Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

It's healthy to have debates which are open to others.  It would help however to answer questions seeking facts.

How many paying members are there?

How much do these contribute monthly?

Any chance someone can give a definitive answer?

 

 

Youre gonna have to email smisa direct for any communication on those questions Ricky. As a rule They dont respond to anything on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


21 hours ago, melmac said:

I see St Mirren Women’s team have a just giving page, looking for £3k to help buy kit, secure training / playing facilities.

Is this not what we just gave them money for?

I think this is some additional stuff. They'll likely need a good bit of funding to hit the ground running. Best of luck to them and hopefully they get some success on the park 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/02/2018 at 1:00 PM, melmac said:

I see St Mirren Women’s team have a just giving page, looking for £3k to help buy kit, secure training / playing facilities.

Is this not what we just gave them money for?

Not really Neil. The women's team have a 2 season budget of approximately 25K, it'd be more had they not assumed kit would last two years. The proposal I worked with them on for the £2,055 in the recent poll was for kit, training gear, equipment and some registration fees. The 3K requested through justgiving will plug a little more of the gap. I don't think it's breaking confidentiality to reveal the club informed them there was no money available. I imagine they may have hit their 3K target had there been a bit more transparency about it all. As it was they had to come to SMISA and it was agreed to be £2 pot only and not a stand alone vote of any sort. Thus, they waited from November until January for an answer.

Right, that'll do. Just felt the whole women's team debate needed a few answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On ‎25‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 6:48 PM, TsuMirren said:

 

 


Graeme,

If we suspend the vote then we aren't offering what members were sold,

From a personal viewpoint, I really don't see many big ticket items outside the obvious such as safe standing or filling a corner. For me the club should take a lead on items like that. There is no doubt we need to develop a fund for the future, but it needs to be practical. We need to understand cashflow, not to mention the effect firing a Manager or releasing a player could have (among other things).

 

It took only 9 months for a big ticket item to present itself.

Kenny, Hopefully your ex colleagues on the committee share your viewpoint about offering members what they were sold and get this ludicrous vote for £50000 from the share purchase pot as a 33% share in replacing the astro at Ralston off the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

It took only 9 months for a big ticket item to present itself.

Kenny, Hopefully your ex colleagues on the committee share your viewpoint about offering members what they were sold and get this ludicrous vote for £50000 from the share purchase pot as a 33% share in replacing the astro at Ralston off the table.

They won't, simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what everyone's getting their knickers in a twist for , if the SMISA subscribers don't think it's a good idea it'll be thrown out .
There's a clue in the "ring fenced"

The proposal to use the purchase pot removes that security.
Turns out 'Buy the Buds' was sold on a false promise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what everyone's getting their knickers in a twist for , if the SMISA subscribers don't think it's a good idea it'll be thrown out .

Not necessarily.

 

I fear many will just go with the flow because it us being sold as something good for the club and we all want what is best for the club.

 

If this is voted through we are essentially giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want with money set aside specifically to purchase the shares in the club.

 

This is a very dangerous precedence indeed.

 

No twisted knickers... Just a desire for people to look carefully at the proposal before voting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a clue in the "ring fenced"

The proposal to use the purchase pot removes that security.
Turns out 'Buy the Buds' was sold on a false promise


I haven't decided either way yet , but you can always withdraw your support for Buy the Buds , if enough people do that then there would have to be a rethink. In effect , they are actually asking to temporarily tap in to the ring fenced money to help with a major club project , I don't see many seeing that as a big problem . We'll find out soon enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

It took only 9 months for a big ticket item to present itself.

Kenny, Hopefully your ex colleagues on the committee share your viewpoint about offering members what they were sold and get this ludicrous vote for £50000 from the share purchase pot as a 33% share in replacing the astro at Ralston off the table.

 

2 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

They won't, simple as that.

 

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:
2 hours ago, TsuMirren said:
They won't, simple as that.

That greatly concerns me.

 

11 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

There's a clue in the "ring fenced"

The proposal to use the purchase pot removes that security.
Turns out 'Buy the Buds' was sold on a false promise

 

2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Not necessarily.

I fear many will just go with the flow because it us being sold as something good for the club and we all want what is best for the club.

If this is voted through we are essentially giving a small group of people a mandate to di whatever they want with money set aside specifically to purchase the shares in the club.

This is a very dangerous precedence indeed.

No twisted knickers... Just a desire for people to look carefully at the proposal before voting.

It ŵas obvious from the outset Scott saw Smisa as his personal Cash-Cow, interfered in elections, spat the dummy out on what members chose to spend THEIR money on and insisted that Smisa was no longer independent.

this spending proposal comes as no surprise, after spending £65k of members money on loans/cash facilities for the club WITHOUT consulting with the membership.. this is just another blatant cash grab on funds that the membership got a written, legally binding assurance from the Smisa committee that this sort of thing would never happen.

i am sure the campaign and written assurances we all signed up to were to 'Buy The Buds'... not to 'Buy Gordon's Furniture'..?

the other, hidden and much more sinister issue here is the delay, or even attempt to stop Smisa members taking over the club when we have accumulated the funds to buy Scott's shares. We have the legal right to buy these shares as soon as we have the funds, soon after takeover Scott let it be known he didnt want to sell for ten years, regardless of if smisa members had ammassed the required amount earlier. (Which on current projections we are on track to do)

if this proposal goes through it will delay and possibly end the written assurances the Smisa committee made to manage the purchase of the majority shareholding of SMFC  on the members behalf. It seems this committee have lost any perspective on even trying to appear independent, and are happy to do Scott's bidding, even if it means breaking the very promise made to the members that your money is Ring-Fenced to Buy The Buds.

shameless....

