Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
thewhiteman

saints fans survey 2017

Recommended Posts

SMISA survey 2017

While our members numbers are stable at nearly 1,300, that still leaves a lot of fans out there who have not joined the trust and we want a better understanding of why that is.
So we have created a short survey for all St Mirren fans to help with both of the points above – and need your help to get as many as possible filling it out.

your supporters trust needs as many members as we can to help achieve our long-term goal of taking St Mirren into majority fan ownership. To help us do that we are surveying members over where they want their money to go and non-members to find out why they haven't signed up. It only takes two minutes to fill out and your help is much appreciated.

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/DW5MF8G

http://smisa.us10.list-manage.com/track/click…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've been happy to join if the price had been right, £5 a share for those owned prior to December 2008 around £600k and that would have included for GLS's.

Quote

The following is lifted almost verbatim from a post by scoop1987 which is no longer available except through other people's posts.

************************************

I am not sure if this is already in the public domain but if I was Ken Mcgoech or Gordon Scott :zipit I would be well pissed off!

The following is a breakdown of where the £2million selling price would have went in 2008 and as of todays date.

2008

Stuart Gilmour 24,259 shares £403,912

George Cambell 21,209 shares £353,129

Alan Marshall 7,670 shares £127,705

Evelyn Purvis 12,842 shares £213,479

Brian McAusland 21,722 shares £361,671

Gordon Scott 15,224 shares £253,479

Ken McGeoch 17,154 shares £285,614

In late 2008 George Cambell bought 4,284 additional shares and Brian McAusland bought 5,701 shares. This allowed them to sell a controlling interest in the club without including Scott and McGeoch thus ignoring the gentlemens agreement between all board members that if they ever sold they would sell as a group.

A bit like scoop1987 I see the highlighted transaction as being the initial move in the old BoD's exit strategy.

Edited by Bud the Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would've been happy to join if the price had been right, £5 a share for those owned prior to December 2008 around £600k and that would have included for GLS's.
The following is lifted almost verbatim from a post by scoop1987 which is no longer available except through other people's posts.
************************************
I am not sure if this is already in the public domain but if I was Ken Mcgoech or Gordon Scott :zipit I would be well pissed off!
The following is a breakdown of where the £2million selling price would have went in 2008 and as of todays date.
2008
Stuart Gilmour 24,259 shares £403,912
George Cambell 21,209 shares £353,129
Alan Marshall 7,670 shares £127,705
Evelyn Purvis 12,842 shares £213,479
Brian McAusland 21,722 shares £361,671
Gordon Scott 15,224 shares £253,479
Ken McGeoch 17,154 shares £285,614
In late 2008 George Cambell bought 4,284 additional shares and Brian McAusland bought 5,701 shares. This allowed them to sell a controlling interest in the club without including Scott and McGeoch thus ignoring the gentlemens agreement between all board members that if they ever sold they would sell as a group.
A bit like scoop1987 I see the highlighted transaction as being the initial move in the old BoD's exit strategy.


We're in the situation we're in now. For me there's no point looking back. Would love to see more buddies willing to spare £12 a month to the buyout strengthening our position and increasing the discretionary fund. Hopefully the Q&A tomorrow gets more on board.

I appreciate for some £12/£25 a month is a lot but for most it's very affordable, will be interesting to hear some reasons outside of finance why people aren't supporting this further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

A bit like scoop1987 I see the highlighted transaction as being the initial move in the old BoD's exit strategy.


We're in the situation we're in now. For me there's no point looking back. Would love to see more buddies willing to spare £12 a month to the buyout strengthening our position and increasing the discretionary fund. Hopefully the Q&A tomorrow gets more on board.

I appreciate for some £12/£25 a month is a lot but for most it's very affordable, will be interesting to hear some reasons outside of finance why people aren't supporting this further.

Dont think you will hear any reasons outside of finance why people havent joined Smisa tonight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bazil85 said:

A bit like scoop1987 I see the highlighted transaction as being the initial move in the old BoD's exit strategy.


We're in the situation we're in now. For me there's no point looking back. Would love to see more buddies willing to spare £12 a month to the buyout strengthening our position and increasing the discretionary fund. Hopefully the Q&A tomorrow gets more on board.

