion of the deal? I've never said that either. They might, we'll own the club after all but who knows. I haven't said I 'think' that will happen. 

Last highlighted point, again we have the Dome that gets rented out (Why doesn't that form part of our facilities to rent out out of interest? Do these other clubs rent every inch of available playing surface?), we have other larger income streams and other means to cover the cost. They would ultimately come out of our budget as with the majority of clubs at our level when faced with one off costs. Given we can estimate when the park will be replaced, we can easily budget for it. I'm really struggling with how making this request now means we can't budget in the future as a fan owned club... 

I'm really not sure what your point is in all of this because you  haven't answered it.

Is it that St Mirren are in a unique situation where we have facilities (Assuming facilities relates to training ground, stadiums and any other facilities - See my point on clubs with much larger older grounds to worry about) outside our means and categorically can't budget for the replacement of said facilities without reliance on a membership financial commitment model? 

To recap. I asked the question asking how the next replacement of the astrograss would be funded. You've responded in a variety of ways which I am grateful for. You've said "like other clubs at our level with the same facilities would do" - I hope we've now established, and that you accept, that other clubs at St Mirren's level do not and have not had to fund that expense - especially not under the use restrictions that St Mirren have imposed on it's Ralston property. You've then suggested that £50k isn't a big deal - having previously said that the £50k was needed to bridge some of the financial gap between St Mirren and the clubs most likely opponents next season - you even posted a table showing the respective prize money pay outs for each place. I've asked you is it a big deal, or could St Mirren have competed in the Premiership next season short of that £50k that SMISA have so contentiously handed over. You now seem to be saying that the £50k the club requested from SMISA wasn't needed at all - so why defend breaching the constitution to give it? Surely if the cash wasn't needed it would have been better sitting in the ring fenced fund until either the club was bought - or a proper emergency happened. 

In one of your answered you claimed that the cost next time round could be raised through player sales, or by increasing the cost of a match ticket, or by putting a few extra pounds onto the cost of a shirt. Those all all fair answers - and it might well be the way SMISA go. However I'd be disappointed if the "new ideas" that SMISA and Gordon Scott were supposed to be injecting into St Mirren after the takeover from those "tired" board members who'd run out of ideas under Stewart Gilmours leadership was to bump up prices and to fleece the same regular support a bit more. 

Now you seem to think that renting out the dome will cover the cost of maintenance and repairs on the Ralston astrograss on top of paying for the constant repairs that are needed at the dome - when history has proved that the dome doesn't even generate enough money to pay for a repair to the undersoil heating system at St Mirren Park. 

I appreciate bazil you aren't the whole SMISA board and you don't have the answer in the same way I don't either. But perhaps if SMISA look back to the first gerrymandered survey that they did - you know the one I've talked about where spending money on first team wages was deemed the most inappropriate use of members money, and where it came 5th in a six horse race - maybe they'd get their answer. If instead of pissing money away buying footballs for the first team, and part time hours for sports scientists and data analysts - and instead focused on providing facilities that can be used by the Paisley Community to generate long term non match day revenue perhaps by the time SMISA get control of the club it might be running with a annual turnover that would make St Mirren a bit more competitive when comparing the clubs finances with the likes of Walsall and Stevenage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, StuD said:

To recap. I asked the question asking how the next replacement of the astrograss would be funded. You've responded in a variety of ways which I am grateful for. You've said "like other clubs at our level with the same facilities would do" - 1. I hope we've now established, and that you accept, that other clubs at St Mirren's level do not and have not had to fund that expense - especially not under the use restrictions that St Mirren have imposed on it's Ralston property. You've then suggested that £50k isn't a big deal - having previously said that the 2. £50k was needed to bridge some of the financial gap between St Mirren and the clubs most likely opponents next season - 3. you even posted a table showing the respective prize money pay outs for each place. I've asked you is it a big deal, or could St Mirren have competed in the Premiership next season short of that £50k that SMISA have so contentiously handed over. You now seem to be saying that the £50k the club requested from 4. SMISA wasn't needed at all - so why 5. defend breaching the constitution to give it? Surely if the cash wasn't needed it would have been better sitting in the ring fenced fund until either the club was bought - or a proper emergency happened. 

