Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lord Pityme

Save Smisa

391 posts in this topic

 

40 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

It's partially factually correct, if Graeme had done some research he'd know that. He makes it appear to be the full fee, which isn't the case. The former board will be paid quicker, but they'll only receive a % of the fee. This doesn't though impact upon the to timescales of our agreement to buy Gordon's shares. The only thing, currently anyway, that will speed that up would be SMISA having the full amount required and being in a position to conclude the deal earlier.

I take it that after the existing buyout that SMiSA are committed to buying out GLS presumably at the same price - pro-rata that'd be another £120k.

What is the new timescale for the existing buyout and the subsequent buyout of GLS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
I take it that after the existing buyout that SMiSA are committed to buying out GLS presumably at the same price - pro-rata that'd be another £120k.
What is the new timescale for the existing buyout and the subsequent buyout of GLS?


Bit complicated to slice and dice everything, but the overall timescale is still the same.
Bud the Baker likes this

Share this post


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

 

 


Bit complicated to slice and dice everything, but the overall timescale is still the same.

 

Are you buying out GLS after the existing deal is completed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you buying out GLS after the existing deal is completed?


That's my understanding anyway. Former board was payments up to summer 2018 and then growing the GLS fund to completion after that.
Bud the Baker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

 


Bit complicated to slice and dice everything, but the overall timescale is still the same.

 

 

9 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

 


That's my understanding anyway. Former board was payments up to summer 2018 and then growing the GLS fund to completion after that.

 

 

Thank you very much for answering my questions so promptly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2017 at 10:49 PM, TsuMirren said:

 


Yes, but it's also understood that there may be cases where the board have to make decisions for the members. That was even discussed at the committee meeting on December 12th and we all agreed that going forward we would put as many things to the members as was practicably reasonable. Yet here we are in May being told we should be doing that, when in December we agreed to.

 

And right there is the reason people are losing faith in Smisa's willingness to consult with its members. I would assume with the club asking so ridiculously late in the day for a loan on 12th December to enable repairs to the USH to protect the Hogmanay game,  they were not going to pay up front for the repairs, but settle the bill on satisfactory completion?

that is how invoices are settled, and it was obvious at the time of the request the repairs would not be done in time, indeed Gordon told us in an update only one firm based in Hull was experienced enought to do the repairs, so the notion they would drop every other contract in the UK and rush to paisley to work through Christmas was fanciful at best.

so given it would be weeks before the repairs could be made, why were the members not consulted? There was more than enough time to do so, and the general feeling is a majority would have backed it (we have to remember at this point though the Smisa committee gave repeated cast iron guarantees that the funds this loan came from were Ring-Fenced to buy and only buy the majority shareholding in SMFC) even though it was contrary to what the Smisa committee had promised.

The only reasonable answer to why the membership were not consulted is that they were not 100% trusted to comply with Gordon's request for their own funds. That is why the committee were steered to give a knee-jerk approval, to an impassioned plea tugging at fans heart and purse strings. In short a shocking abuse, and downright disregard for what the Smisa committee had promised throughout BTB... to consult, to ringfence funds, to be open and transparent.

to say now 'oh well it was just a mistake' is risible, everyone who voted knew they were using funds they had guaranteed were ringfenced solely to BTB, and if anyone actually thought the club needed the money then, before a repairman had even started work isnt working in the membership's best interest.

you can plea till the cows come home, 'it was a one-off' or 'we were acting in the members best interests' or 'we only do this part time so do pick us up on stuff'.... but collectively as a committee if you get the biggest decisions to have faced Smisa so far, so wrong... you have to look at your capabilities, knowledge and real understanding of how an organisation like Smisa should actually be run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/05/2017 at 1:58 PM, melmac said:

Kenny

There is not so much legal knowledge required here, it’s just reading a set of rules.This is not anything about anybody getting their own way, it’s about those with the responsibility exercising their power in the correct manner and doing things properly in accordance with the Constitution / Rules. That's not really much to ask, you know, the basics.

Once you start doing that, there is a platform to move on from.

I had a wee while back, if I recall correctly, offered to pay for board members to speak with a recognised charity expert in my firm re governance because I want to see smisa succeed. He has 30 plus years’ experience of dealing with I & P companies / legislation / constitutions / rules etc. As there was no take up, I suspect the offer was declined. Gift horse and all that.

Funny that!

I through contacts built up over many years had a proposal drawn up to conduct a individual and group development plan, on the skills, knowledge and expertise required by committee members/ board directors in governance of organisations like Smisa. It would have been run by the Co-operative College using a consultant who was not only hugely experienced in how these organisations work, but also the responsibilities of a board member. In addition He had and continues to work with numerous Supporters Trust's, the FA and ironically the main Supporters Direct, desiging and running interventions on their behalf.

have a guess how that was received by the majority of Smisa board members?

Gift Horse doesn't even cover it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil,

You're obviously keen to push this, so would you like to attend the next committee meeting?

Tony,

The club asked on the 5th. They weren't going to pay up front, but the overall vote included actioning the package of work to go ahead. Nobody was steered. The rest of your post is fantasy at best, a personal attack on each committee member at worse, so I'm not gong to respond to it. In all honesty, the committee have moved on and can't constantly answer one or two people on the same issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/05/2017 at 4:33 AM, melmac said:

We see heehaw agm minutes so how are members supposed to know what goes on at board meetings?

