The 3 Monthly Spend

[StuD]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

How is that in the best interest of its members? We don't have a financial gain in it, what's best for the members = what's best for SMFC.   

Bazil, SMISA are members of Supporters Direct. Supporters Direct state that their aim is to "help supporters gain influence and ownership of their club."

https://supporters-direct.org/about-supporters-direct

To deliver those aims SMISA should be looking to increase shareholding, increase supporter representation on the club board, and it should be moving as quickly as possible to ownership of the club. If you don't think those things are in the best interests of SMFC then can I suggest that you are putting your funds into completely the wrong vehicle.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:

2, I never said it would. Missed the point completely. They could have paid the entire 150K and still make the 10 years. A group of scouts could make the 10 year deadline at this point. Although they might not take well to being told to stop being so keen.

Problem with the Panda Club and sport scientist is they'll both meet to come from the same 3K or draw from a future spend. Then you'l have the "SMISA wish to have less spend polls in order to have a larger available pot" consultation. So everyone will have even less say. Though, maybe most have missed it, SMISA could just come out and say "this phase is primarily about buying the club" to get through limiting the level of engagement.

Comes back to one of my previous posts. The worry over the £2 spend is very much the tail wagging the dog. £3k, £8k both are a bonus to have, they aren't earth shattering funds. Also if you remember a lot of members have been crying out for 'a big ticket' spend. We now have that for the £2 pot, shows you can't do anything that'll please everyone. 

The £10/ £23 is so much more important and it's such a shame some people can't see by a very small aspect of BTB for the greater good. 

[melmac]

The term "asset lock" is misleading as SMISA's assets (land, goods, money) can generally be sold, exchanged etc.

 

However, the obligations on SMISA's directors require them to seek to benefit the society (not the club who serve the community) in any such transactions and not to deliberately (or negligently) dispose of assets at a significant undervalue (or no value in the case of the pitch at Ralston).

 

This means that it is the value rather than the assets that the legislation seeks to ‘lock in’. In each case, the value is locked in to an altruistic purpose. For community benefit societies, that is ‘community benefit’.

[pozbaird]

I have no issue with Gordon Scott, any more than I have an issue with Tommy Docherty, the tea ladies or the bloke in the panda suit on a Saturday. The issue I have, is funds ring-fenced to buy shares, being dipped into to help pay for an astroturf pitch, and being replaced with member’s own monies.

Dissect it, talk about it, argue the toss, go around in a circle and come back again, and here’s where you’ll come back to - member’s monies, ring-fenced to buy shares, are being used to part-fund an astroturf pitch.

I happen to find that completely unpalatable. I personally find it very strange that anyone thinks doing something like that is even remotely acceptable, but hey, each to their own.

[bazil85]

45 minutes ago, StuD said:

Bazil, SMISA are members of Supporters Direct. Supporters Direct state that their aim is to "help supporters gain influence and ownership of their club."

https://supporters-direct.org/about-supporters-direct

To deliver those aims SMISA should be looking to increase shareholding, increase supporter representation on the club board, and it should be moving as quickly as possible to ownership of the club. If you don't think those things are in the best interests of SMFC then can I suggest that you are putting your funds into completely the wrong vehicle.

yet again some word twisting there Stuart. Of course I believe fan ownership is best for SMFC, do I think doing it as quickly as possible is the best approach? It's a very loaded question. I'd pick done right over quick everyday for example. Your point is redundant though again giving the facts. 

1. This vote won't slow down fan ownership

2. It won't impact supporter representation on the board

3. The BTB shareholdings are already all set, again won't be impacted by the £2 spend

[Lord Pityme]

We need a new Smisa committee, one that not only is, but is seen to be acting in the members interests, not the board of SMFC's.

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

I have no issue with Gordon Scott, any more than I have an issue with Tommy Docherty, the tea ladies or the bloke in the panda suit on a Saturday. The issue I have, is funds ring-fenced to buy shares, being dipped into to help pay for an astroturf pitch, and being replaced with member’s own monies.

Dissect it, talk about it, argue the toss, go around in a circle and come back again, and here’s where you’ll come back to - member’s monies, ring-fenced to buy shares, are being used to part-fund an astroturf pitch.

I happen to find that completely unpalatable. I personally find it very strange that anyone thinks doing something like that is even remotely acceptable, but hey, each to their own.