I appreciate for some £12/£25 a month is a lot but for most it's very affordable, will be interesting to hear some reasons outside of finance why people aren't supporting this further.

its next thursday mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎07‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 0:06 AM, bazil85 said:

We're in the situation we're in now. For me there's no point looking back. Would love to see more buddies willing to spare £12 a month to the buyout strengthening our position and increasing the discretionary fund. Hopefully the Q&A tomorrow gets more on board.

I appreciate for some £12/£25 a month is a lot but for most it's very affordable, will be interesting to hear some reasons outside of finance why people aren't supporting this further.

It's not about looking back, it's about putting money into the club which the current buyout doesn't do.

I bought shares back in the '90's when the money went straight to the club and I have never considered selling them. Now I realize the old BoD put substantial sums of money into the club and I've no objection to them looking for their money back but they had the kudos of being custodians of the club for almost twenty years and the price I quoted above was the limit I was prepared to pay. As I've said like scoop1987 I thought their exit strategy was a bit shabby and in the case of the Argentinian consortium shambolic. :lol:

I'd have happily paid for the shares they brought prior to "late 2008" but to repeat myself not those bought those they acquired after this date. I realize it's maybe a bit unfair of me to choose that date and then impose a price per share of £5 (beneath the approximate average of £8 they paid according to 10000hours) but that's my position.

Edited by Bud the Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not about looking back, it's about putting money into the club which the current buyout doesn't do.
I bought shares back in the '90's when the money went straight to the club and I have never considered selling them. Now I realize the old BoD put substantial sums of money into the club and I've no objection to them looking for their money back but they had the kudos of being custodians of the club for almost twenty years and the price I quoted above was the limit I was prepared to pay. As I've said like scoop1987 I thought their exit strategy was a bit shabby and in the case of the Argentinian consortium shambolic. :lol:
I'd have happily paid for the shares they brought prior to "late 2008" but to repeat myself not those bought those they acquired after this date. I realize it's maybe a bit unfair of me to choose that date and then impose a price per share of £5 (beneath the approximate average of £8 they paid according to 10000hours) but that's my position.


That's your choice mate. For me, it is what it is. People that have the money to put in and are for fan ownership, this is the only option I'm afraid. I kind of think the way you're looking at it is 'cut your nose off to spite your face' if I'm honest but more power to you. I'm not here to change your mind.

More people that back it, the stronger St Mirren Football club could be going forward and the quicker the old board are paid off. For me I'll put St Mirren ahead of any personal disagreements about a legal buyout and paying money to a bunch of guys that saved our club. I'm pretty sure SG and co aren't getting rich off this deal.

It £12 a month helps my club (I pay the £25 but that's a personal choice) then I couldn't care less about the politics of the deal.

Would love to see a few more sign up over the coming month. Might be wishful thinking but 1,000 extra that's £6k a quarter we wouldn't have to spend as we vote, brilliant. If Motherwell can get over 2,000 so can we. COYS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/09/2017 at 9:32 PM, bazil85 said:

 


That's your choice mate. For me, it is what it is. People that have the money to put in and are for fan ownership, this is the only option I'm afraid. I kind of think the way you're looking at it is 'cut your nose off to spite your face' if I'm honest but more power to you. I'm not here to change your mind.

More people that back it, the stronger St Mirren Football club could be going forward and the quicker the old board are paid off. For me I'll put St Mirren ahead of any personal disagreements about a legal buyout and paying money to a bunch of guys that saved our club. I'm pretty sure SG and co aren't getting rich off this deal.

It £12 a month helps my club (I pay the £25 but that's a personal choice) then I couldn't care less about the politics of the deal.

Would love to see a few more sign up over the coming month. Might be wishful thinking but 1,000 extra that's £6k a quarter we wouldn't have to spend as we vote, brilliant. If Motherwell can get over 2,000 so can we. COYS

 

They should have kept the descretionary fund separate from SMISA. Apart from being a more honest way of running a Community Benefit Society it would have allowed fans who weren't interested in the buyout the opportunity to donate to club directly. 

Share this post


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

They should have kept the descretionary fund separate from SMISA. Apart from being a more honest way of running a Community Benefit Society it would have allowed fans who weren't interested in the buyout the opportunity to donate to club directly. 

