Save Smisa

[Kombibuddie]

was there an agenda to the AGM. As in a list of items to be discussed/a running order. To avoid any confusion of folk thinking this fella had an agenda of causing disruption blah blah

[Lord Pityme]

I know i was shot down twice trying to ask questions. Now you confirm the committee took SIX questions at their AGM. At all the AGM's of differing organisations i have attended the one common theme was the meeting stays open untill all,questions have been asked and answered... ffs

[TsuMirren]

because it wasn't his meeting. It is that simple

So SMISA members can accuse him of things, but the SMISA Committee can't invite him to the AGM and allow him to give response should he see fit? Basically, we're not going to work together and instead maintain some sort of us and them mentality. Is that really how you see this work? That's an interesting theory, can't imagine many of the 1,300 would agree.

[Lord Pityme]

11 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

Why didn't others throw their arm up and demand to ask a question? Much like why did nobody ask to address the rep from Supporters Direct? When George made the comment towards Tony, why did nobody make any sort of vocal objection? Instead of applauding at the end, why did nobody just stand up and absolutely demand to be heard? Raising issues on a forum after the meeting, to me anyway, is an absolute waste when you consider that the people raising them were there.

I'm certain that everyone who put a hand up got to ask their question(s) or make their point(s). Off the top of my head that was six people. Gordon may have stepped in, but why shouldn't he when he's being accused of certain things on here and also when he was able to provide additional detail at the time.

 

It was a smisa AGM, no ne had accused him of anything at the AGM, so why was a non committee member wading in, but the smisa club board member wasnt even there?

[Lord Pityme]

2 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

So SMISA members can accuse him of things, but the SMISA Committee can't invite him to the AGM and allow him to give response should he see fit? Basically, we're not going to work together and instead maintain some sort of us and them mentality. Is that really how you see this work? That's an interesting theory, can't imagine many of the 1,300 would agree.

 

I would the 1300 members might want to hear from their independent committee RE smisa business?

[Lord Pityme]

Kenny what is it you believe Gordon has been accused of?

[Kombibuddie]

6 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

 

So SMISA members can accuse him of things, but the SMISA Committee can't invite him to the AGM and allow him to give response should he see fit? Basically, we're not going to work together and instead maintain some sort of us and them mentality. Is that really how you see this work? That's an interesting theory, can't imagine many of the 1,300 would agree.

 

You did say Gordon "stepped in" that to me suggests he got involved without being asked to (at that particular point.)

If Gordon was asked a direct question, I'd expect him to be given the courtesy to answer.

If a question concerning Gordon was asked from the floor, I'd expect The Chair to reply or ask Gordon if he'd care to respond.

I would not expect Gordon to take it upon himself to "step in" Even if whoever was the Queen of Sheba. He/she waits until invited to get involved.

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Kombibuddie

[beyond our ken]

sounds like the chair was actualy such a comfy chair that he slept right through the bit where he moderates the meeting

[TsuMirren]

Did I mention? Not a peep about being able to move goalposts.

The quote just grabs the goalposts portion, but this is a reply in general. The SGM in March saw a vote that gave the committee power to negotiate and conclude Buy the Buds. At the time a loan was to be taken out, though that didn't occur and this saw changes to how the deal was concluded. Some of that hasn't been very well communicated and that needs rectified. That was pretty much admitted and acknowledged at the AGM. One main point though is that there were probably only 200 SMISA members at the time of the SGM. Tony has demanded that info on the 50K is communicated, yet the agreement hasn't actually been finalised yet and discussion at the last committee meeting was that we will communicate it out once agreed.

[Lord Pityme]

4 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

You did say Gordon "stepped in" that to me suggests he got involved without being asked to (at that particular point.)

If Gordon was asked a direct question, I'd expect him to be given the courtesy to answer.

If a question concerning Gordon was asked from the floor, I'd expect The Chair to reply or ask Gordon if he'd care to respond.

I would not expect Gordon to take it upon himself to "step in" Even if whoever was the Queen of Sheba. He/she waits until invited to get involved.

 

Sadly now it seems its the GSUIMA that is the Gordon Scott Un-Independent Members Association. 

