Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
woiiftm

Sport Scientist

192 posts in this topic

Apologies in advance if I've missed this.

Manager at open day today said that thanks in part due to smisa members contributions the club now has the services of sport scientist for this season.

How and when was this arranged and agreed to?

Not complaining but don't recall it being discussed or put out for vote.

 

Share this post


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

Apologies in advance if I've missed this.

Manager at open day today said that thanks in part due to smisa members contributions the club now has the services of sport scientist for this season.

How and when was this arranged and agreed to?

Not complaining but don't recall it being discussed or put out for vote.

 

 

IMG_1408.GIF

Share this post


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

Apologies in advance if I've missed this.

Manager at open day today said that thanks in part due to smisa members contributions the club now has the services of sport scientist for this season.

How and when was this arranged and agreed to?

Not complaining but don't recall it being discussed or put out for vote.

 

Oi Oi! wots all this then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, woiiftm said:

Apologies in advance if I've missed this.

Manager at open day today said that thanks in part due to smisa members contributions the club now has the services of sport scientist for this season.

How and when was this arranged and agreed to?

Not complaining but don't recall it being discussed or put out for vote.

 

I wonder when the 3 monthly spend voting email comes out, with the option of funding a sport scientist, if we rejected it would the club have to payback the money, we never knew we had allocated, and that Ross has thanked us for?

the Bowling Club committee approach is dragging smisa down.

melmac likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder when the 3 monthly spend voting email comes out, with the option of funding a sport scientist, if we rejected it would the club have to payback the money, we never knew we had allocated, and that Ross has thanked us for?
the Bowling Club committee approach is dragging smisa down.


All I can say is that I have never voted to approve the funding. Having not missed a meeting recently that by default means that the committee have never voted to approve the funding. You are no doubt correct that rejection of the option would involve interesting discussions. I'd be stunned though if SMISA have actually paid any money, I've not seen any evidence of that having happened.
Lord Pityme and antrin like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


All I can say is that I have never voted to approve the funding. Having not missed a meeting recently that by default means that the committee have never voted to approve the funding. You are no doubt correct that rejection of the option would involve interesting discussions. I'd be stunned though if SMISA have actually paid any money, I've not seen any evidence of that having happened.

Kenny is it a case of Ross jumping the gun on what may be the next 3 monthly spend vote? Sounds like he was very sure and thankful of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny is it a case of Ross jumping the gun on what may be the next 3 monthly spend vote? Sounds like he was very sure and thankful of it.


Yes, I believe Jack has indeed jumped the gun and made some assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent email to smisa yesterday still awaiting response.

Didn't sound like The manager "jumped the gun" he sounded very definite that this position had been filled, not that it was being pursued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sent email to smisa yesterday still awaiting response.
Didn't sound like The manager "jumped the gun" he sounded very definite that this position had been filled, not that it was being pursued.


It definitely sounds like assumptions have been made. Not sure if myself and the rest of the SMISA committee need to a launch a full scale enquiry or if we can put it down to Jack getting the wrong impression.
BuddieinEK likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear

I am all for having a sports scientist and for us to help with the finance. Don't even have issue with manager making comment on something he's been told.

Would have issue however if this has in fact already been arranged as described by manager.

Vambo57 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely what the club should be doing; why can't we get interns from the uni's on a rolling basis for this and, say, marketing - i would have thought (maybe wrongly) that students would be keen on that sort of experience.

Vambo57 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this no terrible.

Surely we should have a referendum on every decision?

We all know how much we all love a referendum. 

Who gave this manager guy the right to manage?

 

mcdowell76 and renfrew like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry people but organisations work to rules and the allocation of monies without consultation is a big no no unless that is one of the rules.

If someone wants to provide that evidence then fair enough I'll back off.

I understood smisa to be a representative body for the fans to have their voice heard, not an elected body who can use our monies as they see fit.

This should all be easily and quickly clarified.

 

 

Vambo57 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry people but organisations work to rules and the allocation of monies without consultation is a big no no unless that is one of the rules.
If someone wants to provide that evidence then fair enough I'll back off.
I understood smisa to be a representative body for the fans to have their voice heard, not an elected body who can use our monies as they see fit.
This should all be easily and quickly clarified.
 
 


I did clarify it.

Share this post


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

 


I did clarify it.

 

Respectfully disagree.

Are you saying Mr Ross wasn't told

1 He now had a sports scientist for the season

2 That smisa had provided partial finance

And if not, who were the players with that couldn't make the open day, the ones that Mr Ross stated were with the sports scientist.