6. In one of your answered you claimed that the cost next time round could be raised through player sales, or by increasing the cost of a match ticket, or by putting a few extra pounds onto the cost of a shirt. Those all all fair answers - and it might well be the way SMISA go. However I'd be disappointed if the "new ideas" that SMISA and Gordon Scott were supposed to be injecting into St Mirren after the takeover from those "tired" board members who'd run out of ideas under Stewart Gilmours leadership was to bump up prices and to fleece the same regular support a bit more. 

7. Now you seem to think that renting out the dome will cover the cost of maintenance and repairs on the Ralston astrograss on top of paying for the constant repairs that are needed at the dome - when history has proved that the dome doesn't even generate enough money to pay for a repair to the undersoil heating system at St Mirren Park. 

8. I appreciate bazil you aren't the whole SMISA board and you don't have the answer in the same way I don't either. But perhaps if SMISA look back to the first gerrymandered survey that they did - you know the one I've talked about where spending money on first team wages was deemed the most inappropriate use of members money, and where it came 5th in a six horse race - maybe they'd get their answer. If instead of pissing money away buying footballs for the first team, and part time hours for sports scientists and data analysts - and instead focused on providing facilities that can be used by the Paisley Community to generate long term non match day revenue perhaps by the time SMISA get control of the club it might be running with a annual turnover that would make St Mirren a bit more competitive when comparing the clubs finances with the likes of Walsall and Stevenage.  

1. I'm afraid I don't accept we are in a completely unique situation, of which I feel I've provided ample evidence in regards to other clubs having similar expenses and additional expense requirements we don't have (older/ bigger stadiums for example). 

2. I'm also afraid I have never said it 'was needed' need and something being helpful/ beneficial are two very different claims which I'm sure you'll agree with. 

3. I don't think that was me. I posted a table showing average wages in the SP after someone incorrectly said £50k wouldn't pay a players wage for a season

4. I'm not sure if I've explained this correct as the point seems to be continually missed. To make it as clear as possible. St Mirren DO NOT 'need' this £50k. Not for next seasons budget and not for Ralston, they could pay for Ralston and form a budget for next season. However £50k, as much as it isn't earth shattering money to our club, it still is... £50k and as I demonstrated, could be the difference between getting a couple of players in or not. That COULD (not will) be the difference between staying in the league and not staying in the league. I don't have a crystal ball, I'm not going to say it WILL involve us getting relegated. I used the example earlier of 'What if the previous SMISA £8k was the difference between Gavin Reilly coming in or not? Cammy Smith or not?' All ifs and buts, it would appear you're claiming I stated aspects as very likely to happen. 'Relegation would be the most likely option'

5. My understanding is this debate on training grounds, parks and player budgets is a sideline to the actual legality of taking the funds? I feel we have discussed this legislation point to a dead end. We can talk about it more but probably better just to let the FCA sign-off on it (guarantee they'll need to in this instance)  

6. I'd completely agree it would be disappointing, everything I said about 'ideas' is purely speculation on what they could do. The only aspect I remain confident in is that a fan owned club would in some way, shape or form be able to budget for said pitch. Hopefully not at additional fan cost. 

7. Nope I don't think that and have never said that. I was making a comparison between us and other clubs that rent out facilities. One of your arguments that other clubs are different from us is that they rent out facilities. I was wondering why the Dome doesn't count for St Mirren like rented facilities count for other clubs? I thought my tongue in cheek comment about 'a few hours' maybe highlighted that I didn't think it would fully cover costs. 