The fantasy shattered! 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

We need a new Smisa committee, one that not only is, but is seen to be acting in the members interests, not the board of SMFC's.

FFS not acting in members interests with an 88% Yes vote 

[pozbaird]

Just now, bazil85 said:

The fantasy shattered! 

Gulp. I better say the bloke, the lady, the trans-sexual or the one-legged Muslim in the panda suit. I simply said ‘bloke’. Showing my age.... these days, you just never know. Don’t want to upset anyone or be disrespectful to people’s rights. For all I know, inside that suit could be a dolly burd. 

Phew, sorted!

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Gulp. I better say the bloke, the lady, the trans-sexual or the one-legged Muslim in the panda suit. I simply said ‘bloke’. Showing my age.... these days, you just never know. Don’t want to upset anyone or be disrespectful to people’s rights. For all I know, inside that suit could be a dolly burd. 

Phew, sorted!

I thought it was a real panda  

[St.Ricky]

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

FFS not acting in members interests with an 88% Yes vote 

You really do seem to inhabit an alternative universe. 

People posting have genuine concerns for the future of both SMISA and the club. 

For some reason, which completely escapes  me, you seem to be determined to alienate a number of them. 

I have said before and say again that if I were on the committee then I would  be  likely to ask  you to state clearly that these views are your own and do not represent the views of the committee. 

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

You really do seem to inhabit an alternative universe. 

People posting have genuine concerns for the future of both SMISA and the club. 

For some reason, which completely escapes  me, you seem to be determined to alienate a number of them. 

I have said before and say again that if I were on the committee then I would  be  likely to ask  you to state clearly that these views are your own and do not represent the views of the committee. 

These views are my own, I'm not on any SMISA committee and it's not being in an alternative universe.

88% of voting members voted in favor of the proposal, that's fact. If some people can't accept they're in the minority then not sure where they can go from there

[garzo]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

These views are my own, I'm not on any SMISA committee and it's not being in an alternative universe.

88% of voting members voted in favor of the proposal, that's fact. If some people can't accept they're in the minority then not sure where they can go from there

Just because the view is a minority one doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Lol. 

[St.Ricky]

15 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

These views are my own, I'm not on any SMISA committee and it's not being in an alternative universe.

88% of voting members voted in favor of the proposal, that's fact. If some people can't accept they're in the minority then not sure where they can go from there

You continue to miss the point bazil85

I accept that you mean well.... I have never doubted that. 

From what I read there are mixed views on whether or not people approve of funds being used for this purpose. So be it. 

But..... There seems to be almost complete unanimity from members and non members (like me)  who are expressing entirely legitimate concerns that the constitution of the organization is so lightly set aside. 

Surely worth listening and learningfrom

Treating people with contempt is unlikely to persuade them to your cause. 

This is where,  I am suggesting,  that you must exist in  parallel universe if you think this approach to be of benefit to anyone. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by St.Ricky

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, garzo said:

Just because the view is a minority one doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Lol. 

True, a lot of this isn't a matter of right or wrong though, it's a matter of opinion. 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

You continue to miss the point bazil85

I accept that you mean well.... I have never doubted that. 

From what I read there are mixed views on whether or not people approve of funds being used for this purpose. So be it. 

But..... There seems to be almost complete unanimity from members and non members (like me)  who are expressing entirely legitimate concerns that the constitution of the organization is so lightly set aside. 

Surely worth listening and learningfrom

Treating people with contempt is unlikely to persuade them to your cause. 

This is where,  I am suggesting,  that you must exist in  parallel universe if you think this approach to be of benefit to anyone. 

There's like 10 people commenting on this post and at least three of them agree with the way things have went. How you get complete unanimity from that is beyond me  

[northendsaint]

Spoiler

 

I have no intention of going through all the posts as the infighting frankly bores me to tears but can someone explain to me why with double the numbers initially required to purchase the club we cant do it in half the time. ie 5 years instead of 10.Genuine question from a guy who got an o level in arithmetic and not much else.

[waldorf34]

SMiSA should have the cash to buy the club in summer 2023 therefore to get the SMiSA directors who will run the club familiar with running the club they should be put on the St Mirren board at the St Mirren  AGM in December 2021 .

So SMiSA should be setting out their vision for a community club over the next couple of years, forget any notion of ten years!