I don't think the club would say no to someone wanting to give money to them for community or anything else. they had to hit a target of 1,000 sign-ups to get the deal through so I can see why they didn't take the risk of separating it out. 

I think it's a shame we have fans not interested in moving the club towards fan ownership. I can understand if people are financially constraint but to be against the actual deal... Don't understand it. 

Share this post


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

A token 1 share per member would have been a good idea. Even if it's not possible now, the promise of 1 share when smisa take control.

It's going to be fan owned, we'll all have a say on the running of the club through elections. I get that some fans might have the need for a bit of paper saying they have a share in the club but for me why would that be a deal breaker against paying the equivalent of 40p a day. For me seeing my name up at the stadium is also a bigger selling point than a share. 

Share this post


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

Each to their own eh

yep, we've still got way over the required numbers to bring St Mirren into the ownership of those who care most about them, the fans.

Also 1,300 X £2 a month is still a decent wee bit of money over and above to be invested into our great club. Can't complain about that and who knows, could always get more fans buying in down the line. If Motherwell can get over 2,200 so can the buddies! 

Share this post


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

A nominal 1 share for each person would be a good gesture; if / when that person leaves then it can revert to Smisa.

yeah i guess so, could be something they put in place. Could be a promotional technique now, something like:

**** Anyone already signed or that signs up between now and say September 2018 and continues to make their monthly commitment to completion as a token of gratitude will receive XX shares in St Mirren football club upon fan ownership being achieved****

I think that would be a really good idea. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I don't think the club would say no to someone wanting to give money to them for community or anything else. they had to hit a target of 1,000 sign-ups to get the deal through so I can see why they didn't take the risk of separating it out. 

I think it's a shame we have fans not interested in moving the club towards fan ownership. I can understand if people are financially constraint but to be against the actual deal... Don't understand it. 

I understand it. Some people simply take the view that they already pay in too much money to the football club and aren't interested in playing their part in owning the club particularly when there doesn't seem to be anything in it for them, or when looking at it as a benevolent payment to good causes. I think that's fair enough - especially when you how SMISA has been run since inception. If you look at the proposals and pledges that were presented to fans in the Buy The Buds offer it also looks like many people were deliberately mislead - myself included - particularly in terms of this supposedly being a Community Benefit Society. 

Perhaps a better way to run the "discretionary fund" would be to scrap it altogether and to replace it with a "Go Fund Me" type idea where the club put forward proposals for projects and fans can pledge their donation. If the project receives enough pledges to be fully funded then it goes ahead and all the contributions are taken, if it doesn't the fans get to keep their money. That way no-one will feel as though the money they are contributing is being misappropriated. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you look at the proposals and pledges that were presented to fans in the Buy The Buds offer it also looks like many people were deliberately mislead - myself included - particularly in terms of this supposedly being a Community Benefit Society. 


There's two ways of discussing this in all honesty. I'll steer clear of the obvious one and, again, try to explain it properly.

SMISA are in a joint venture with St.Mirren, ultimate goal being to take on ownership of St. Mirren from Gordon Scott. Being a CBS there will be things we can't do and obviously we're regulated by the FCA , with Supporters Direct also being involved in that. Guidance given has been that the community we are looking to benefit is the St. Mirren support, quite obviously we are looking to do that and have done that. Alongside that we have provided funding towards the disabled viewing platform, tickets for community groups, sponsored a local youth club and continue to investigate other ways to benefit the wider community whether they are football related groups or not.

To be clear about it, the SMISA Board feel we're doing our job, the St. Mirren board feel we're doing well (recent meetings have been positive), the majority of members appear to be happy and the FCA/SD appear to be happy with how SMISA operate and are being run.

To be blunt, there will always be members who aren't happy. But, I genuinely feel we've answered the issues around community benefitor use of finances, challenged the club where necessary and even taken things on the chin if we've screwed up. Time for us to move on really, because in all honesty the majority of members, the club and the regulars have given us authority to do exactly that.

Share this post


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

 


There's two ways of discussing this in all honesty. I'll steer clear of the obvious one and, again, try to explain it properly.

