Jump to content

Save Smisa


Lord Pityme

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

The club want the £50k revolving credit facility ( its not a loan, it doesnt have a payback date, GS indicated it runs for ten years, and if it hasnt been paid back, we inherit a debt to ourselves) ASAP, they are frustrated at the process the smisa finance guys are trying to keep them on.


"Inherit a debt to ourselves" :lol:

I'm lost with your logic on that one to be honest.

Look, yes, the members should be told about this £50K arrangement and if necessary vote to pass it through. I agree completely.

The USH loan I genuinely couldn't give a shit about.

Just my opinion of course. I think I'm entitled to that the same as you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


53 minutes ago, div said:


"Inherit a debt to ourselves" :lol:

I'm lost with your logic on that one to be honest.

Look, yes, the members should be told about this £50K arrangement and if necessary vote to pass it through. I agree completely.

The USH loan I genuinely couldn't give a shit about.

Just my opinion of course. I think I'm entitled to that the same as you are.

Yes we are all entitled to our opinions. And I get that possibly close on 50% of members pay their subs and if it seems the club is ticking over are happy enough. The fact is none of these issues will be resolved  on here, but they should, and could have been talked through properly at the AGM. That was the forum to get everyones dead cats out on the table.

Edited by Lord Pityme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Yes we are all entitled to our opinions. And I get that possibly close on 50% of members pay their subs and if it seems the club is ticking over are happy enough. The fact is none of these issues will be resolved  on here, but they should, and could have been talled through properly at the AGM. That was the forum to get everyones dead cats out on the table.

The timing wasn't great on Saturday. I get that it's sensible to have it at a home game but all eyes right now should be on the pitch. We've all summer to focus on where we are at.

Perhaps a members Q&A meeting at some point over the summer, streamed live for those that can't be there, would be a good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, div said:

The timing wasn't great on Saturday. I get that it's sensible to have it at a home game butall eyes right now should be on the pitch. We've all summer to focus on where we are at.

Perhaps a members Q&A meeting at some point over the summer, streamed live for those that can't be there, would be a good.

 

What about your deceased pussy? You willing to slap your pussy on a table?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread is smoke in mirrors in my opinion for some other agenda.

Many other posters have contributed to exactly my thinking of the situation.

The original poster starts a thread which as usual degenerates in to innuendo of GLS, the SMISA committee, Chairman and their Board Directors capabilities and integrity. All of which is the smokescreen to what the real agenda is.

We are led to believe that “The Clique” are acting in our best interests by insisting that SMISA members get to vote on everything and that they have been (self) appointed as the Guardians of the masses. The reality is that SMISA members do not give a feck on how it is run. Provided they buy the buds in 10 years time. The facts are that with a membership of circa 1300, less than 5% bothered to the turn up to the “bring out your dead cats” AGM. Only a third contribute to the votes and they did not have enough volunteers to even hold a committee election.

If you don’t like the committee or disagree with their running SMISA then vote them off.

If the current above mentioned bodies were not in place who would take over as the committee members, who would be Chairman, who would be the last bastion of the SMISA funds and leader of the free constitution. Hmm I wonder.

 

For the record SMISA should be more open and transparent. However from what I have read I do not think they have done anything other than act in the best interest of their potential investment and their membership.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, div said:


"Inherit a debt to ourselves" :lol:

I'm lost with your logic on that one to be honest.

Look, yes, the members should be told about this £50K arrangement and if necessary vote to pass it through. I agree completely.

The USH loan I genuinely couldn't give a shit about.

Just my opinion of course. I think I'm entitled to that the same as you are.

It is hard to categorise that debt, it has been incurred by the club rather than the largest shareholder and I woud be surorised if he picked up the liablity for club debt.  The issue remains that the debt is owed by the club to the membership of SMISA,   so if that debt, or some successive debt, is still outstanding on the far-off day when the SMISA members truly own the mjority shareholding, who pays it and who collects it?

i am afraid it makes perfect sense that the payback date is made clear at the time of lending.  i would say it is a huge leap of faith by the SMISA committee to use executive powers to sanction this loan without having made neccessary arrangements regarding terms, security and date of repayment, i would also say it is an abuse of those powers to push through such a loan without consulting the membership.  lending money wothout proper guarantees beinbg in place could never be described as acting in the best interests of the association.

it would be sensible for the money to be secured against a tranche of fairly-valued shares, yet as far as I know, the club doesnt own any of it's own shares and therefore any security provided by shares would be the province of all shareholders. Everyone seems to be saying that this is all OK as it is an arrangement between the fans and the club, but it opens a few areas where responsibility for settling debts becomes somewhat unclear.  it is OK for some people to say that this is a non-event because they either trust or don't care, but it is equally OK for people to be concerned and to air that view-without being belittled.