8. Yeah possibly, don't think there's any debate that would be a good approach. Saying that doesn't mean funding the projects that have been funded is a bad one. Again we have to be aware that surveys are points in time. I'm sure a few paying members prioritise changed very quickly when we were staring L1 football in the face. Others possibly voted out of the nicety of money going to youth and community but in the cold light of day, St Mirren Football Club is king for many St Mirren fans. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/04/2018 at 3:03 PM, pozbaird said:

Q1: I’m back under yet another new name, and as before, I’m going to make this all about me. Me, me, me.

Q2: I’m a total pain the fcuking arse and drag down every forum I pop up on, but as long as it’s about me.

Q3: Let’s talk about me some more.

Q4: I’m getting a hard-on. Let’s talk about me & SMiSA, me and Gilmour, me & the regulatory authorities, me and the club, me and my involvement, me, me and me.

Q5: Me.

Q6: No-one gives a flying fcuk.

 

Everyone else, no matter their opposing views, has managed to conduct their discussions while talking about the issue, without making it all about themselves. You act like you’re someone involved in everything, who’s opinion is sought, who should be listened to, who gets inside the process, who is never wrong, and who is a ‘player’ in the game.

No-one gives a fcuk.

Has it ever occurred to you to simply not respond to people like Stuart if you are not interested in their posts?

Stuart may annoy some people but I am pretty sure nobody wants to read posts like yours either.

Take your hysterics elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2018 at 6:41 PM, Lord Pity me said:

Pointless. Went last year, as soon as i asked questions they didnt like the meeting was shut down, not before receiving snide comments from a smisa board member over the pa, and being rounded on by the club chairman across the floor, whilst asking a question of the Smisa committee at what allegedly was the Smisa agm. 

Needs to be renamed the GLSMISA society. Its a shame really if you want to ask a question, seek clarity or challenge an organisation you are supposed to all be equal in you are a moaner. If Gordon and Smisa dont want to be held to account about how they  interfere or run smisa then they should be upfront about it and we can leave them to it.

 

On 4/17/2018 at 1:39 PM, Smithers Jones said:

You came out with this nonsense not long after last year's meeting and it didn't take long for those in attendance to make it clear that none of this actually happened. None of it.

 

On 4/18/2018 at 2:03 PM, Smithers Jones said:

He said that he asked a question which they didn't like so the meeting was shut down.  This simply did not happen.

... but... but... you said "None of it actually happened!  None of it".

He never said he  asked A question and the meeting was closed down, BUT  you just did above. So I suppose that you are right, what you just said simply did not happen :lol:

Make your mind up mate.  I was there and I can assure you, It happened.  I was shocked and said so on here at the time.

What's your angle here?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Vambo57 said:

Pointless. Went last year, as soon as i asked questions they didnt like the meeting was shut down, not before receiving snide comments from a smisa board member over the pa, and being rounded on by the club chairman across the floor, whilst asking a question of the Smisa committee at what allegedly was the Smisa agm. 

Needs to be renamed the GLSMISA society. Its a shame really if you want to ask a question, seek clarity or challenge an organisation you are supposed to all be equal in you are a moaner. If Gordon and Smisa dont want to be held to account about how they  interfere or run smisa then they should be upfront about it and we can leave them to it.

 

 

... but... but... you said "None of it actually happened!  None of it".

He never said he  asked A question and the meeting was closed down, BUT  you just did above. So I suppose that you are right, what you just said simply did not happen :lol:

Make your mind up mate.  I was there and I can assure you, It happened.  I was shocked and said so on here at the time.

What's your angle here?

 

No angle. I was there and can quite clearly remember what happened.  I commented at the time that he should have had the right to reply once his initial questions were answered. He was not given the opportunity and the meeting moved on.  No angle or agenda from me here, I was simply pointing out that his version of events is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Smithers Jones said:

No angle. I was there and can quite clearly remember what happened.  I commented at the time that he should have had the right to reply once his initial questions were answered. He was not given the opportunity and the meeting moved on.  No angle or agenda from me here, I was simply pointing out that his version of events is incorrect.

