Jump to content

saints fans survey 2017


thewhiteman

Recommended Posts

Well that's at odds with what Andrew Jenkins told me. He said that he viewed the spend on things like players wages as SMISA protecting their investment. He said he normally would say that the ISA should only be giving the football club money in return for shares. 
I'm due to speak with him again soon. I'll be sure to let him know what you are saying on here. 


You do that. Of course, you'll mention that I haven't actually discussed the players wage spend here and that I wasn't a board member at the time of that vote. But, do feel free to accurately describe what I have discussed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, TsuMirren said:

You do that. Of course, you'll mention that I haven't actually discussed the players wage spend here and that I wasn't a board member at the time of that vote. But, do feel free to accurately describe what I have discussed.

 

Fair enough - you are quite right to distance yourself from the SMISA board decisions that were made before you were co-opted on. 

I'm interested in the suggestion you make that the SMISA board weren't sure of their definition of community within their constitution. I take it that is what you meant to type because I'm sure they knew what a committee was. If that was indeed the case can you advise when they finally decided that the community they were supposed to benefit wasn't actually the Paisley Community as had been pledged and promised by a number of prominent SMISA board members in the Buy The Buds period but that it was in fact this "St Mirren Community"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough - you are quite right to distance yourself from the SMISA board decisions that were made before you were co-opted on. 
I'm interested in the suggestion you make that the SMISA board weren't sure of their definition of community within their constitution. I take it that is what you meant to type because I'm sure they knew what a committee was. If that was indeed the case can you advise when they finally decided that the community they were supposed to benefit wasn't actually the Paisley Community as had been pledged and promised by a number of prominent SMISA board members in the Buy The Buds period but that it was in fact this "St Mirren Community"?
 


I've corrected my post and, small correction for you, I was elected on. I did attend meetings prior to the AGM, but only gave guidance at those.

It's more around the primary community that is served, the Paisley Community still benefits. Clarification was sought through discussions with Supporters Direct prior to the SMISA AGM. I don't think any pledges or promises have been broken as St.Mirren are in Paisley. I suppose it all depends on what type of benefits were being promised and/or personal understanding of those. To me the main benefit, through the joint venture, was ensure the St.Mirren support have a team to watch, which will naturally benefit Paisley and the wider Renfrewshire Community.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the correction Kenny needs to make is the Smisa board were made aware continually, and are aware what the definition of community means. What they did was to look to interpret that definition to suit their aims, that being give all the cast to the club, and throw a token gesture to the real community nowvand then.

given the youth set up just trousered £15k in sponsorship from a builder, will they be paying back the thousands they got from Smisa, so smisa can get back to sponsoring things like the Panda club, and making a differenve in the community?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2017 at 6:43 PM, Bellside Bud said:

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. 

 

 

I see what you're getting at. I just think some fans that feel 'mislead' have to consider that in every vote so far there has been either a community idea put forward or the option to role the funds over (by voting against any pledge) The harsh reality is a majority of paying members have wanted the discretionary funds to mainly go to the betterment of St Mirren football club. under those circumstances I don't see how changing it can be a 'better way' How can they justify making a change to something that majority of paying members thinks works fine? Would be a bit tail wagging the dog IMO. 

SMISA at no time said every penny would be going to community projects, they made it completely clear it would be a democratic vote and the way they run is very much within the regulatory boundary of being and acting as a Community Benefit Society. In my current role I have to deal very heavily with regulatory and legal adherence and they are doing so. Further more, I don't think they're doing anything underhanded or sneaky in their compliance, I'm very proud of the community work from SMISA, St Mirren and other groups of St Mirren fans. From where I'm standing the only way fans can claim to be 'mislead' is if they didn't think other fans might vote differently to them and that a majority of fans might want to see their money improve their football club. If fans genuinely thought that, have to say I'm surprised.

I would also raise an assumption to fans making this point, that they must of initially signed-up surely? If a reason not to be involved is the belief of being mislead, surely they were signed-up in the first place before realizing it wasn't as expected?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bellside Bud said:

Fair enough - you are quite right to distance yourself from the SMISA board decisions that were made before you were co-opted on. 

I'm interested in the suggestion you make that the SMISA board weren't sure of their definition of community within their constitution. I take it that is what you meant to type because I'm sure they knew what a committee was. If that was indeed the case can you advise when they finally decided that the community they were supposed to benefit wasn't actually the Paisley Community as had been pledged and promised by a number of prominent SMISA board members in the Buy The Buds period but that it was in fact this "St Mirren Community"?

