Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Lord Pityme

Consultation/Involvement..?

Recommended Posts

During the 'Buy The Buds' campaign much was made by Gordon Scott & Smisa about how our unique partnership would not only allow, but ensure that Smisa members would have the opportunity via consultation and representation to have input into the 'Big' decisions facing the club.

Never again would decisions, or club positions be given on re-branding, shifting home support to accommodate others, or changes to the Scottish game be taken witthout the involvement and consultation of the Smisa membership... well we know so far that there has been no consultation on shifting the home support, despite selling more than the target number of West stand ST's. if any other club calls with a bigger support than the north stand can accomodate, or perhaps too small to a support to matter saints fans will be shifted/Paired with.

This brings us on to the big decisions affecting the Scottish game, Colt teams in the Irn Bru cup, Welsh/Irish teams competing in our cup, Project Brave and now Overage/Senior players in Premier league sides playing for colt teams in the Irn Bru cup. There has as far as I am aware been no such consultation or involvement of ordinary Smisa members regarding these important and controversial decisions our club have voted on in our name.

should we not be challenging Smisa to first tell us why they have not insisted these promises were kept? And secondly what they plan to do to actually involve the membership in these critical decisions, rather than just spending the members cash on the clubs shopping list..?

was it all just what they thought we wanted to hear last summer? 

Armageddon anyone..?

Edited by Lord Pityme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take this the wrong way. Know that story, the boy who cried wolf?

There could be a legitimate point being made here, but the amount of SMISA bashing you do on every wee detail is becoming so tiresome, that I'm struggling to take any of your posts seriously...

Things are ok right now, we're doing well as a club. The fans are together. Perhaps you could take a note of all of your grievances, and make a decent post when the AGM is coming up? Just a suggestion

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the big selling points of fan ownership was the involvement smisa members would have in the 'big decisions'. To date there has been little or no involvement. Surely if members commit to subscribe, vote and take part in smisa's business, the club and smisa board should honour promises they made?

look at the current colt team fiasco with overage players in the Irn Bru cup... the club will have voted on that, but the second biggest shareholder in the club is in the dark. Is that right?

Share this post


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

During the 'Buy The Buds' campaign much was made by Gordon Scott & Smisa about how our unique partnership would not only allow, but ensure that Smisa members would have the opportunity via consultation and representation to have input into the 'Big' decisions facing the club.

Never again would decisions, or club positions be given on re-branding, shifting home support to accommodate others, or changes to the Scottish game be taken witthout the involvement and consultation of the Smisa membership... well we know so far that there has been no consultation on shifting the home support, despite selling more than the target number of West stand ST's. if any other club calls with a bigger support than the north stand can accomodate, or perhaps too small to a support to matter saints fans will be shifted/Paired with.

This brings us on to the big decisions affecting the Scottish game, Colt teams in the Irn Bru cup, Welsh/Irish teams competing in our cup, Project Brave and now Overage/Senior players in Premier league sides playing for colt teams in the Irn Bru cup. There has as far as I am aware been no such consultation or involvement of ordinary Smisa members regarding these important and controversial decisions our club have voted on in our name.

should we not be challenging Smisa to first tell us why they have not insisted these promises were kept? And secondly what they plan to do to actually involve the membership in these critical decisions, rather than just spending the members cash on the clubs shopping list..?

was it all just what they thought we wanted to hear last summer? 

Armageddon anyone..?

I have major concerns about project brave and especially Colt teams (although yes another thread for this subject exists) My understanding though is all that has so far happened is a club consolation has happened and no vote as such has occurred. Perhaps going out to members right now would be jumping the gun? I also believe the overwhelming negative response from fans of clubs outside the big two and a number of Championship - League 2 clubs has had an impact on the SFA/ SPF. My opinion now is this wont even get as far as an official vote because there is so little appetite from the impacted clubs. 

As for Irn bru cup, I'm also not a fan of this but this wasn't a club decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2017 at 6:18 PM, Lord Pityme said:

One of the big selling points of fan ownership was the involvement smisa members would have in the 'big decisions'. To date there has been little or no involvement. Surely if members commit to subscribe, vote and take part in smisa's business, the club and smisa board should honour promises they made?

look at the current colt team fiasco with overage players in the Irn Bru cup... the club will have voted on that, but the second biggest shareholder in the club is in the dark. Is that right?

