The 3 Monthly Spend

[St.Ricky]

4 hours ago, Cairters_Corner said:

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.

I strongly support this approach

[TsuMirren]

56 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

I strongly support this approach

Won't happen, email or nothing. Like any other successful organisation works that way. I mean, imagine if Scotrail did that or Renfrewshire Council or a political party or even an engineering firm. "We've not had any negative emails" - "Great, crack on". 

On the 10 years thing, you'd probably need circa 600 members all making representation at the same time before they'll even look at it. It's just not in the plan, pretty much as simple as that. The next committee meeting is a week on Monday, so pop along and ask your questions. Discussion on here is fine, but it's not going to get far. Even if someone did pick up on it, someone else will ask "was this person a member?"

[northendsaint]

14 hours 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. 

The magical figure i was told when joining up was 700 .I also feel this is the time for another recruitment drive while we are riding the crest of the wave starting with the club dinner on Saturday.What an opportunity with over 500 people and business owners in abundance.Buy the Buds leaflets should be on every table.

[TsuMirren]

5 hours ago, northendsaint said:

The magical figure i was told when joining up was 700 .I also feel this is the time for another recruitment drive while we are riding the crest of the wave starting with the club dinner on Saturday.What an opportunity with over 500 people and business owners in abundance.Buy the Buds leaflets should be on every table.

Indeed, just like their should have been a pop-up SMISA banner in the members bar and in hospitality. So many small things that could bring great rewards.

[bazil85]

20 hours ago, WeeBud said:

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 

Heart Vs brain is always a debate isn't it?

In the grand scheme I think it should not be forgotten that this was overwhelmingly approved by members and the result would very likely be the same if they waited any length of time. I'd ask yourself, did you want prior consultation just for the sake of having prior consultation? There's also a difference between 'poor governance' and 'exception governance' Many confuse the two. 

[bazil85]

20 hours ago, StuD said:

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. 

Going a bit round in circles here but it looks like we can finally rest on our views being personal preference instead of actual law breaking so certainly progress. In regards to the water tight agreement, that is a thing however like any company in the world if a buyer came in the owner/ members would decide if it was the right move. So there isn't really any such thing as a water tight agreement that an entity won't be sold (in this sense). I fail to see how there could be. 

[bazil85]

20 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Hi ho Silver..!

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

If you think that’s some kind of insider knowledge, it further highlights that you have done very little reading or investigation to come to some of your conclusions. 

[bazil85]

19 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

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.

As I said above, you would have to of done very very little research not to know anything I’ve just posted (most of it was maths). None of that is insider knowledge hahaha 

[bazil85]

6 hours ago, northendsaint said:

The magical figure i was told when joining up was 700 .I also feel this is the time for another recruitment drive while we are riding the crest of the wave starting with the club dinner on Saturday.What an opportunity with over 500 people and business owners in abundance.Buy the Buds leaflets should be on every table.

Completely agree, a good idea I was thinking of was offering to expand the boards outside the stadium. 

‘Anyone signing up for BTB over the next three months that maintain their membership will be added to the boards at the end of BTB’ I’m sure some people must have seen how brilliant the boards look and want their name as part of our clubs history forever more... if only I was on the committee maybe I could recommend it... 

in saying all that, I think people that stopped paying within the first year should never of been put on the board. Plan was to pay until it’s done, if you can’t manage even 1/10 of that then why should you be on the boards when others joining after aren’t?

[StuD]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Completely agree, a good idea I was thinking of was offering to expand the boards outside the stadium. 

‘Anyone signing up for BTB over the next three months that maintain their membership will be added to the boards at the end of BTB’ I’m sure some people must have seen how brilliant the boards look and want their name as part of our clubs history forever more... if only I was on the committee maybe I could recommend it... 

in saying all that, I think people that stopped paying within the first year should never of been put on the board. Plan was to pay until it’s done, if you can’t manage even 1/10 of that then why should you be on the boards when others joining after aren’t?

I wish they hadn't put my name on the board. It just gives my kids something to laugh at me for now I know I was taken for a mug.  

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, StuD said:

I wish they hadn't put my name on the board. It just gives my kids something to laugh at me for now I know I was taken for a mug.  

In your opinion 

[StuD]

Just now, bazil85 said:

In your opinion 

No, I was definitely taken for a mug. I was promised that SMISA wouldn't revert to the t-shirt and towel nonsense. That it was focused on club ownership and strengthening links with the local community. And that it was all about stronger supporter and community representation on the football club board. It cost me around £150 before I realised I'd been mugged. Still, I thought, most of that was ringfenced for the purchase of the club. Yep, taken for a complete mug. Having my name on that board is no sort of honour. 

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, StuD said:

No, I was definitely taken for a mug. I was promised that SMISA wouldn't revert to the t-shirt and towel nonsense. That it was focused on club ownership and strengthening links with the local community. And that it was all about stronger supporter and community representation on the football club board. It cost me around £150 before I realised I'd been mugged. Still, I thought, most of that was ringfenced for the purchase of the club. Yep, taken for a complete mug. Having my name on that board is no sort of honour. 