 

It's good to see Stuart Dickson has a new profile. Welcome back Stuart :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

 


I've corrected my post and, small correction for you, I was elected on. I did attend meetings prior to the AGM, but only gave guidance at those.

It's more around the primary community that is served, the Paisley Community still benefits. Clarification was sought through discussions with Supporters Direct prior to the SMISA AGM. I don't think any pledges or promises have been broken as St.Mirren are in Paisley. I suppose it all depends on what type of benefits were being promised and/or personal understanding of those. To me the main benefit, through the joint venture, was ensure the St.Mirren support have a team to watch, which will naturally benefit Paisley and the wider Renfrewshire Community.

 

What post did you correct and what have you amended? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

I think the correction Kenny needs to make is the Smisa board were made aware continually, and are aware what the definition of community means. What they did was to look to interpret that definition to suit their aims, that being give all the cast to the club, and throw a token gesture to the real community nowvand then.

given the youth set up just trousered £15k in sponsorship from a builder, will they be paying back the thousands they got from Smisa, so smisa can get back to sponsoring things like the Panda club, and making a differenve in the community?

Yeah it's pretty clear from the SMISA website too. As I said earlier the phrase "Paisley Community" appears 9 times on their website. The phrase "St Mirren Community" doesn't exist on there at all. 

I had a bit of time on my hands last night and I went through the Buy The Buds thread on the forum - it's still there for those that want to read it. It's quite clear on there what my understanding of the bid was and I was never corrected. I believed the rhetoric that this was a Community bid to buy out the football club by a Community Benefit Society that was tied by an asset lock to benefit the people of the local Paisley Community. Its clear that I was mislead, as were many others according to the posts on there. If I had known that the SMISA board were looking to take as much of that money as possible to fund the Limited Company, whilst failing to obtain the relevant equity in return I'd never have joined, supported or endorsed the bid. Why would I? The board at St Mirren had all of the same opportunities to build a bigger more successful operation just like St Johnstone have done without the need to pass round the begging bowl for more money. The club is more than capable of looking after itself and it's day to day operation. What I was happy to support financially was the building of the bridge between the club and the local community, to see St Mirren far more involved in the local community to the mutual benefit of community groups, charities and the club. 

 

Edited by Bellside Bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I see what you're getting at. I just think some fans that feel 'mislead' have to consider that in every vote so far there has been either a community idea put forward or the option to role the funds over (by voting against any pledge) The harsh reality is a majority of paying members have wanted the discretionary funds to mainly go to the betterment of St Mirren football club. under those circumstances I don't see how changing it can be a 'better way' How can they justify making a change to something that majority of paying members thinks works fine? Would be a bit tail wagging the dog IMO. 

SMISA at no time said every penny would be going to community projects, they made it completely clear it would be a democratic vote and the way they run is very much within the regulatory boundary of being and acting as a Community Benefit Society. In my current role I have to deal very heavily with regulatory and legal adherence and they are doing so. Further more, I don't think they're doing anything underhanded or sneaky in their compliance, I'm very proud of the community work from SMISA, St Mirren and other groups of St Mirren fans. From where I'm standing the only way fans can claim to be 'mislead' is if they didn't think other fans might vote differently to them and that a majority of fans might want to see their money improve their football club. If fans genuinely thought that, have to say I'm surprised.

I would also raise an assumption to fans making this point, that they must of initially signed-up surely? If a reason not to be involved is the belief of being mislead, surely they were signed-up in the first place before realizing it wasn't as expected?  

That doesn't cut it with me Bazil. To cite a ridiculous analogy lets say that it was suggested that the discretionary fund was to be used to hire a hit man to take out Craig Thompson or Willie Collum and the majority voted in favour of the spend. Would that absolve SMISA from it's legal responsibility? Is it an OK defence to say that SMISA is no longer complicit in breaking the law because the majority of members voted for it? SMISA are a Community Benefit Society. They have an asset lock in place that should prevent any of the assets under it's control being spent on certain items. It should never have been used to pay the wages of staff at the Limited Company - and as I've said Andrew Jenkin from Supporters Direct has stated to me that he would normally have insisted that money being put into a football club in that way by an ISA be done in the form of an investment in return for equity and for a greater voice for the members on the football club board. 

SMISA's own Constitution states quite clearly that all of it's assets are locked in for the benefit of the community. It's very clear  Bazil. It doesn't allow for the discretionary fund to be used for items like paying for a Sports Scientist or a Data Analyst for the football club - regardless of what the majority of members vote for. I suppose the majority of members could vote to change the constitution, but I'm pretty sure that would have legal implications given the tax status of a Community Benefit Society. Read the constitution, specifically the section on the asset lock, you'll see where the attempt to mislead is. 