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I haven't decided either way yet , but you can always withdraw your support for Buy the Buds , if enough people do that then there would have to be a rethink. In effect , they are actually asking to temporarily tap in to the ring fenced money to help with a major club project , I don't see many seeing that as a big problem . We'll find out soon enough.
Withdraw support??

I'd prefer SMISA manage the funds like they presented. They gave assurrances of what the £10 would be used for.

Could this be a misappropriation of funds? As they are not being used for what they are intended for.

& £25000 a season to get the SMISA name on 1 (yes one) youth teams shirts. They are having a laugh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Withdraw support??

I'd prefer SMISA manage the funds like they presented. They gave assurrances of what the £10 would be used for.

Could this be a misappropriation of funds? As they are not being used for what they are intended for.

& £25000 a season to get the SMISA name on 1 (yes one) youth teams shirts. They are having a laugh


I doubt a few having a strop about it on a supporters forum is going to make them change their minds , it'll go to the democratic vote of current members , end of .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

 

 

 

 

It ŵas obvious from the outset Scott saw Smisa as his personal Cash-Cow, interfered in elections, spat the dummy out on what members chose to spend THEIR money on and insisted that Smisa was no longer independent.

this spending proposal comes as no surprise, after spending £65k of members money on loans/cash facilities for the club WITHOUT consulting with the membership.. this is just another blatant cash grab on funds that the membership got a written, legally binding assurance from the Smisa committee that this sort of thing would never happen.

i am sure the campaign and written assurances we all signed up to were to 'Buy The Buds'... not to 'Buy Gordon's Furniture'..?

the other, hidden and much more sinister issue here is the delay, or even attempt to stop Smisa members taking over the club when we have accumulated the funds to buy Scott's shares. We have the legal right to buy these shares as soon as we have the funds, soon after takeover Scott let it be known he didnt want to sell for ten years, regardless of if smisa members had ammassed the required amount earlier. (Which on current projections we are on track to do)

if this proposal goes through it will delay and possibly end the written assurances the Smisa committee made to manage the purchase of the majority shareholding of SMFC  on the members behalf. It seems this committee have lost any perspective on even trying to appear independent, and are happy to do Scott's bidding, even if it means breaking the very promise made to the members that your money is Ring-Fenced to Buy The Buds.

shameless....

:lol::lol::lol:

The usual Boo brigade doom and gloom without any substance crowd are back out already #usualsuspects. Hammering what is nothing but a very positive use of the SMISA money in a proposal that in no way jeopardises buy the buds (assuming membership numbers don't fall below target which if they did it would be in jeopardy anyway) 

1. New pitch at Ralston would be a great benefit to OUR football club 

2. The funds are to be taken from the £2 spend over a timescale that will very likely not see the buy the buds deal concluded barring a massive increase in members meaning there is very very very little risk in this impacting any aspect of the deal negatively. 

3. In the short-term the £10 fund is just gathering dust and getting a very small interest rate, makes so much sense to use this for something that benefits OUR club and minimises external borrowing

4. How does fixing a pitch benefit GS anymore than it would OUR football team? 

5. We're still in a democracy, this proposal going through regardless of it changing any mandates previously agreed will be on the will of the members, plans change, we're on a learning curve

6. The £65k fund was a very short-term decision that had to be made that based on all previous votes WOULD easily of passed. We have the money back now, no harm no foul and the money we'd of lost in revenue had the Morton game been moved more than justifies the decision (also it wasn't from the members £2 pot) 

7. 'If the proposal goes through we're giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want' em do you mean anything like getting a new pitch at OUR training ground that benefits OUR football club? Also no they don't it's still a vote and to suggest members won't vote for what they think is best for OUR football club is a tiny bit patronising.

Sorry I've highlighted OUR so often but there are a lot of people that clearly miss the point in supporting a club and funding a buyout. I'm certainly not in this for any personal game, I'm in it to give OUR club the best possible financial backing we possibly can.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

:lol::lol::lol:

The usual Boo brigade doom and gloom without any substance crowd are back out already #usualsuspects. Hammering what is nothing but a very positive use of the SMISA money in a proposal that in no way jeopardises buy the buds (assuming membership numbers don't fall below target which if they did it would be in jeopardy anyway) 

1. New pitch at Ralston would be a great benefit to OUR football club 

2. The funds are to be taken from the £2 spend over a timescale that will very likely not see the buy the buds deal concluded barring a massive increase in members meaning there is very very very little risk in this impacting any aspect of the deal negatively. 