What is a focus on club ownership? Open to interpretation - Your opinion

What strengthens the local community? Open to interpretation - Your opinion 

Stronger supporter and community representation on the football club board - Open to interpretation - Your opinion

Ring-fence situation - Democratic decision (landslide) by members 

For example my opinion is everything is very focused on fan ownership which will be achieved within the timescale (very likely earlier than people thought, how great is that?), everything happening right now is very short-term and relates to a very small portion of committed funds.

I believe a strong St Mirren is good for the community, I believe that season tickets given to different charities supports the community (the fact that also benefits St Mirren isn't taboo) I believe that the proposal never at anytime said 100% of funds would go to the community and that could not be changed under any circumstances (even at the voting will of members) I believe disabled platforms and improved Panda club experiences, benefit the local community, again why should something that also benefits the football club we all support be negative? 

My understanding is everyone on the St Mirren board right now and SMISA council is a St Mirren fan, I also understand very few if any are in this to personally profit (doubt many could) they all IMO have what's best for the club at heart and I'm delighted about that. Also not having a chairman in it for profit is a big plus, could of seen a Livi, Dundee or Rangers situation in Paisley. 

I know you disagree with a number of those points but you can't dismiss them, they're all personal opinion that can be backed up with valid points, as can yours. The disappointing thing for me in regards to members that cancelled in similar situations to yourself is, the failure to grasp other people can have a different opinion and that opinion is not therefore automatically wrong. Cancelling memberships because of different interpretations of community benefit and fan ownership focus ring true for SMISA and other members is for me disappointing. Cancelling memberships because of a democratic backed change in the use of the funds is also disappointing. But hey your money, your choice like everyone else. 

[StuD]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

What is a focus on club ownership? Open to interpretation - Your opinion

What strengthens the local community? Open to interpretation - Your opinion 

Stronger supporter and community representation on the football club board - Open to interpretation - Your opinion

Ring-fence situation - Democratic decision (landslide) by members 

For example my opinion is everything is very focused on fan ownership which will be achieved within the timescale (very likely earlier than people thought, how great is that?), everything happening right now is very short-term and relates to a very small portion of committed funds.

I believe a strong St Mirren is good for the community, I believe that season tickets given to different charities supports the community (the fact that also benefits St Mirren isn't taboo) I believe that the proposal never at anytime said 100% of funds would go to the community and that could not be changed under any circumstances (even at the voting will of members) I believe disabled platforms and improved Panda club experiences, benefit the local community, again why should something that also benefits the football club we all support be negative? 

My understanding is everyone on the St Mirren board right now and SMISA council is a St Mirren fan, I also understand very few if any are in this to personally profit (doubt many could) they all IMO have what's best for the club at heart and I'm delighted about that. Also not having a chairman in it for profit is a big plus, could of seen a Livi, Dundee or Rangers situation in Paisley. 

I know you disagree with a number of those points but you can't dismiss them, they're all personal opinion that can be backed up with valid points, as can yours. The disappointing thing for me in regards to members that cancelled in similar situations to yourself is, the failure to grasp other people can have a different opinion and that opinion is not therefore automatically wrong. Cancelling memberships because of different interpretations of community benefit and fan ownership focus ring true for SMISA and other members is for me disappointing. Cancelling memberships because of a democratic backed change in the use of the funds is also disappointing. But hey your money, your choice like everyone else. 

Bazil, I think what you fail to grasp is that regardless of how the majority of members vote - each individual has the option of deciding enough is enough and cancelling their membership. There is no obligation on anyone to keep throwing money at SMISA if they don't agree with the way it's being run or how it's being governed. 

Guarantees, promises, constitutions, and more have been smashed by the current SMISA board - something you justify. Personally I can't blame anyone for taking the action I did and cancelling their membership. In the same way I wouldn't donate money to a charity that was caught breaching it's constitution and which showed poor governance, I'm not going to continue to pour money into an organisation that fails to respect it's constitution and which loses focus of it's goal. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, StuD said:

Bazil, I think what you fail to grasp is that regardless of how the majority of members vote - each individual has the option of deciding enough is enough and cancelling their membership. There is no obligation on anyone to keep throwing money at SMISA if they don't agree with the way it's being run or how it's being governed. 

Guarantees, promises, constitutions, and more have been smashed by the current SMISA board - something you justify. Personally I can't blame anyone for taking the action I did and cancelling their membership. In the same way I wouldn't donate money to a charity that was caught breaching it's constitution and which showed poor governance, I'm not going to continue to pour money into an organisation that fails to respect it's constitution and which loses focus of it's goal. 

First paragraph I already said, your money your choice.

Second one is where it comes to matter of opinion on what SMISA are doing. If you think they're showing poor governance and breaching it's constitution that is 100% your opinion. The opinion on breaching will be shown to be be incorrect if the deal gets signed off (which it will/ has) and the fact no wrongdoing has been discovered despite at least two people following the whistle-blowing process. 