And I did sign up, contributed £25 per month and then when it became clear that SMISA were misleading me I cancelled my membership and asked for a refund. 

Edited by Bellside Bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Bazil, I failed to add that I think going forward the discretionary fund element should be scrapped. SMISA is not the right vehicle for this money if it's to be used to pay players wages and to pay for sports scientists etc. At the very least it should be a optional side fund, or the Go Fund Me type set up that I have come to believe would be much more preferable. Maybe it would be something the Fans Council could get involved in. I honestly believe that it would clean up SMISA allowing them to focus on simply buying shares in the club and, if they were to go with the Go Fund Me type idea - it would allow members and non members to back the proposals that they strongly believe in with as much money as they would like to give. It would also give scope the Fans Council to go to local community groups and charities to get their proposals and to allow them to seek funding from the St Mirren support without the need to stand outside the ground shaking a collection can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

That doesn't cut it with me Bazil. To cite a ridiculous analogy lets say that it was suggested that the discretionary fund was to be used to hire a hit man to take out Craig Thompson or Willie Collum and the majority voted in favour of the spend. Would that absolve SMISA from it's legal responsibility? Is it an OK defence to say that SMISA is no longer complicit in breaking the law because the majority of members voted for it? SMISA are a Community Benefit Society. They have an asset lock in place that should prevent any of the assets under it's control being spent on certain items. It should never have been used to pay the wages of staff at the Limited Company - and as I've said Andrew Jenkin from Supporters Direct has stated to me that he would normally have insisted that money being put into a football club in that way by an ISA be done in the form of an investment in return for equity and for a greater voice for the members on the football club board. 

SMISA's own Constitution states quite clearly that all of it's assets are locked in for the benefit of the community. It's very clear  Bazil. It doesn't allow for the discretionary fund to be used for items like paying for a Sports Scientist or a Data Analyst for the football club - regardless of what the majority of members vote for. I suppose the majority of members could vote to change the constitution, but I'm pretty sure that would have legal implications given the tax status of a Community Benefit Society. Read the constitution, specifically the section on the asset lock, you'll see where the attempt to mislead is. 

And I did sign up, contributed £25 per month and then when it became clear that SMISA were misleading me I cancelled my membership and asked for a refund. 

That sounds a lot like one of our former contributors on here... 

Killing a ref no matter how much of a bell-end they happen to be is breaking the law, regardless if you vote on it (I know to most that would be obvious but I'm not so sure in this case). As I stated previously my professional role is heavily linked to regulatory compliance I would be under the impression from my knowledge of the set-up (which i would consider to be more than most) that SMISA, St Mirren or anyone else involved are not breaking any laws here. You can associate it as St Mirren community, Paisley community or whatever you want but you'd have some job proving wrong doing. If you do think there is some law breaking why don't you go report it? 

You clearly have some issue with aspects that make this football club better and people democratically voting on spending their own money. Report it to whoever you feel will listen if you feel you have that time to waste of course. Otherwise let it go and let the paying members get on with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

Sorry Bazil, I failed to add that I think going forward the discretionary fund element should be scrapped. SMISA is not the right vehicle for this money if it's to be used to pay players wages and to pay for sports scientists etc. At the very least it should be a optional side fund, or the Go Fund Me type set up that I have come to believe would be much more preferable. Maybe it would be something the Fans Council could get involved in. I honestly believe that it would clean up SMISA allowing them to focus on simply buying shares in the club and, if they were to go with the Go Fund Me type idea - it would allow members and non members to back the proposals that they strongly believe in with as much money as they would like to give. It would also give scope the Fans Council to go to local community groups and charities to get their proposals and to allow them to seek funding from the St Mirren support without the need to stand outside the ground shaking a collection can. 

Would that make you join back up? For me SMISA is the correct vehicle because the majority of members have voted in favor of proposals put forward when they've had the option to reject. If it ever gets to the point where we have a majority saying 'No these aren't the right ideas' then sure change it.

A very vocal minority don't speak for me and many others, I'm more than happy for my money to go to my football club and would always vote as my club requests. As long as it's done legally and for lawful purposes. My opinion is there has been no law breaking at all. As I said previously, if you disagree then raise it with the regulator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

Sorry Bazil, I failed to add that I think going forward the discretionary fund element should be scrapped  -  Wonder what the other 1299 think? 

SMISA is not the right vehicle for this money if it's to be used to pay players wages and to pay for sports scientists etc.