Naw it isnae! It happened, it was widely witnessed, the meeting was closed down to stop me asking any other/follow up questions. Poor show proving how undemocratic, and club influenced the whole set up is. Despite whatever you may think my motives are, the biggest concern for me is if this type of behaviour, including the £50k for Ralston if repeated then it will take only a very small turn in fortunes for large parts of the membership to stop paying in, and that will leave the door open for others to take control of our club.

its a precious thing we have created, as with any popular movement their are groups within the origination who seek to further their agenda at the expense of the majority. It is more important than ever to continue to challenge, otherwise we will end up with something we barely recognise compared to what we were originally promised or envisaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Naw it isnae! It happened, it was widely witnessed, the meeting was closed down to stop me asking any other/follow up questions. Poor show proving how undemocratic, and club influenced the whole set up is. Despite whatever you may think my motives are, the biggest concern for me is if this type of behaviour, including the £50k for Ralston if repeated then it will take only a very small turn in fortunes for large parts of the membership to stop paying in, and that will leave the door open for others to take control of our club.

its a precious thing we have created, as with any popular movement their are groups within the origination who seek to further their agenda at the expense of the majority. It is more important than ever to continue to challenge, otherwise we will end up with something we barely recognise compared to what we were originally promised or envisaged.

I have no idea why you think this happened. It's a shame it put you off attending this year's meeting, it was much more enjoyable that last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Naw it isnae! It happened, it was widely witnessed, the meeting was closed down to stop me asking any other/follow up questions. Poor show proving how undemocratic, and club influenced the whole set up is. Despite whatever you may think my motives are, the biggest concern for me is if this type of behaviour, including the £50k for Ralston if repeated then it will take only a very small turn in fortunes for large parts of the membership to stop paying in, and that will leave the door open for others to take control of our club.

its a precious thing we have created, as with any popular movement their are groups within the origination who seek to further their agenda at the expense of the majority. It is more important than ever to continue to challenge, otherwise we will end up with something we barely recognise compared to what we were originally promised or envisaged.

Like you for example? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 8:06 PM, StuD said:

 sold off a profit making business under the Caley Stand

Wrong on 2 counts:

1. The gym was only breaking even. If a proportion of the repayments for the stand or equivalent rent were to be taken into account, it was a huge loss making business.

2. It wasn't sold off, rather than being closed down, it was given to one of the employees who paid a rent.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎17‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 3:03 PM, pozbaird said:

Q1: I’m back under yet another new name, and as before, I’m going to make this all about me. Me, me, me.

Q2: I’m a total pain the fcuking arse and drag down every forum I pop up on, but as long as it’s about me.

Q3: Let’s talk about me some more.

Q4: I’m getting a hard-on. Let’s talk about me & SMiSA, me and Gilmour, me & the regulatory authorities, me and the club, me and my involvement, me, me and me.

Q5: Me.

Q6: No-one gives a flying fcuk.

 

Everyone else, no matter their opposing views, has managed to conduct their discussions while talking about the issue, without making it all about themselves. You act like you’re someone involved in everything, who’s opinion is sought, who should be listened to, who gets inside the process, who is never wrong, and who is a ‘player’ in the game.

No-one gives a fcuk.

You've got admire the irony! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, melmac said:

Anyway, I'm out, as kenny says, clusterf**k. Just remember, when things go teets up, all members are on the hook.

