Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Graeme Aitken

The 3 Monthly Spend

Recommended Posts

We cannae get out a fecking League Cup Group two years in a row :lol:
There will not be Euro Tournaments for the likes of us in the future
Unless we have to play 10 qualifying rounds.
Get back to posting dots, Baz


We can't get out of the league cup two years in a row so that means there is no chance of any of us ever seeing European football in Paisley? Aye alright, get to yer bed little Miss sunshine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you buy hours from ? :blink:


We'll let you work that one out for yourself. Exactly what I voted for and IMO best option for the club. Money going towards benefiting the team will always get my vote. COYS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 


We can't get out of the league cup two years in a row so that means there is no chance of any of us ever seeing European football in Paisley? Aye alright, get to yer bed little Miss sunshine.

 

There wont be major Group stages Europe for Teams like us.

Wont matter what stadium we have when we are playing in the 10th Qualifying round .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 


We'll let you work that one out for yourself. Exactly what I voted for and IMO best option for the club. Money going towards benefiting the team will always get my vote. COYS

 

Sports Scientist will make them fitter so they can play shite at full throttle for 90 minutes.

Buy them a ball each to fecking practice with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sports Scientist will make them fitter so they can play shite at full throttle for 90 minutes.
Buy them a ball each to fecking practice with.


Probably what the sports scientists at Manchester United, Liverpool, Real and Barca all recommend eh? Get them oot playing fitbaw on the road as well. Shirts for goalposts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 


Probably what the sports scientists at Manchester United, Liverpool, Real and Barca all recommend eh? Get them oot playing fitbaw on the road as well. Shirts for goalposts emoji23.png

 

Wouldn't do them any harm.

Culture shock for the spoilt jessie bassas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bought Joma training balls in past. Not very good & fell apart easily.

I buy match balls now, whatever has a decent discount.
Mitre monde & mitre ultimatch last really well (2 seasons). Now using Mitre Max (cost as explained).

I would be interested to see how a cost of £2500 was reached as i thought these things were meant to be costed before going to the vote.



Mitre Mouldmaster is what you need. Just the job on a January morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty disappointed in the spending choices.

Sports scientist should be in the club budget without Smisa spending.

Extra weights for the training ground could easily been deducted from players wages.

I feel Smisa money should be for emergencies or for the greater good, not making up the shortfall in the budget for the team. We can't keep going on in this manner when we fully own the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gc_SMFC said:

Pretty disappointed in the spending choices.

Sports scientist should be in the club budget without Smisa spending.

Extra weights for the training ground could easily been deducted from players wages.

I feel Smisa money should be for emergencies or for the greater good, not making up the shortfall in the budget for the team. We can't keep going on in this manner when we fully own the club.

when SMISA owns The Club, there'll be no monthly £2 spend pot to bail anything out. Spunking the money every 3 months is not preparing for the future but that is how it was sold. So squander the money on things like this, we must

Edited by Graeme Aitken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have paid the wages for the sports scientist for one year before the bowl gets passed around again?

 

Smisa needs to grow a bit more of a spine and be willing to say these should be cost already accounted for within the running of the club.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gc_SMFC said:

So we have paid the wages for the sports scientist for one year before the bowl gets past around again?

Smisa needs to grow a bit more of a spin and be willing to say these should be cost already accounted for within the running of the club.

Looks like whenever there are items in the vote that would give straight to the club, then those choices are always going to win, can't say i'm against anything that enhances the product on the park, but i am disappointed that we don't get much of a chance of helping the commuinity in general. It was one of the selling points of the bid after all. Maybe a vote which is free of any requests from the club every so often could address that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree about the Community side of things.The weights option should have been in the same section as the Sports Scientist with the other section only being for Community related stuff.

Everything seems to be weighted in favour of the Club.There's not been a decent vote to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with others here that although the outcome was democratic and very much as I expected, I would dearly have loved to have done more for the wider community.
The club would have reaped rewards at some point in the fufure.
Sometimes investing in others is a better long term investment in self!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the options are "loaded" and, TBH, there is little real outcome than what the club sees as a request to "improve the club", all more whataboutery.

The idea of helping the community was a selling point, as I recall, and there seems to be little of the cash doing exactly this.

Never mind, the "we support the club till we're blue in the face" crew will be overjoyed and, after all, it is democracy. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HSS said:

Have to agree about the Community side of things.The weights option should have been in the same section as the Sports Scientist with the other section only being for Community related stuff.

Everything seems to be weighted in favour of the Club.There's not been a decent vote to date.