The poor governance is completely a matter of opinion. Again disappointed it made you cancel but the only reason you have for cancelling as far as I can see is the majority of paying members have a different view from you. 

[pozbaird]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Completely agree, a good idea I was thinking of was offering to expand the boards outside the stadium. 

‘Anyone signing up for BTB over the next three months that maintain their membership will be added to the boards at the end of BTB’ I’m sure some people must have seen how brilliant the boards look and want their name as part of our clubs history forever more... if only I was on the committee maybe I could recommend it... 

in saying all that, I think people that stopped paying within the first year should never of been put on the board. Plan was to pay until it’s done, if you can’t manage even 1/10 of that then why should you be on the boards when others joining after aren’t?

I agree with your last paragraph. My name is on that board, and frankly, I’d like it removed asap. I wouldn’t want to spoil the look of it, so I won’t do it, but I just want to take an extra-wide marker to my name and erase it.

[bazil85]

12 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

I agree with your last paragraph. My name is on that board, and frankly, I’d like it removed asap. I wouldn’t want to spoil the look of it, so I won’t do it, but I just want to take an extra-wide marker to my name and erase it.

Such a shame people have that opinion for something that ultimately will be good for our club for generations to come, long after all the people they may disagree with associate with SMISA and BTB are gone. 

[Kemp]

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Such a shame people have that opinion for something that ultimately will be good for our club for generations to come, long after all the people they may disagree with associate with SMISA and BTB are gone. 

It's just a few drama queens.  People like a scandal.  The money has hardly been raided, if we can use the funds to help develop young players while still remaining on track for eventual fan ownership then the vast majority of us are happy. 

[pozbaird]

14 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Such a shame people have that opinion for something that ultimately will be good for our club for generations to come, long after all the people they may disagree with associate with SMISA and BTB are gone. 

How can you say it’s a shame people have that opinion when five minutes ago, you said yourself that you think anyone who pulled out within a year shouldn’t have their names on the board?

I withdrew. I don’t want my name on the board. You said the same thing, so why is it a shame I feel that way?

Edited May 3, 2018 by pozbaird

[pozbaird]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

It's just a few drama queens.  People like a scandal.  The money has hardly been raided, if we can use the funds to help develop young players while still remaining on track for eventual fan ownership then the vast majority of us are happy. 

Why is it being a drama queen if you feel strongly that the thing you put your money into is no longer something you wish to continue putting your money into?

[TsuMirren]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Plan was to pay until it’s done, if you can’t manage even 1/10 of that then why should you be on the boards when others joining after aren’t?

Plan was for SMISA to pay, you can't expect every member to just keep paying. Also, read the bloody text on the wall. There are plans to add to the board, not sure it's an incentive to join though. 

SMISA will own the shares, not each member, so it doesn't really matter if a few drop off here and there. 

[TsuMirren]

18 minutes ago, Kemp said:

It's just a few drama queens.  People like a scandal.  The money has hardly been raided, if we can use the funds to help develop young players while still remaining on track for eventual fan ownership then the vast majority of us are happy. 

It was the method of how it was done, not the actual doing it. Breaking a key promise and not running a simple pre-vote to cover the ring-fence breech. On top of that they've, quite frankly, done as little as possible to manage and mitigate this...that being the risk around the 4G needing replaced. It was known about for nearly a year, yet we end up where we are and with this discussion because the majority of the committee are inept and utterly incapable of being pro-active. Who would have contributed to fundraising for 50K...we all would. Everyone posting here, every adult fan who goes to games, locals, distant fans and maybe even club sponsors. But, we'll never know.

[bazil85]

49 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

How can you say it’s a shame people have that opinion when five minutes ago, you said yourself that you think anyone who pulled out within a year shouldn’t have their names on the board?

I withdrew. I don’t want my name on the board. You said the same thing, so why is it a shame I feel that way?

Two different points.

1. If you haven’t fulfilled the commitment because you don’t like people having a different opinion from them.  removed 

2. Shame that people can’t see the bigger picture of fan ownership over their gripes about the £2 spend (small part of BTB) 

[pozbaird]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Two different points.

1. If you haven’t fulfilled the commitment because you don’t like people having a different opinion from them.  removed 

2. Shame that people can’t see the bigger picture of fan ownership over their gripes about the £2 spend (small part of BTB) 

Seriously? That’s your response!? Especially No1. What a cunty thing to say. Wow, just wow.

Edited May 3, 2018 by pozbaird

[bazil85]

36 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Plan was for SMISA to pay, you can't expect every member to just keep paying. Also, read the bloody text on the wall. There are plans to add to the board, not sure it's an incentive to join though. 

SMISA will own the shares, not each member, so it doesn't really matter if a few drop off here and there. 

Yeah of course I know some people’s reasons will be say financial. But they’ll be extreme minority, I know £12 a month is a lot to some people but not to most. 

Great if they’re doing that, I really think incentivising it would be a great approach. 

Maybe I should be on the committee... no doubt a few innings here wouldn’t believe me though haha