Here's the thing i find surprising that no one seems even the slightest bit interested in questioning.

during the BtB campaign most reasonable people assumed that fan ownership wouldnt mean micro managing the club, picking the team or transfer targets etc... but most seemed keen to have some involvement in the strategy & direction the club should be going in, and perhaps be consulted on the bigger issues affecting the club...

in the two years now since BtB was launched how often have the membership been consulted on anything affecting the club (other than continually giving them money)..?

the short answer is less than Once.!

so whats the point of having a representative on the board when we as thirty per cent shareholders have no say or input on anything other than giving our share purchase funds to the club? Dorsnt anyone see what's happening here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Mirror group newspapers had a ring fenced pension fund, as did BHS.... theres always a reckoning when the ring fenced funds are rifled. Do we really expect it will be different?

Yes, believe it or not there are a number of differences between a multibillion pound media organisation, a multimillion pound retail industry and SMISA :lol:

There is very few comparison between ring fenced pension fund and the SMISA funds. 

They say things come in three's eh? the Mirror, Bhs and now SMISA :blink: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Here's the thing i find surprising that no one seems even the slightest bit interested in questioning.

during the BtB campaign most reasonable people assumed that fan ownership wouldnt mean micro managing the club, picking the team or transfer targets etc... but most seemed keen to have some involvement in the strategy & direction the club should be going in, and perhaps be consulted on the bigger issues affecting the club...

in the two years now since BtB was launched how often have the membership been consulted on anything affecting the club (other than continually giving them money)..?

the short answer is less than Once.!

so whats the point of having a representative on the board when we as thirty per cent shareholders have no say or input on anything other than giving our share purchase funds to the club? Dorsnt anyone see what's happening here?

You make the massive mistake (continually) that paying members haven't looked at the various proposals rationally and felt they are fit for purpose and a good use of funds. Believe it or not people can see what's happening and are perfectly happy with it. Oh democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bazil85 said:

You make the massive mistake (continually) that paying members haven't looked at the various proposals rationally and felt they are fit for purpose and a good use of funds. Believe it or not people can see what's happening and are perfectly happy with it. Oh democracy. 

Bazil, I think this is where you really struggle. The vote that just happened isn't valid according to SMISA's own constitution and it's not valid according to the 2014 Act that governs Community Benefit Societies. 

According to the Constitution and the Act before any rule change a Special Resolution has to be lodged and a Special General Meeting called. That meeting needs to be attended by a minimum percentage of the total membership, the meeting should only deal with the Special Resolution. Changing the use of ring fenced funds is definitely a change of the rules. You have already accepted this. Yet the correct process has not been observed. 

Now it may just be semantics. Perhaps the Special Resolution would be carried by a large majority and the only outcome would be a delay in writing the cheque, but the fact remains that unless the SMISA board follow due process they are in breach of the Act and the vote that just happened was not valid. 

If the SMISA board don't understand this then as I've said repeatedly SMISA is not fit for purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Here's the thing i find surprising that no one seems even the slightest bit interested in questioning.

during the BtB campaign most reasonable people assumed that fan ownership wouldnt mean micro managing the club, picking the team or transfer targets etc... but most seemed keen to have some involvement in the strategy & direction the club should be going in, and perhaps be consulted on the bigger issues affecting the club...

in the two years now since BtB was launched how often have the membership been consulted on anything affecting the club (other than continually giving them money)..?

the short answer is less than Once.!

so whats the point of having a representative on the board when we as thirty per cent shareholders have no say or input on anything other than giving our share purchase funds to the club? Dorsnt anyone see what's happening here?

Yep I remember that but this whole process has never ceased to amaze me. To have more than 1,000 people willing to simply "trust" a group of people who for the most part have never been elected to their posts with what will amount to well over £1.5m of their money and the future of their football club just because they are "St Mirren fans" seems quite incredible to me - especially when that group of people seem to be doing their absolute best to ensure there is zero transparency of their actions and no publication of their minutes and a real reluctance to communicate with anyone on any public forum who isn't willing to fawn over them. 

Edited by StuD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, waldorf34 said:

Your remarks about SMISA being run by unelected officials is way off the mark, they are all currently elected 

Aw, sorry. I must have missed that. It is over a year since I was a member. Who did each one of them beat? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...