SMISA are in a joint venture with St.Mirren, ultimate goal being to take on ownership of St. Mirren from Gordon Scott. Being a CBS there will be things we can't do and obviously we're regulated by the FCA , with Supporters Direct also being involved in that. Guidance given has been that the community we are looking to benefit is the St. Mirren support, quite obviously we are looking to do that and have done that. Alongside that we have provided funding towards the disabled viewing platform, tickets for community groups, sponsored a local youth club and continue to investigate other ways to benefit the wider community whether they are football related groups or not.

To be clear about it, the SMISA Board feel we're doing our job, the St. Mirren board feel we're doing well (recent meetings have been positive), the majority of members appear to be happy and the FCA/SD appear to be happy with how SMISA operate and are being run.

To be blunt, there will always be members who aren't happy. But, I genuinely feel we've answered the issues around community benefitor use of finances, challenged the club where necessary and even taken things on the chin if we've screwed up. Time for us to move on really, because in all honesty the majority of members, the club and the regulars have given us authority to do exactly that.

 

Really? Yet your website says

Capture.thumb.PNG.a31a3bda03e54b307fc0903e6f14b929.PNG

Capture1.PNG.95dfea1e1399f360670fef5fbba6de24.PNG

Indeed a quick scan shows that the website talks about the Paisley Community no fewer than 9 times in the handful of pages that exist. That is deliberately misleading. 

Perhaps you can tell me how the SMISA board are doing attracting new members from outside the St Mirren support - that was something that was repeatedly broached during the Buy The Buds campaign. Did you get many members of the Paisley Community signing up to hand money over? 

To me SMISA has been an enormous let down. It's been yet another busted opportunity. Money paid in is being squandered on unsustainable projects that have no long term benefit. Costings have been dubious at best, downright dishonest at worst. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Yet your website says
Capture.thumb.PNG.a31a3bda03e54b307fc0903e6f14b929.PNG
Capture1.PNG.95dfea1e1399f360670fef5fbba6de24.PNG
Indeed a quick scan shows that the website talks about the Paisley Community no fewer than 9 times in the handful of pages that exist. That is deliberately misleading. 
Perhaps you can tell me how the SMISA board are doing attracting new members from outside the St Mirren support - that was something that was repeatedly broached during the Buy The Buds campaign. Did you get many members of the Paisley Community signing up to hand money over? 
To me SMISA has been an enormous let down. It's been yet another busted opportunity. Money paid in is being squandered on unsustainable projects that have no long term benefit. Costings have been dubious at best, downright dishonest at worst. 


Of course it talks about the Paisley Community, St. Mirren play in Paisley. I've no idea how many members aren't St. Mirren members. When you get 300 over your targets then I doubt it matters.

I'm not touching the last sentence, aside from to say that a forum is not a place for it.

Share this post


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

 


Of course it talks about the Paisley Community, St. Mirren play in Paisley. I've no idea how many members aren't St. Mirren members. When you get 300 over your targets then I doubt it matters.

I'm not touching the last sentence, aside from to say that a forum is not a place for it.

 

It talks about the Paisley Community because that was the Community the bid claimed to be benefiting. Several board members talked about how the bid would benefit the Paisley Community. I've got a number of e-mails from SMISA board members who talked clearly about how they saw the bid benefiting the Paisley Community. In fact the only board member I've ever heard refer to the Community that SMISA are supposed to benefit as being St Mirren fans is you and that was only after the failure to use the funds to benefit the Paisley Community was highlighted. Indeed not long after it was challenged the sponsorship of a youth teams set of strips and the purchase of season tickets for Paisley Community Groups was trotted out as an option to be voted on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It talks about the Paisley Community because that was the Community the bid claimed to be benefiting. Several board members talked about how the bid would benefit the Paisley Community. I've got a number of e-mails from SMISA board members who talked clearly about how they saw the bid benefiting the Paisley Community. In fact the only board member I've ever heard refer to the Community that SMISA are supposed to benefit as being St Mirren fans is you and that was only after the failure to use the funds to benefit the Paisley Community was highlighted. Indeed not long after it was challenged the sponsorship of a youth teams set of strips and the purchase of season tickets for Paisley Community Groups was trotted out as an option to be voted on. 


Right, so after the funds were being used to fund the club purchase and went towards the disabled viewing platform. Remind me again how that doesn't benefit the Paisley Community, because I'm at an absolute loss there.