[garzo]

If a statement was released like this would it allay any of your concerns & put your mind at rest that your committee is acting in good faith:

"As negotiations progressed it emerged that an up front deposit payment was required to the outgoing consortium. 

It was originally intended & is in fact a legally binding requirement to keep a sum of money aside in case of emergencies as a shareholder loan to the club. All premium membership subscriptions were originally intended for this purpose. 

To conclude the deal the deposit was paid using premium membership funds.

This would be replaced when bank levels of subscriptions allowed.

The deposit paid is an initial part of staged payments to be made to the outgoing consortium. "

This is my understanding of what has happened. Im happy with it.

We're moving in the right direction. 

[Lord Pityme]

2 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

The quote just grabs the goalposts portion, but this is a reply in general. The SGM in March saw a vote that gave the committee power to negotiate and conclude Buy the Buds. At the time a loan was to be taken out, though that didn't occur and this saw changes to how the deal was concluded. Some of that hasn't been very well communicated and that needs rectified. That was pretty much admitted and acknowledged at the AGM. One main point though is that there were probably only 200 SMISA members at the time of the SGM. Tony has demanded that info on the 50K is communicated, yet the agreement hasn't actually been finalised yet and discussion at the last committee meeting was that we will communicate it out once agreed.

 

Communicate or ask the people whose money it is do they approve of an un-secured, non interest facility that they will end up inheriting as a debt?

[Lord Pityme]

2 minutes ago, garzo said:

If a statement was released like this would it allay any of your concerns & put your mind at rest that your committee is acting in good faith:

"As negotiations progressed it emerged that an up front deposit payment was required to the outgoing consortium. 

It was originally intended & is in fact a legally binding requirement to keep a sum of money aside in case of emergencies as a shareholder loan to the club. All premium membership subscriptions were originally intended for this purpose. 

To conclude the deal the deposit was paid using premium membership funds.

This would be replaced when bank levels of subscriptions allowed.

The deposit paid is an initial part of staged payments to be made to the outgoing consortium. "

This is my understanding of what has happened. Im happy with it.

We're moving in the right direction. 

Only caveat i would add to that is the law dictates you have to consult the people (1300'smisa members) whose subscriptions fund this.

[TsuMirren]

Communicate or ask the people whose money it is do they approve of an un-secured, non interest facility that they will end up inheriting as a debt?

I've seen nothing about us inheriting it as a debt. Indeed, I'd be just a keen as anyone else for it to be paid back prior to SMISA purchasing Gordon's shares. It's not going to be a vote though, that's been made pretty clear.

[garzo]

1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

Only caveat i would add to that is the law dictates you have to consult the people (1300'smisa members) whose subscriptions fund this.

I'm pretty sure this has been taken on board. 

I think we're close to a resolution?

[TsuMirren]

You did say Gordon "stepped in" that to me suggests he got involved without being asked to (at that particular point.)
If Gordon was asked a direct question, I'd expect him to be given the courtesy to answer.
If a question concerning Gordon was asked from the floor, I'd expect The Chair to reply or ask Gordon if he'd care to respond.
I would not expect Gordon to take it upon himself to "step in" Even if whoever was the Queen of Sheba. He/she waits until invited to get involved.
 

I looked upon it as people knew he was at the table, so could step in if he saw fit. Maybe that's it because I'm used to the St Mirren AGM and the usual instances of the directors commenting as they saw fit.

[Kombibuddie]

7 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

 

So SMISA members can accuse him of things, but the SMISA Committee can't invite him to the AGM and allow him to give response should he see fit? Basically, we're not going to work together and instead maintain some sort of us and them mentality. Is that really how you see this work? That's an interesting theory, can't imagine many of the 1,300 would agree.

 

How I see it working is, our money being used (& ring fenced) just like it was promised when Buy the Buds was sold to us. It really is that simple.