At the very least it should be a optional side fund - that's what it is FFS - £10 or £23 ring-fenced and £2 for members to spend as they see fit!

or the Go Fund Me type set up that I have come to believe would be much more preferable. Maybe it would be something the Fans Council could get involved in. I honestly believe that it would clean up SMISA allowing them to focus on simply buying shares in the club and, if they were to go with the Go Fund Me type idea - it would allow members and non members to back the proposals that they strongly believe in with as much money as they would like to give. It would also give scope the Fans Council to go to local community groups and charities to get their proposals and to allow them to seek funding from the St Mirren support without the need to stand outside the ground shaking a collection can. 

Bellside - an area between Cleland And WISHAW

Bellend - a poster who uses not very clever aliases to try and disguise his presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

That sounds a lot like one of our former contributors on here... 

Killing a ref no matter how much of a bell-end they happen to be is breaking the law, regardless if you vote on it (I know to most that would be obvious but I'm not so sure in this case). As I stated previously my professional role is heavily linked to regulatory compliance I would be under the impression from my knowledge of the set-up (which i would consider to be more than most) that SMISA, St Mirren or anyone else involved are not breaking any laws here. You can associate it as St Mirren community, Paisley community or whatever you want but you'd have some job proving wrong doing. If you do think there is some law breaking why don't you go report it? 

You clearly have some issue with aspects that make this football club better and people democratically voting on spending their own money. Report it to whoever you feel will listen if you feel you have that time to waste of course. Otherwise let it go and let the paying members get on with it. 

I did report it and the case - as far as I know - is ongoing. I've shared Andrew Jenkins' take on the contribution SMISA made to players wages. He claimed he wasn't comfortable with how it was done and he would normally recommend that money being an investment made in return for equity but he believed it was a unique circumstance - which of course has since been repeated. 

I have no issue with people trying to make the football club I grew up supporting better. None at all. I just believe that they are going about it the wrong way and that the projects that SMISA are funding have extremely short term gains if they are indeed gains at all with very little sustainability. I also take issue with being mislead, and with SMISA continuing to claim on their marketing website that they want to put the club at the heart of the Paisley Community - whilst on football forums their "spokesman" claims that they are only interested in the "St Mirren Community" which isn't even mentioned on their site or in their constitution. 

And to answer your subsequent post, no. It would help but I would need to see a complete overhaul of the SMISA board and much more clarity on their website and constitution before I ever considered rejoining. However if the Fans Council - or someone similar - was to set up something similar to Go Fund Me where both the club and community groups within the local community could put forward projects for funding I would definitely be willing to contribute to the projects I believe I could support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

I did report it and the case - as far as I know - is ongoing. I've shared Andrew Jenkins' take on the contribution SMISA made to players wages. He claimed he wasn't comfortable with how it was done and he would normally recommend that money being an investment made in return for equity but he believed it was a unique circumstance - which of course has since been repeated. 

I have no issue with people trying to make the football club I grew up supporting better. None at all. I just believe that they are going about it the wrong way and that the projects that SMISA are funding have extremely short term gains if they are indeed gains at all with very little sustainability. I also take issue with being mislead, and with SMISA continuing to claim on their marketing website that they want to put the club at the heart of the Paisley Community - whilst on football forums their "spokesman" claims that they are only interested in the "St Mirren Community" which isn't even mentioned on their site or in their constitution. 

And to answer your subsequent post, no. It would help but I would need to see a complete overhaul of the SMISA board and much more clarity on their website and constitution before I ever considered rejoining. However if the Fans Council - or someone similar - was to set up something similar to Go Fund Me where both the club and community groups within the local community could put forward projects for funding I would definitely be willing to contribute to the projects I believe I could support. 

:bairn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did report it and the case - as far as I know - is ongoing. I've shared Andrew Jenkins' take on the contribution SMISA made to players wages. He claimed he wasn't comfortable with how it was done and he would normally recommend that money being an investment made in return for equity but he believed it was a unique circumstance - which of course has since been repeated. 
I have no issue with people trying to make the football club I grew up supporting better. None at all. I just believe that they are going about it the wrong way and that the projects that SMISA are funding have extremely short term gains if they are indeed gains at all with very little sustainability. I also take issue with being mislead, and with SMISA continuing to claim on their marketing website that they want to put the club at the heart of the Paisley Community - whilst on football forums their "spokesman" claims that they are only interested in the "St Mirren Community" which isn't even mentioned on their site or in their constitution. 
And to answer your subsequent post, no. It would help but I would need to see a complete overhaul of the SMISA board and much more clarity on their website and constitution before I ever considered rejoining. However if the Fans Council - or someone similar - was to set up something similar to Go Fund Me where both the club and community groups within the local community could put forward projects for funding I would definitely be willing to contribute to the projects I believe I could support. 