3. In the short-term the £10 fund is just gathering dust and getting a very small interest rate, makes so much sense to use this for something that benefits OUR club and minimises external borrowing

4. How does fixing a pitch benefit GS anymore than it would OUR football team? 

5. We're still in a democracy, this proposal going through regardless of it changing any mandates previously agreed will be on the will of the members, plans change, we're on a learning curve

6. The £65k fund was a very short-term decision that had to be made that based on all previous votes WOULD easily of passed. We have the money back now, no harm no foul and the money we'd of lost in revenue had the Morton game been moved more than justifies the decision (also it wasn't from the members £2 pot) 

7. 'If the proposal goes through we're giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want' em do you mean anything like getting a new pitch at OUR training ground that benefits OUR football club? Also no they don't it's still a vote and to suggest members won't vote for what they think is best for OUR football club is a tiny bit patronising.

Sorry I've highlighted OUR so often but there are a lot of people that clearly miss the point in supporting a club and funding a buyout. I'm certainly not in this for any personal game, I'm in it to give OUR club the best possible financial backing we possibly can.  

I get the feeling I've sat in meetings with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

:lol::lol::lol:

The usual Boo brigade doom and gloom without any substance crowd are back out already #usualsuspects. Hammering what is nothing but a very positive use of the SMISA money in a proposal that in no way jeopardises buy the buds (assuming membership numbers don't fall below target which if they did it would be in jeopardy anyway) 

1. New pitch at Ralston would be a great benefit to OUR football club 

2. The funds are to be taken from the £2 spend over a timescale that will very likely not see the buy the buds deal concluded barring a massive increase in members meaning there is very very very little risk in this impacting any aspect of the deal negatively. 

3. In the short-term the £10 fund is just gathering dust and getting a very small interest rate, makes so much sense to use this for something that benefits OUR club and minimises external borrowing

4. How does fixing a pitch benefit GS anymore than it would OUR football team? 

5. We're still in a democracy, this proposal going through regardless of it changing any mandates previously agreed will be on the will of the members, plans change, we're on a learning curve

6. The £65k fund was a very short-term decision that had to be made that based on all previous votes WOULD easily of passed. We have the money back now, no harm no foul and the money we'd of lost in revenue had the Morton game been moved more than justifies the decision (also it wasn't from the members £2 pot) 

7. 'If the proposal goes through we're giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want' em do you mean anything like getting a new pitch at OUR training ground that benefits OUR football club? Also no they don't it's still a vote and to suggest members won't vote for what they think is best for OUR football club is a tiny bit patronising.

Sorry I've highlighted OUR so often but there are a lot of people that clearly miss the point in supporting a club and funding a buyout. I'm certainly not in this for any personal game, I'm in it to give OUR club the best possible financial backing we possibly can.  

Simple question? Do you not also wonder why a Championship club, we are told that lives within its means, and that has pulled in around £1million pounds in transfer fees in a year needs to syphon £50k of The memberships money from a pot that was GUARANTEED to be ring-fenced..?

wheres the million quid gone..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have far more faith in Scott running the Club than SMiSA. The difference in the Club over the last 15 months has been remarkable and long may it continue. But as SMiSA will take over some day then of course they have to work very closely with the current BOD. It should not be 'them and 'us' but 'we'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[emoji38][emoji38][emoji38]
The usual Boo brigade doom and gloom without any substance crowd are back out already #usualsuspects. Hammering what is nothing but a very positive use of the SMISA money in a proposal that in no way jeopardises buy the buds (assuming membership numbers don't fall below target which if they did it would be in jeopardy anyway) 
1. New pitch at Ralston would be a great benefit to OUR football club 
2. The funds are to be taken from the £2 spend over a timescale that will very likely not see the buy the buds deal concluded barring a massive increase in members meaning there is very very very little risk in this impacting any aspect of the deal negatively. 
3. In the short-term the £10 fund is just gathering dust and getting a very small interest rate, makes so much sense to use this for something that benefits OUR club and minimises external borrowing
4. How does fixing a pitch benefit GS anymore than it would OUR football team? 
5. We're still in a democracy, this proposal going through regardless of it changing any mandates previously agreed will be on the will of the members, plans change, we're on a learning curve
6. The £65k fund was a very short-term decision that had to be made that based on all previous votes WOULD easily of passed. We have the money back now, no harm no foul and the money we'd of lost in revenue had the Morton game been moved more than justifies the decision (also it wasn't from the members £2 pot) 
7. 'If the proposal goes through we're giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want' em do you mean anything like getting a new pitch at OUR training ground that benefits OUR football club? Also no they don't it's still a vote and to suggest members won't vote for what they think is best for OUR football club is a tiny bit patronising.
Sorry I've highlighted OUR so often but there are a lot of people that clearly miss the point in supporting a club and funding a buyout. I'm certainly not in this for any personal game, I'm in it to give OUR club the best possible financial backing we possibly can.  
You never disappoint.
If only bet365 had offered odds on you being the first and this party line being your response.

We get it.

You are a true fan.

We are knicker wetters and boo boys for daring to show concern about the legal complexities being brushed aside here!

Well said number one fan.
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...