It always has been weighted in favour of the club (especially the weights for the gym) Putting the vote into two tiers with a spend request from the club in each tier was a sure way of getting Jack the two things he wanted. If there is a way to set the choices in favour of club requests it will be done that way. Sad to see that the Panda club suffers at the request of the club though, no more "The SMiSA panda club" and the wider community who could benefit from funds and the possible knock on effect of that benefitting the club are not likely to get a look in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, buddiecat said:

It always has been weighted in favour of the club (especially the weights for the gym) Putting the vote into two tiers with a spend request from the club in each tier was a sure way of getting Jack the two things he wanted. If there is a way to set the choices in favour of club requests it will be done that way. Sad to see that the Panda club suffers at the request of the club though, no more "The SMiSA panda club" and the wider community who could benefit from funds and the possible knock on effect of that benefitting the club are not likely to get a look in.

Pity you can't read all the posts which say pretty much what you have regurgitated.

Thanks for your input. :byebye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't money from SMISA's reserves (separate from share purchase cash) be used to sponsor the Panda Club as has happened for the last few years? Is that money earmarked for anything?

Was always said the £2 monthly spend was for other projects. If a reserve needed to be built up for when SMISA buy the club (which seems a sensible idea) it should have been built into the payment structure when we started - for example £1 for projects and £1 into the reserve - rather than shifting the goalposts 12 months down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to spend money, it should really be about what's going to make / save money for us / the club in the future. Spending money chasing to get a couple of folk through the door every second sat is not the answer. Wider scope required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, shull said:

There wont be major Group stages Europe for Teams like us.

Wont matter what stadium we have when we are playing in the 10th Qualifying round .

I'm not talking about European group games, to my knowledge the qualifiers are also no standing. You would 100% moan if half our stadium had to be empty if St Mirren got into a qualifier. Although you'd probably blame St Mirren for UEFA rules. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Nothing from the £2 going to the community, all going to pay club bills. Thats not how it was sold in BTB. Another promise broken.

Democratic vote so no promises broken. The paying members made the choice on what the money would be spent on. SMISA have been completely honest from day one that the spending of the money would be the paying members choice. Also at no point did SMISA say every penny would go to community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stu said:

Why can't money from SMISA's reserves (separate from share purchase cash) be used to sponsor the Panda Club as has happened for the last few years? Is that money earmarked for anything?

Was always said the £2 monthly spend was for other projects. If a reserve needed to be built up for when SMISA buy the club (which seems a sensible idea) it should have been built into the payment structure when we started - for example £1 for projects and £1 into the reserve - rather than shifting the goalposts 12 months down the line.

There are (or should be as that is what we were sold and voted on) only two pots of money that smisa manage.

£2 from every members subscriptions for the 3monthly vote (Ross already knows the outcome before the vote.)

and all other monies are ringfenced to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC (although as we know the committee broke that constitutional and legislative  binding rule by lending £15k for the USH without consulting the members, and the other £50 k they are lending to the club, again without consulting the members).

 Agree that the way the £2 vote is set is purely to funnel money into the club, it is quite disgusting really the haste with which the club board are grabbing and spending smisa members subscriptions before/without consulting them.

we can all see smisa members are ploughing hundreds of thousands into the club... what we cant see is the people spending it (club board members/major shareholder) matching or indeed adding anything to that, as the line we are fed goes "investing in something we are going to inherit"....

Smisa's moral compass, purpose and accountability needs to be reset before significant numbers believe its not worth the bother of voting as it only ends up going to what Gordon wants, and then deciding its not worth continuing to fund something you feel doesn't represent your wishes. Out of 780 votes

Three hundred and forty eight people DIDN'T vote to pay a club employees wages...

The majority of a whopping five hundred and seven people wanted to see the tier 2 vote go to community based projects.

When over half the vote dont feel their wish matters it can only end in tears down the line, ask Theresa May.

Edited by Lord Pityme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty shocked with some of the comments on here, basically what I'm reading is: 'Majority of paying members want the money to go to helping St Mirren FC on the park and in development in anyway it can... so lets take that option off future votes.' :unsure: Am I the only one that sees a democratic flaw in that? 

I'm all for some money going to community projects, no issue with that and happy that it's happened previous months, at no point did SMISA stipulate that would be all the funds or even what percentage it would be. For me though I will always vote for the good of our club first. A strong St Mirren anyway will mean a stronger community presence, lets not forget the club have a budget for this as well. I don't get why some fans are so against helping the club. 'take it out the player budget.' How about no we don't... 

What I would say though is everyone is entitled to their opinion on how they want the money spent. This post is directed at those wanting to manipulate the democratic will of the majority of voting members. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×