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, northendsaint said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I have no intention of going through all the posts as the infighting frankly bores me to tears but can someone explain to me why with double the numbers initially required to purchase the club we cant do it in half the time. ie 5 years instead of 10.Genuine question from a guy who got an o level in arithmetic and not much else.

Really good question.

First off we don't have double, we have roughly 1,250 or 25% above the target of 1,000. Those figures are actually slightly better as the 1,000 was based on members paying the standard £12 a month. I believe roughly 12% of members pay the higher £25 but I could be wrong.  

The following figures are very rough but they highlight how healthy BTB really is right now ,(I think) because I have based them on a slightly worse case scenario with 1,250 members because we have a few more than that. 

Doing some maths the plan was based on £10 (£2 discretionary fund) for 1,000 members for 10 years = £1.2 Million (the plan also factored for a level of drop off under 1,000 and taxation/ fees) 

Doing some very rough maths based on 1,250 members 12% paying £25 with the same target of £1 Million, details below: 

If members stay consistent and we went over the full 10 years (which we wouldn't have to if it stayed consistent) the plan would be worth £1,734,000

Again if it stayed consistent at current members (again rough numbers) the plan would complete in 57% of the stated 10 year deadline date or very roughly after five years and seven months. 

All these figures don't take into account taxation (That bit gets somewhat confusing the way we're doing this) and fees so best guess I'd say we're currently on track to complete roughly after 6 and a half to seven years. 

In summary BTB is ahead of schedule and in a very healthy position, There is no reason we won't finish ahead of schedule (maybe not quite five years but certainly looking less than 10)  one of the main reasons for my Yes vote as I associate the risk to absolutely minimal, even if we see a drop-off. 

More signed up members makes this even stronger. I sincerely wish people wouldn't let the £2 fund cloud their judgement of the big picture. 

[WeeBud]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Really good question.

First off we don't have double, we have roughly 1,250 or 25% above the target of 1,000. Those figures are actually slightly better as the 1,000 was based on members paying the standard £12 a month. I believe roughly 12% of members pay the higher £25 but I could be wrong.  

The following figures are very rough but they highlight how healthy BTB really is right now ,(I think) because I have based them on a slightly worse case scenario with 1,250 members because we have a few more than that. 

Doing some maths the plan was based on £10 (£2 discretionary fund) for 1,000 members for 10 years = £1.2 Million (the plan also factored for a level of drop off under 1,000 and taxation/ fees) 

Doing some very rough maths based on 1,250 members 12% paying £25 with the same target of £1 Million, details below: 

If members stay consistent and we went over the full 10 years (which we wouldn't have to if it stayed consistent) the plan would be worth £1,734,000

Again if it stayed consistent at current members (again rough numbers) the plan would complete in 57% of the stated 10 year deadline date or very roughly after five years and seven months. 

All these figures don't take into account taxation (That bit gets somewhat confusing the way we're doing this) and fees so best guess I'd say we're currently on track to complete roughly after 6 and a half to seven years. 

In summary BTB is ahead of schedule and in a very healthy position, There is no reason we won't finish ahead of schedule (maybe not quite five years but certainly looking less than 10)  one of the main reasons for my Yes vote as I associate the risk to absolutely minimal, even if we see a drop-off. 

More signed up members makes this even stronger. I sincerely wish people wouldn't let the £2 fund cloud their judgement of the big picture. 

It's not, and never has been, the £2.00 fund that has ever bothered me....it's the fact that without prior consultation re "proposed changes to the constitution" with the membership they have had a vote on borrowing "ring-fenced" money against future quarterly spending proposals. I allowed my heart to over-rule my head.......with my heart I voted for the proposal but with my head I know that it was "poor governance" for it to happen the way it did.

In hindsight and on reflection I allowed the emotional attachment override my true feelings on the matter 

[StuD]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

yet again some word twisting there Stuart. Of course I believe fan ownership is best for SMFC, do I think doing it as quickly as possible is the best approach? It's a very loaded question. I'd pick done right over quick everyday for example. 

Until SMISA own at least 50% of the shares the majority interest in the club could be sold to any other party. Now I know SMISA tell us that there are water tight agreements locking Gordon Scott into accepting a certain price for his shareholding and handing over the shares to SMISA, but SMISA also told us that money would be ring-fenced for the exclusive use of buying shares in the club and they've since saw fit to waive that without following the proper constituted process. You've defended them saying that's what exceptions are for. Personally I'd think that regardless of the quality of candidate on the St Mirren board, the sooner the 50% stake in the club is held in a protected asset lock the better. 