Did report it? That again sounds very similar to a previous poster on here...

Well why don't we just wait and see how that goes before commenting further? We know your thoughts but they don't speak for other fans. (And certainly not for the majority paying money to the fund)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did report it and the case - as far as I know - is ongoing. I've shared Andrew Jenkins' take on the contribution SMISA made to players wages. He claimed he wasn't comfortable with how it was done and he would normally recommend that money being an investment made in return for equity but he believed it was a unique circumstance - which of course has since been repeated. 
I have no issue with people trying to make the football club I grew up supporting better. None at all. I just believe that they are going about it the wrong way and that the projects that SMISA are funding have extremely short term gains if they are indeed gains at all with very little sustainability. I also take issue with being mislead, and with SMISA continuing to claim on their marketing website that they want to put the club at the heart of the Paisley Community - whilst on football forums their "spokesman" claims that they are only interested in the "St Mirren Community" which isn't even mentioned on their site or in their constitution. 
And to answer your subsequent post, no. It would help but I would need to see a complete overhaul of the SMISA board and much more clarity on their website and constitution before I ever considered rejoining. However if the Fans Council - or someone similar - was to set up something similar to Go Fund Me where both the club and community groups within the local community could put forward projects for funding I would definitely be willing to contribute to the projects I believe I could support. 


I've not once, ever, stated SMISA are only interested in the St Mirren Community. Community groups are perfectly free to propose projects. "Contribute to the projects I believe I could support", so literally no interest in democracy or the majority will of members. Why not just go and seek out community groups Stuart and donate to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TsuMirren said:


I've not once, ever, stated SMISA are only interested in the St Mirren Community. Community groups are perfectly free to propose projects. "Contribute to the projects I believe I could support", so literally no interest in democracy or the majority will of members. Why not just go and seek out community groups Stuart and donate to them.

 

That's exactly what I have been doing. Why would I want to give my money to someone else for them to decide how best to spend it for me? And why would I do that when I've got no faith in the people who are doing the costings, and who are determining what can be voted on and what can't? 

On reflection it's a bizarre element of what SMISA are doing. Why was the discretionary spend ever factored into the proposal? Why wasn't it just left as a simple cash in for equity? Hearts were supposed to be the model SMISA were copying. Hearts don't have this bizarre and divisive spectacle of a discretionary spend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I have been doing. Why would I want to give my money to someone else for them to decide how best to spend it for me? And why would I do that when I've got no faith in the people who are doing the costings, and who are determining what can be voted on and what can't? 
On reflection it's a bizarre element of what SMISA are doing. Why was the discretionary spend ever factored into the proposal? Why wasn't it just left as a simple cash in for equity? Hearts were supposed to be the model SMISA were copying. Hearts don't have this bizarre and divisive spectacle of a discretionary spend. 


Hearts aren't a Community Benefit Society so have no duty to do anything you want done. They're basically just a fundraising vehicle for the club. Having the £2 discretionary pot means there is money there to be assigned to projects, offers members involvement and removes any sort of "thanks for the money, shut up" debate. Indeed, without the discretionary spend things could be even worse. Other than the £2, there is no money available as the rest is ear marked for the purchase.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 


Hearts aren't a Community Benefit Society so have no duty to do anything you want done. They're basically just a fundraising vehicle for the club. Having the £2 discretionary pot means there is money there to be assigned to projects, offers members involvement and removes any sort of "thanks for the money, shut up" debate. Indeed, without the discretionary spend things could be even worse. Other than the £2, there is no money available as the rest is ear marked for the purchase.

 

Simple solution, make the £2 pot an option for members to contribute to. Then those who feel its merited can chose to contribute, and those who dont, can carry on Buying The Buds!

win, win.... no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Simple solution, make the £2 pot an option for members to contribute to. Then those who feel its merited can chose to contribute, and those who dont, can carry on Buying The Buds!

win, win.... no?

And take it out of the SMISA asset list. Then there's no dubiety about whether or not each spend breaches the asset lock or not. Make it a side fund held away from SMISA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And take it out of the SMISA asset list. Then there's no dubiety about whether or not each spend breaches the asset lock or not. Make it a side fund held away from SMISA. 


From the asset lock portion of the constitution:

8.1. The society must not use or deal with its assets except-

8.1.1. where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for the benefit of the community;
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...