I'm the only board member you've heard and will hear because, since the AGM, I've basically taken on communication via this forum. It should be highlighted that I'm not saying it as some loose cannon, it's actually the guidance that has been given to SMISA by Supporters Direct.

"Trotted out" - You really mean offered, having been suggested, discussed, costed and laid out. I'm certainly not going to apologise for either option or for SMISA taking the authority of it's members forward. On one hand you're stating we were accused of something, then you take pot shots at us for addressing the initial accusation. Frankly, we'd have proposed community related options anyway and it wouldn't have been to appease five (I think it's about five now) people on a forum.

Share this post


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

 


Right, so after the funds were being used to fund the club purchase and went towards the disabled viewing platform. Remind me again how that doesn't benefit the Paisley Community, because I'm at an absolute loss there.

I'm the only board member you've heard and will hear because, since the AGM, I've basically taken on communication via this forum. It should be highlighted that I'm not saying it as some loose cannon, it's actually the guidance that has been given to SMISA by Supporters Direct.

"Trotted out" - You really mean offered, having been suggested, discussed, costed and laid out. I'm certainly not going to apologise for either option or for SMISA taking the authority of it's members forward. On one hand you're stating we were accused of something, then you take pot shots at us for addressing the initial accusation. Frankly, we'd have proposed community related options anyway and it wouldn't have been to appease five (I think it's about five now) people on a forum.

 

Unlike you I'm not rewriting history. I didn't support the funds being used for the disabled platform. I believe that improving accessibility to the stadium was and is the clubs responsibility not SMISAs. However I was pleased it was finally happening and I can accept that - if the stadium is to be utalised for more than just St Mirren matches - it did have some benefit to the Paisley community. 

I'm not sure you followed the point I was making. Prior to you being a nominee in the St Mirren board election I had never heard anyone state that the community to be benefited was St Mirren fans. TheWhiteMan posted on here a number of times throughout the Buy The Buds period that the community to benefit was Paisley. He even sent me a PM that I still have in which he expressed how important it was to the bid process that SMISA were bringing the club to the Paisley community and he cited his involvement in the Back Of The Net project. 

I also have emails from several other board members all of whom stressed the importance of the Paisley Community to the bid process. Are you claiming they were all mavericks? 

Even in this post you are now stating that there were always going to be Paisley community related options. Why would that be if you are set up with an asset lock that means you can only use your assets to benefit the community you represent? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlike you I'm not rewriting history. I didn't support the funds being used for the disabled platform. I believe that improving accessibility to the stadium was and is the clubs responsibility not SMISAs. However I was pleased it was finally happening and I can accept that - if the stadium is to be utalised for more than just St Mirren matches - it did have some benefit to the Paisley community. 

I'm not sure you followed the point I was making. Prior to you being a nominee in the St Mirren board election I had never heard anyone state that the community to be benefited was St Mirren fans. TheWhiteMan posted on here a number of times throughout the Buy The Buds period that the community to benefit was Paisley. He even sent me a PM that I still have in which he expressed how important it was to the bid process that SMISA were bringing the club to the Paisley community and he cited his involvement in the Back Of The Net project. 

I also have emails from several other board members all of whom stressed the importance of the Paisley Community to the bid process. Are you claiming they were all mavericks? 

Even in this post you are now stating that there were always going to be Paisley community related options. Why would that be if you are set up with an asset lock that means you can only use your assets to benefit the community you represent? 

 

 

There's no rewriting of history, mostly because the SMISA board weren't actually sure of the definition of community within their constitution. What I am doing is informing you of the guidance given by Supporters Direct with regards the community we serve. In all honesty...it's pretty damned obvious. You're a St.Mirren Trust sooooooooo you're looking to primarily serve or benefit the St.Mirren support and other communities will benefit through association.

 

Also, of course the Paisley Community is important. That doesn't mean it's the primary Community served by SMISA.

 

A CBS has a duty to serve the wider community, so not just the community it serves. That's why we even have options that will, have or could benefit the Renfrewshire Community.

 

So, we primarily serve the St.Mirren support and that will benefit the Paisley Community. There is also a duty, through regulatory requirement, to serve the wider Community and that's been defined as Renfrewshire.

 

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  

×