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Really good question.

First off we don't have double, we have roughly 1,250 or 25% above the target of 1,000. Those figures are actually slightly better as the 1,000 was based on members paying the standard £12 a month. I believe roughly 12% of members pay the higher £25 but I could be wrong.  

The following figures are very rough but they highlight how healthy BTB really is right now ,(I think) because I have based them on a slightly worse case scenario with 1,250 members because we have a few more than that. 

Doing some maths the plan was based on £10 (£2 discretionary fund) for 1,000 members for 10 years = £1.2 Million (the plan also factored for a level of drop off under 1,000 and taxation/ fees) 

Doing some very rough maths based on 1,250 members 12% paying £25 with the same target of £1 Million, details below: 

If members stay consistent and we went over the full 10 years (which we wouldn't have to if it stayed consistent) the plan would be worth £1,734,000

Again if it stayed consistent at current members (again rough numbers) the plan would complete in 57% of the stated 10 year deadline date or very roughly after five years and seven months. 

All these figures don't take into account taxation (That bit gets somewhat confusing the way we're doing this) and fees so best guess I'd say we're currently on track to complete roughly after 6 and a half to seven years. 

In summary BTB is ahead of schedule and in a very healthy position, There is no reason we won't finish ahead of schedule (maybe not quite five years but certainly looking less than 10)  one of the main reasons for my Yes vote as I associate the risk to absolutely minimal, even if we see a drop-off. 

More signed up members makes this even stronger. I sincerely wish people wouldn't let the £2 fund cloud their judgement of the big picture. 

Hi ho Silver..!

i think the man who insits he has no skin in the game doth protesth too much.

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, northendsaint said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I have no intention of going through all the posts as the infighting frankly bores me to tears but can someone explain to me why with double the numbers initially required to purchase the club we cant do it in half the time. ie 5 years instead of 10.Genuine question from a guy who got an o level in arithmetic and not much else.

Rough estimate would be in position to conclude purchase between 6-7 years if subs stayed the same. The chairman however has let it be known he isnt shifting till the tenth year. Thats presuming we are all staying paying in. Continually dipping into the share money to give, loan or allow access to by the club will only push the purchase date back.

none of us signed up to have the share fund dipped.

[TsuMirren]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Really good question.

First off we don't have double, we have roughly 1,250 or 25% above the target of 1,000. Those figures are actually slightly better as the 1,000 was based on members paying the standard £12 a month. I believe roughly 12% of members pay the higher £25 but I could be wrong.  

The following figures are very rough but they highlight how healthy BTB really is right now ,(I think) because I have based them on a slightly worse case scenario with 1,250 members because we have a few more than that. 

Doing some maths the plan was based on £10 (£2 discretionary fund) for 1,000 members for 10 years = £1.2 Million (the plan also factored for a level of drop off under 1,000 and taxation/ fees) 

Doing some very rough maths based on 1,250 members 12% paying £25 with the same target of £1 Million, details below: 

If members stay consistent and we went over the full 10 years (which we wouldn't have to if it stayed consistent) the plan would be worth £1,734,000

Again if it stayed consistent at current members (again rough numbers) the plan would complete in 57% of the stated 10 year deadline date or very roughly after five years and seven months. 

All these figures don't take into account taxation (That bit gets somewhat confusing the way we're doing this) and fees so best guess I'd say we're currently on track to complete roughly after 6 and a half to seven years. 

In summary BTB is ahead of schedule and in a very healthy position, There is no reason we won't finish ahead of schedule (maybe not quite five years but certainly looking less than 10)  one of the main reasons for my Yes vote as I associate the risk to absolutely minimal, even if we see a drop-off. 

More signed up members makes this even stronger. I sincerely wish people wouldn't let the £2 fund cloud their judgement of the big picture. 

Yeeeeeeeeeah, you've no contact with or involvement in the committee/club. 

2024, mention that year in a committee meeting and you'd think you'd used the N word. Even that involves membership dropping below 1,000 at some point.

[Cairters_Corner]

It does seem beneficial if someone from the SMISA committee could state if the takeover from Gordon Scott will happen before year 10 or not?

I don’t see why a committee member can’t use this forum as a communication method with members. I Thought Kenny did a very admirable job communicating with members before his resignation.