 

this is more complex than someone exercising a right to lend money using executive powers.  It doesn't seem well-thought through at all

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gruffalo said:

This whole thread is smoke in mirrors in my opinion for some other agenda.

Many other posters have contributed to exactly my thinking of the situation.

The original poster starts a thread which as usual degenerates in to innuendo of GLS, the SMISA committee, Chairman and their Board Directors capabilities and integrity. All of which is the smokescreen to what the real agenda is.

We are led to believe that “The Clique” are acting in our best interests by insisting that SMISA members get to vote on everything and that they have been (self) appointed as the Guardians of the masses. The reality is that SMISA members do not give a feck on how it is run. Provided they buy the buds in 10 years time. The facts are that with a membership of circa 1300, less than 5% bothered to the turn up to the “bring out your dead cats” AGM. Only a third contribute to the votes and they did not have enough volunteers to even hold a committee election.

If you don’t like the committee or disagree with their running SMISA then vote them off.

If the current above mentioned bodies were not in place who would take over as the committee members, who would be Chairman, who would be the last bastion of the SMISA funds and leader of the free constitution. Hmm I wonder.

 

For the record SMISA should be more open and transparent. However from what I have read I do not think they have done anything other than act in the best interest of their potential investment and their membership.

 

 

The old 'Smoke & Mirrors' cliche.... classic.

can you enlighten me and anyone else remotely interested in your 10000 hours speak what this 'Other Agenda' is..?

or is it that you just like saying 'other agenda' and 'smoke & mirrors'..? I must admit its been a while since those classics were trotted out, are you getting Yul to saddle up and ride on in to make James Hunt of himself again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

'I want to throw Smisa under a bus'?

simply because i believe they should stick to their constitution, legal obligations and give those members interested their say?

what you dont get, is I want to make smisa stronger by taking everyone along. If we hit a significant bump in the road issues such as the ones I (and you conveniently forget others have) highlighted could cause a serious drop off in membership. I.e. There is a reason left hanging to doubt.

You and a few others seem to equate that to wanting to bring smisa down... any idea how much my family have invested in smisa? Yeah ffs we want to bring it down, must be true cause Div said so.

I ask again.. what have you got against one member, one vote? If the proposals are sound them I am sure the majority would back them.

By slagging them off on a Public forum ? 

Strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

It is hard to categorise that debt, it has been incurred by the club rather than the largest shareholder and I woud be surorised if he picked up the liablity for club debt.  The issue remains that the debt is owed by the club to the membership of SMISA,   so if that debt, or some successive debt, is still outstanding on the far-off day when the SMISA members truly own the mjority shareholding, who pays it and who collects it?

i am afraid it makes perfect sense that the payback date is made clear at the time of lending.  i would say it is a huge leap of faith by the SMISA committee to use executive powers to sanction this loan without having made neccessary arrangements regarding terms, security and date of repayment, i would also say it is an abuse of those powers to push through such a loan without consulting the membership.  lending money wothout proper guarantees beinbg in place could never be described as acting in the best interests of the association.

it would be sensible for the money to be secured against a tranche of fairly-valued shares, yet as far as I know, the club doesnt own any of it's own shares and therefore any security provided by shares would be the province of all shareholders. Everyone seems to be saying that this is all OK as it is an arrangement between the fans and the club, but it opens a few areas where responsibility for settling debts becomes somewhat unclear.  it is OK for some people to say that this is a non-event because they either trust or don't care, but it is equally OK for people to be concerned and to air that view-without being belittled.

 

this is more complex than someone exercising a right to lend money using executive powers.  It doesn't seem well-thought through at all

 

If you owed someone £600K, and they had complete control over an organisation that owed you £50K then you are left in a strong position.

Your post is decent though.

As I said before, if the £50K pot is part of the terms of the BTB agreement then fine, but let's have the details of it and how it's supposed to work and what are the terms around it.

The rest of the stuff regarding the undersoil heating loan, the separate bank accounts is all whataboutery IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
If you owed someone £600K, and they had complete control over an organisation that owed you £50K then you are left in a strong position.
Your post is decent though.
As I said before, if the £50K pot is part of the terms of the BTB agreement then fine, but let's have the details of it and how it's supposed to work and what are the terms around it.
The rest of the stuff regarding the undersoil heating loan, the separate bank accounts is all whataboutery IMO.

The analogy doesn't work though.
Smisa owe Gordon Scott 600k. St. Mirren Football Club Ltd owes Smisa 50k would be more accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contractually, there is an agreement for SMISA to buy the shares, however no contract can ask you to sign away legal rights unless the contract itself is a way of exercising those rights and of discharging the duties of the other party, i.e. the deal needs to be sound for both parties.  So if the final deal, or the final state of the club, doesnt look or smell right then SMISA have the right to walk away because the committee are legally bound to act in the interests of the membership.  This undermines the notion that SMISA have some leverage here, if I am wrong and th leverage exists, why was it not used to nail the terms down?