We've had nothing but involvement in big decisions in regards to the spend of our funds (with the exception of the USH but surely it's time to let that go with the funds being paid back and no negative impact to any party). Fans can approve or decline any request. Also a number of suggestions have came from the members as well, it's just turned out that St Mirrens suggestions have been more popular with paying members. Why would we want to stop St Mirren FC putting in suggestions if they're proving to be the ones popular with the SMISA base? 

Clubs didn't get a vote on the colt team situation in the cup, nor did they get a vote on allowing overaged players to play. SFA made the decision, SPFL however wouldn't have the same power to bring them into the league structure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would we want to stop St Mirren FC putting in suggestions - because they are not members of SMISA,  it is for SMISA members to come up with the suggestions and then vote on them. It should also be remembered that SMISA have a rep on the board of the club, not the other way around.

If the club are continually to put in requests for funding via whomever and then for the funding to be waived through, then what is the point of having a SMISA board? The club can just get the cashline card and do with money as it see's fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, melmac said:

Why would we want to stop St Mirren FC putting in suggestions - because they are not members of SMISA,  it is for SMISA members to come up with the suggestions and then vote on them. It should also be remembered that SMISA have a rep on the board of the club, not the other way around.

If the club are continually to put in requests for funding via whomever and then for the funding to be waived through, then what is the point of having a SMISA board? The club can just get the cashline card and do with money as it see's fit.

The majority of SMISA members want St Mirren to make suggestions, myself included. That's clear in the way the vote has gone. Just because there is a noisy minority that don't want our club involved with SMISA money it doesn't mean it should happen. SMISA have been completely transparent with this approach, they said at the start they'll seek guidance from the club on spend because 'there's no point spending the money on things the club neither want or need' They also said spending the money on St Mirren will be an option for members so it makes perfect sense for them to make suggestions (they have never dictated, it's always a vote) There has also been a number of member suggestions on the vote, as I said before St Mirren opinion on spend is more popular. I don't see one rational reason to stop their input. 

Why do fans have the 'Us and them' mentality about SMISA and St Mirren? We all have the same goal and are on the same page in regards to bettering St Mirren, it's crazy! Also, technically Gordon Scott and Tony Fitzpatrick are both SMISA members so they're welcome to have their suggestions considered like any other paying member. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, melmac said:

Therein lies a problem. It's not that people don't want the club to benefit from smisa funds, it needs to be put to a better use - smisa buying weights for the club when the club partner a gym?

The gym we partner isn't based at our training ground. Lets be honest about that point though, who knows better about what the club need? The club management and coaches or fans? They wouldn't just be buying the weights for no benefit. Same situation about the Sports Scientist and analysts... Again the club management and coaches who have football as their life are going to be way better equipped that a fan saying  'This will benefit more than your suggestion' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would we want to stop St Mirren FC putting in suggestions - because they are not members of SMISA,  it is for SMISA members to come up with the suggestions and then vote on them. It should also be remembered that SMISA have a rep on the board of the club, not the other way around.
If the club are continually to put in requests for funding via whomever and then for the funding to be waived through, then what is the point of having a SMISA board? The club can just get the cashline card and do with money as it see's fit.


Gordon's a member of SMISA.

What's been waived through. You make some good points Neil, but you could also stop just making things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎13‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 1:52 PM, TsuMirren said:

 

 


Gordon's a member of SMISA.

What's been waived through. You make some good points Neil, but you could also stop just making things up.

 

Jack Ross thanking a SMISA member for SMISA' money to fund a sports scientist didn't help and certainly fuelled the doubters of "what Gordon wants, Gordon gets" or more succinctly, options being "waved through" for the 3 monthly spend.

By stating "Gordon's a member of SMISA" are you suggesting Gordon, as a member of SMISA has every right to submit suggestions for the 3monthly spend?  

I would agree, he should. As should Alan Wardrop or any other StMirren FC board member or employee be allowed but should any/their pecuniary interest not be declared to The SMISA membership?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Ross thanking a SMISA member for SMISA' money to fund a sports scientist didn't help and certainly fuelled the doubters of "what Gordon wants, Gordon gets" or more succinctly, options being "waved through" for the 3 monthly spend.
By stating "Gordon's a member of SMISA" are you suggesting Gordon, as a member of SMISA has every right to submit suggestions for the 3monthly spend?  
I would agree, he should. As should Alan Wardrop or any other StMirren FC board member or employee be allowed but should any/their pecuniary interest not be declared to The SMISA membership?
 