2 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

 

The quote just grabs the goalposts portion, but this is a reply in general. The SGM in March saw a vote that gave the committee power to negotiate and conclude Buy the Buds. At the time a loan was to be taken out, though that didn't occur and this saw changes to how the deal was concluded. Some of that hasn't been very well communicated and that needs rectified. That was pretty much admitted and acknowledged at the AGM. One main point though is that there were probably only 200 SMISA members at the time of the SGM. Tony has demanded that info on the 50K is communicated, yet the agreement hasn't actually been finalised yet and discussion at the last committee meeting was that we will communicate it out once agreed.

 

I'll look forward to the minutes of the AGM. Because that is how these things work. Isn't it?

6 minutes ago, garzo said:

If a statement was released like this would it allay any of your concerns & put your mind at rest that your committee is acting in good faith:

"As negotiations progressed it emerged that an up front deposit payment was required to the outgoing consortium. 

It was originally intended & is in fact a legally binding requirement to keep a sum of money aside in case of emergencies as a shareholder loan to the club. All premium membership subscriptions were originally intended for this purpose. 

To conclude the deal the deposit was paid using premium membership funds.

This would be replaced when bank levels of subscriptions allowed.

The deposit paid is an initial part of staged payments to be made to the outgoing consortium. "

This is my understanding of what has happened. Im happy with it.

We're moving in the right direction. 

Garzo, maybe I have completely misunderstood but you are talking about last year. I am thinking this £50K loan is here & now. Have I really misunderstood that?

Another quick question, if here & now, will this be the only loan of it's kind? Because before we know... if JR can do that with £8K of SMISA money, imagine, what he could do with £200K (of SMISA subscriptions).

[Kombibuddie]

8 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

 

I looked upon it as people knew he was at the table, so could step in if he saw fit. Maybe that's it because I'm used to the St Mirren AGM and the usual instances of the directors commenting as they saw fit.

 

I'm used to AGM's where a process is followed and it is not a free for all. As for him seeing fit?? I'll go back to, it wasn't his meeting to "see fit"

It's done now.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Kombibuddie

[garzo]

1 minute ago, Kombibuddie said:

How I see it working is, our money being used (& ring fenced) just like it was promised when Buy the Buds was sold to us. It really is that simple.

I'll look forward to the minutes of the AGM. Because that is how these things work. Isn't it?

Garzo, maybe I have completely misunderstood but you are talking about last year. I am thinking this £50K loan is here & now. Have I really misunderstood that?

Another quick question, if here & now, will this be the only loan of it's kind? Because before we know... if JR can do that with £8K of SMISA money, imagine, what he could do with £200K (of SMISA subscriptions).

It's not really a loan in traditional terms.

It's a shareholder agreement to place £50k aside for use by the club should it be required in times of cash flow difficulties or emergencies. This will be paid back when cash flow returns to normal. For example a trading gap loan in lieu of league payments. This is an ongoing requirement hence the need for premium membership monies. 

[Kombibuddie]

1 minute ago, garzo said:

It's not really a loan in traditional terms.

It's a shareholder agreement to place £50k aside for use by the club should it be required in times of cash flow difficulties or emergencies. This will be paid back when cash flow returns to normal. For example a trading gap loan in lieu of league payments. This is an ongoing requirement hence the need for premium membership monies. 

That has cropped up now? Why not last year when the "agreement" with GLS SMISA and the selling consortium was made. Why now? & Why not ask the other shareholders to contribute to this? Is it just easier to use SMISA as a bit of a cash cow?

[garzo]

5 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

That has cropped up now? Why not last year when the "agreement" with GLS SMISA and the selling consortium was made. Why now? & Why not ask the other shareholders to contribute to this? Is it just easier to use SMISA as a bit of a cash cow?

It's always been there. Maybe not widely known though. 

Its also a sensible approach to have this type of agreement between major shareholders & active partners in the business. 

[Kombibuddie]

14 minutes ago, garzo said:

It's always been there. Maybe not widely known though. 

Its also a sensible approach to have this type of agreement between major shareholders & active partners in the business. 

are you on the SMISA committee?

[garzo]

8 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

are you on the SMISA committee?

No

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Is Gordon Scott a member of smisa?

[buddiecat]

8 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

 

Just now, TPAFKATS said:

Is Gordon Scott a member of smisa?

You would need to ask him that i'm afraid, because of confidentiality, which is only right and proper.