So, in theory, the amount SMISA owes to GLS is in itself theoretical, at least until the final terms and valuation of shares become known.   To my mind, this sort of issue is why I had a problem with SMISA's deal to buy the majority shareholding.  I am not at all sure the final bill will be £600k and god knows when the total will actually be in place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:


The analogy doesn't work though.
Smisa owe Gordon Scott 600k. St. Mirren Football Club Ltd owes Smisa 50k would be more accurate.

Analogy works perfectly.

Gordon is the majority shareholder of St.Mirren Football Club. If that business owes SMiSA £50K and Gordon is looking to get £600K out of SMiSA for said shareholding then it's fair to assume he'd be in a fairly poor position to just walk away and leave that debt in situ.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

Contractually, there is an agreement for SMISA to buy the shares, however no contract can ask you to sign away legal rights unless the contract itself is a way of exercising those rights and of discharging the duties of the other party, i.e. the deal needs to be sound for both parties.  So if the final deal, or the final state of the club, doesnt look or smell right then SMISA have the right to walk away because the committee are legally bound to act in the interests of the membership.  This undermines the notion that SMISA have some leverage here, if I am wrong and th leverage exists, why was it not used to nail the terms down?

So, in theory, the amount SMISA owes to GLS is in itself theoretical, at least until the final terms and valuation of shares become known.   To my mind, this sort of issue is why I had a problem with SMISA's deal to buy the majority shareholding.  I am not at all sure the final bill will be £600k and god knows when the total will actually be in place.

 

I'm not sure the amount payable is fluid? If so what is it fluid against exactly?

How can we be raising money towards a target if that target could change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, div said:

I'm not sure the amount payable is fluid? If so what is it fluid against exactly?

How can we be raising money towards a target if that target could change?

To best of my knowledge, lol.

End share purchase value & deal has been fixed and agreed.

Shareholder agreement to loan £50k if required, over short term, has been agreed, sanctioned as far as I'm aware at an EGM & is in place.

There seems to be lack of general awareness & understanding of basics & structure of deal & dynamics between all parties. (For some)

A refresh & presentation of deal structure, along with clear the air Q&A would be worthwhile. 

Edited by garzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Analogy works perfectly.
Gordon is the majority shareholder of St.Mirren Football Club. If that business owes SMiSA £50K and Gordon is looking to get £600K out of SMiSA for said shareholding then it's fair to assume he'd be in a fairly poor position to just walk away and leave that debt in situ.
 

Fair to assume, div [emoji6]
You're assuming that there's something in the already agreed contract between smisa and GS regarding SMFC debts at the time ownership transfers.
Mibees there is, mibees there isn't. No one on here or at the AGM has clarified as far as I know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:


Fair to assume, div emoji6.png
You're assuming that there's something in the already agreed contract between smisa and GS regarding SMFC debts at the time ownership transfers.
Mibees there is, mibees there isn't. No one on here or at the AGM has clarified as far as I know?

SMiSA will need to conduct due diligence as part of the finalisation of the deal I'd have thought. They are effectively going to be buying the football club so if there were skeletons in the accounts they would know about it.

SMiSA buying the shares from Gordon in 9 years time should really be no different from what Gordon did when he bought from Douglas Street last year, in terms of the process and procedures that are followed anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
SMiSA will need to conduct due diligence as part of the finalisation of the deal I'd have thought. They are effectively going to be buying the football club so if there were skeletons in the accounts they would know about it.
SMiSA buying the shares from Gordon in 9 years time should really be no different from what Gordon did when he bought from Douglas Street last year, in terms of the process and procedures that are followed anyway.

I thought the deal was already done regarding buying the shares from GS? Your reckoning is that we have an option depending on the accounts?

I think this sums up the issue - some communication from Smisa to its members would be an ideal solution?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've just had an email from SMISA about the meeting last week.

 

seemed to clear up for me all the missing gaps in the recent spurt of posts regarding the £50k.

still won't satisfy everyBuddie, I'm sure.

 

I don't think the £50K pot was the headline grabber in that update!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, antrin said:

Well, I've just had an email from SMISA about the meeting last week.

 

seemed to clear up for me all the missing gaps in the recent spurt of posts regarding the £50k.

still won't satisfy everyBuddie, I'm sure.

I guess any trust member who is concerned the committee now openly admit they broke both the constitution and governing legislation at the insistence of the club, and that they intend to do it again might not satisfy everybuddie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I guess any trust member who is concerned the committee now openly admit they broke both the constitution and governing legislation at the insistence of the club, and that they intend to do it again might not satisfy everybuddie?

I've not had the opportunity to read it yet so can you confirm before I do so, are you telling me unequivocally that the SMiSA committee have said so? Or are we again hearing your personal, normally skewed, take on things?

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...