Who's fooling who ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems we have, as everything concerned with SMISA, that there are people who are, quite rightly IMO, concerned that things aren't done by the book and others who have enough faith or don't really give a feck and whatever SMISA decide are quite comfortable. For me I suppose it depends on the amount of members cash that is used for things and where people see this is really worth bothering about. While it's unreasonable for EVERY decision to go to a vote their is a fine line between faith in the decisions taken by SMISA and disregard for members. It's reasonable for questions to be asked and, I believe, it's how these questions are answered that is important.

melmac, Vambo57 and TPAFKATS like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Respectfully disagree.
Are you saying Mr Ross wasn't told
1 He now had a sports scientist for the season
2 That smisa had provided partial finance
And if not, who were the players with that couldn't make the open day, the ones that Mr Ross stated were with the sports scientist.
Who's fooling who ?
 


I'm saying:

1 That the SMISA committee haven't voted to approve any contribution towards funding the sports scientist.
2 That no money has been paid by SMISA to the club for this.
3 That Jack was informed that SMISA would have to put the funding request to a vote.
4 That the funding request will be part of the upcoming spend vote and the result will be actioned accordingly.

I've no idea what Jack has been told internally or whether the club decided to finance the resource anyway. That, in a way, is something SMISA can't control. As for players not making the open day, that's a completely different subject. Nobody is knowingly fooling anyone. Should the members vote against the option for the sports scientist then the funds won't be made available.
BuddieinEK, woiiftm and shull like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems we have, as everything concerned with SMISA, that there are people who are, quite rightly IMO, concerned that things aren't done by the book and others who have enough faith or don't really give a feck and whatever SMISA decide are quite comfortable. For me I suppose it depends on the amount of members cash that is used for things and where people see this is really worth bothering about. While it's unreasonable for EVERY decision to go to a vote their is a fine line between faith in the decisions taken by SMISA and disregard for members. It's reasonable for questions to be asked and, I believe, it's how these questions are answered that is important.


Indeed, but I've stated that no decision had been made and that no finance had changed hands. There's aspects to this that can't be controlled by SMISA, which in this instance has led to innocent error and very light discussion on here.
shull likes this

Share this post


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

Many thanks for this post, much appreciated.

It has obviously been discussed already between smisa and the board, fair enough, but it was the managers comments on Sunday which gave me cause for concern.

Thanks again


I'm saying:

1 That the SMISA committee haven't voted to approve any contribution towards funding the sports scientist.
2 That no money has been paid by SMISA to the club for this.
3 That Jack was informed that SMISA would have to put the funding request to a vote.
4 That the funding request will be part of the upcoming spend vote and the result will be actioned accordingly.

I've no idea what Jack has been told internally or whether the club decided to finance the resource anyway. That, in a way, is something SMISA can't control. As for players not making the open day, that's a completely different subject. Nobody is knowingly fooling anyone. Should the members vote against the option for the sports scientist then the funds won't be made available.

 

 

Share this post


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

 


I'm saying:

1 That the SMISA committee haven't voted to approve any contribution towards funding the sports scientist.
2 That no money has been paid by SMISA to the club for this.
3 That Jack was informed that SMISA would have to put the funding request to a vote.
4 That the funding request will be part of the upcoming spend vote and the result will be actioned accordingly.

I've no idea what Jack has been told internally or whether the club decided to finance the resource anyway. That, in a way, is something SMISA can't control. As for players not making the open day, that's a completely different subject. Nobody is knowingly fooling anyone. Should the members vote against the option for the sports scientist then the funds won't be made available.

 

Again thanking Kenny for being the only Smisa committee member who actually thinks it's important to communicate directly and openly with members. 

The worring and ultimately unsustainable element in this yet another sorry tale of chaos involving smisa and the club (USH that took five months to fix, but not man enough for winter, lending tens of thousands of members subscriptions without proper consultation etc) is how it shows the degree to which the club control Smisa, what it does, when it does it, and how it does things...

jeez the club chairman and board aren't even bothered about trying to make it look like smisa are making their own decisions. From the day the deal was done the new chairman and board made it known they didn't believe Smisa was 'independent' of the club anymore. This was conveyed directly to the Smisa committee at a smisa meeting.

it leaves Smisa's constitution and legal status in tatters, as the club are only interested in Smisa's members cash. Its time to change the 'Bowling Club' style of committee leadership.

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