Its absolutely correct that on occasion, the board needs to make decisions for the membership, why not just define these occasions in the rules - if its monetary and over x amount, at a convened board meeting, x% of the board can make a positive decision.

The thing the board should always have in mind is that they have a fudiciary duty to the members, not to the club.

There is a monetary amount the smisa board are committed to put to the membership if they seek approval to spend over.

its £500.00.

big jump from there to £15000.00 or even £50,000.00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/05/2017 at 7:36 AM, TsuMirren said:

 


Yes, but SMISA as a whole shouldn't put the club or its operation at risk. It's a balancing act, that is true across so many aspects of the members, of the club and the joint venture itself.

 

No its not a balancing act! You really should read your constitution, and understand your responsibilities to the membership.

smisa board members have absolute fiduciary responsibility to its members. The club is a seperate PLC

melmac likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/05/2017 at 8:12 AM, Bud the Baker said:

 

I take it that after the existing buyout that SMiSA are committed to buying out GLS presumably at the same price - pro-rata that'd be another £120k.

What is the new timescale for the existing buyout and the subsequent buyout of GLS?

The Smisa committee repeatedly assured members that as soon as the BTB funds had met its targets (to pay sellers and Gordon) then that is what would happen.

depending on any unaccounted monies the club recieve i.e. Transfer/Sell on fees then The sellers are entitled to accelerated payments from Gordon & Smisa. 

If Smisa dies not have in its account the required accelerated repayment amount it, the club will pay Smisa's shortfall, and smisa will then owe the club it is seeking to buy..! which is even more bizarre when you think its loaned/ loaning the club £65k already.

I have additionally heard that the cast iron guarantee given that Smisa would buy GLS out as soon as it has the necessary funds to do so, is being wriggled out of and that GLS intends to be there for the duration, additionally funded by Smisa loans, revolving credit, discretionary spends etc... ten years minimum now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its not a balancing act! You really should read your constitution, and understand your responsibilities to the membership.
smisa board members have absolute fiduciary responsibility to its members. The club is a seperate PLC


Yes we do, so ensuring the members have a club to actually own in 10 years is surely being responsible to them. The members don't want a club in League Two, with assets that don't function or in need of major repair.

Share this post


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

 


Yes we do, so ensuring the members have a club to actually own in 10 years is surely being responsible to them. The members don't want a club in League Two, with assets that don't function or in need of major repair.

 

Are you running SMFC now? Will you be accountable for all its actions?

if you seek to spend YOUR members funds, contrary to what you have guaranteed they would be spent on and refuse to consult them... are you working in their best interests, or are you being manipulated by an outside body?

if you don't inform and consult you are wilfully breaching the governing legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you running SMFC now? Will you be accountable for all its actions?
if you seek to spend YOUR members funds, contrary to what you have guaranteed they would be spent on and refuse to consult them... are you working in their best interests, or are you being manipulated by an outside body?
if you don't inform and consult you are wilfully breaching the governing legislation. 


No, no.
We've already stated we'll look to consult in the future, but it's understood something may occur where we need to act. You just don't trust us to do it and I'm not sure how to respond to that. We're not being manipulated, you're mixing that up with working in partnership and coming to mutually agreed decisions or vote options.
We do inform and consult, indeed we also identify and pass forward.

Share this post


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

 


No, no.
We've already stated we'll look to consult in the future, but it's understood something may occur where we need to act. You just don't trust us to do it and I'm not sure how to respond to that. We're not being manipulated, you're mixing that up with working in partnership and coming to mutually agreed decisions or vote options.
We do inform and consult, indeed we also identify and pass forward.

 

Its a shame you are the only voice of Smisa that will talk to people on here Kenny, poor form by the others who won't/can't do social media, which I hear may become popular at some point!

for me the thing that is vitally important is for Smisa to remain as it says on the tin 'Independent', we can clearly see already that the committee are being sucked into making one decision, then feeling obliged to stick with it/re-inforce it, even it has breached the constitution, or broken cast iron guarantees, as they become mired in whats best for the club - v - the membership.

there is a board at SMFC, and a group of employees charged with running that successfully, they should not be going after Smisa funds just because they see them as easy pickings. What happened to the assurances from GLS that the club would be "run within its means"..?

the growing danger, as you can see on here is members becoming disillusioned as they feel they have no real say, no real options and are not consulted with because the trust is being run by the club and its majority on the smisa board. More than once the phrase 'cabal' has been used. If the Smisa board cant operate, and be seen to be operating as a group who inform and consult the people who are putting up the funds, then they will see membership drop off, not some big protest or stink... but a gradual shrug of the shoulders as direct debits are cancelled with people muttering 'whats the point, no one listens".

edit: where you talk of Smisa's responsibility to ensure the facilities are repaired and maintained, I would counter that its Smisa's responsibility as a near 30% shareholder to hold the board of SMFC to account over their actions and words, not to fund and do their job for them!

Edited by Lord Pityme

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  
Followers 0