I just basically think we're in a joint venture, we want to own the club and so why wouldn't the club submit funding requests. Clubs everywhere go to their shareholders, sometimes as a group and sometimes to individuals, for funding and there's nothing wrong with that. Just happens that in our case it goes to a vote, which sees the membership deciding. In the future the process will be very different, that'll be a natural result of concluding the deal, but at the moment I think it's working.

Share this post


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

 

 


I just basically think we're in a joint venture, we want to own the club and so why wouldn't the club submit funding requests. Clubs everywhere go to their shareholders, sometimes as a group and sometimes to individuals, for funding and there's nothing wrong with that. Just happens that in our case it goes to a vote, which sees the membership deciding. In the future the process will be very different, that'll be a natural result of concluding the deal, but at the moment I think it's working.

 

I think me & you are just about on the same page with regards to the club having a wish-list. However, I think their funding requests should be for new initiatives that are  outside of usual budgeting.

It would be good to see The Commercial Department/Manager introduce new initiatives each season to demonstrate The Club are doing their bit & not relying on SMISA for easy access to some money.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a SMISA Member, I have been asked s everal times to vote on a Club wishlist.
I am also a Shareholder.  I have never been asked to fund a Club wishlist.
Does anyone see an anomally here?
 
 


Have you ever stated an intention to buy/own the club or highlighted that you're open to investing? I did state that sometimes clubs go to individuals, I'd see St Mirren in that bracket. It'd be extremely rare for us to go to the shareholders as a group. They come to SMISA due to the joint venture nature of the takeover deal. The Individuals would have made themselves known, admittedly I've no proof of individual shareholders making donations etc outwith the documented instances of people joining the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Have you ever stated an intention to buy/own the club or highlighted that you're open to investing? I did state that sometimes clubs go to individuals, I'd see St Mirren in that bracket. It'd be extremely rare for us to go to the shareholders as a group. They come to SMISA due to the joint venture nature of the takeover deal. The Individuals would have made themselves known, admittedly I've no proof of individual shareholders making donations etc outwith the documented instances of people joining the board.


With respect, that makes absolutely no sense in response to vambos point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, that makes absolutely no sense in response to vambos point.


He was pointing out that SMISA had been asked, but he hasn't as a shareholder. I pointed out why SMISA has been asked and why he may not have been as a shareholder.

There's no real anomally in any of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/08/2017 at 1:52 PM, TsuMirren said:

 


Gordon's a member of SMISA.

What's been waived through. You make some good points Neil, but you could also stop just making things up.

 

Gordon isn't St Mirren. As has been said, any member can put in their suggestions but if a director of the club does and it's for a direct financial benefit of the club, then is there not a conflict of interest? It is appreciated that smisa's whole reason for existence is for the benefit of the club but that is maybe why a director who is also a smisa member should refrain from making suggestions on how smisa money is spent. I may have embelished the last part, should have been debit card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gordon isn't St Mirren. As has been said, any member can put in their suggestions but if a director of the club does and it's for a direct financial benefit of the club, then is there not a conflict of interest? It is appreciated that smisa's whole reason for existence is for the benefit of the club but that is maybe why a director who is also a smisa member should refrain from making suggestions on how smisa money is spent. I may have embelished the last part, should have been debit card.


I just don't think the club should refrain, within reason and obviously they need to understand how we operate. It gets challenged, we do discuss it and it goes to the members without a recommendation. I think around 1280 members understand that, whilst a pocket of members wouldn't trust us to open a packet of sweets without pinching the top one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

 


He was pointing out that SMISA had been asked, but he hasn't as a shareholder. I pointed out why SMISA has been asked and why he may not have been as a shareholder.

There's no real anomally in any of it.

 

Kenny, you said "Clubs everywhere go to their shareholders, sometimes as a group and sometimes to individuals, for funding and there's nothing wrong with that". I agree, but what I was really pointing out was:

Before the Quarterly SMiSA spend, where did the Club get the money from for wishlists?  Certainly not from Sjhareholders and almost certainly not as a gift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenny, you said "Clubs everywhere go to their shareholders, sometimes as a group and sometimes to individuals, for funding and there's nothing wrong with that". I agree, but what I was really pointing out was:
Before the Quarterly SMiSA spend, where did the Club get the money from for wishlists?  Certainly not from Sjhareholders and almost certainly not as a gift.


Potentially they just didn't have certain ones funded. Or, soft loans from the directors.

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  

×