Jump to content

saints fans survey 2017


thewhiteman

Recommended Posts

On ‎18‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 4:02 PM, 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. 

So lets be clear you paid your £500 in accordance with clause 122 of the constitution to allow your dispute to be arbitrated. Can you advise who Andrew Jenkins and his colleagues decided to be the arbitrator

122. Any person bringing a dispute must deposit with the Society the sum of £500 or such other reasonable sum as the Society Board shall decide.  The arbitrator will decide how the costs of the arbitration will be paid and what should be done with the deposit.

I also presume you lodged your complaint within 6 months of leaving SMISA in accordance with clause 121.2

121. Every unresolved dispute which arises out of these Rules between the Society and:

121.1 a member; or

121.2 any person aggrieved who has ceased to be a member within the six months prior to the date of the dispute; or

Taking cognisance that you have not posted on here for circa 6 months and at the time as your other alias advised that you had made a complaint I am surprised that you have not escalated a complaint against Supporters Direct against your complaint against the society. They appear to be dragging their feet.

If I was you I would seek the services of a solicitor to register a complaint against Supporters Direct who failed to deal with you complaint against the Society.

 

I really do not know why TSU engaged with you for so long. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


11 minutes ago, Gruffalo said:

So lets be clear you paid your £500 in accordance with clause 122 of the constitution to allow your dispute to be arbitrated. Can you advise who Andrew Jenkins and his colleagues decided to be the arbitrator

122. Any person bringing a dispute must deposit with the Society the sum of £500 or such other reasonable sum as the Society Board shall decide.  The arbitrator will decide how the costs of the arbitration will be paid and what should be done with the deposit.

I also presume you lodged your complaint within 6 months of leaving SMISA in accordance with clause 121.2

121. Every unresolved dispute which arises out of these Rules between the Society and:

121.1 a member; or

121.2 any person aggrieved who has ceased to be a member within the six months prior to the date of the dispute; or

Taking cognisance that you have not posted on here for circa 6 months and at the time as your other alias advised that you had made a complaint I am surprised that you have not escalated a complaint against Supporters Direct against your complaint against the society. They appear to be dragging their feet.

If I was you I would seek the services of a solicitor to register a complaint against Supporters Direct who failed to deal with you complaint against the Society.

 

I really do not know why TSU engaged with you for so long. 

 

 

No. Andrew Jenkin respond to my complaint for free, funnily enough. 

Yes I did raise my complaints within 6 months of resigning my membership. 

Andrew Jenkin is still dealing with my complaint and were still in communication. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

 


It's just like Stuart Dickson and the imaginary lawyer correspondence again. 

Now what was that word again that so upset him.

I'm sure it started with b a b y and finished k I l l e r. Is that correct? 

 

It's just like you follow him around the forum at every opportunity. :lol:

Gie it a rest. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Stuart, I think there is only so many times a fella can discuss or explain the same thing, The same stuff that was discussed months ago is getting dragged up again. I am surprised Tsu has the energy to do so all again. I'd have thought "f*** that" donkeys ago & the outcome still is, it's not going to change to how you think it should be managed.

1, 2 or a few dissenting voices is not going to make one iota of difference if the vast majority are happy with how things are. What you are looking for from the whole shebang is very very different to the vast majority & therein lies your sticking point. If SD agreed with any of your concerns, the fella Jenkins ears would have pricked up & he'd have got onto SMISA, the fact they haven't suggests SD are comfortable with the way SMISA are conducting their business & the vast majority appear happy to go with the flow and for those reasons, it appears to me, your arguments are futile.

I signed up to donate £12 per month to SMISA knowing £2 would go to a discretionary pot. Like you, I don't agree with how it's been spent to date & I don't agree with it being used to pay wages (of players or sports scientists) but a lot more members did agree to do so. I will respect their choice

The biggest concern for me is the carnage that I expect will ensue when The Buds are bought & the SMISA membership proceed to electing a BOD that will be the St Mirren BOD.

Back to the £2 spend, instead of spunking it every 3 months, I suggested to SMISA that it gets saved into a fund for when The Buds are Bought. The Club will need money then & it won't have the support like what SMISA provides just now to turn to. I cannot imagine all 1300 curren SMISA members will continue paying monthly fees on the never never.

What I was looking for was what was advertised and promised - a Community Benefit Society which would put the football club at the heart of the Paisley Community. Over and over again the website refers to the Paisley Community. E-mails I received from John White and Barry's Mitchell were clear - the Paisley Community was all important to this bid and they needed to ensure it was benefitted. 

I didn't sign up for the £25 per month membership without being absolutely assured that this bid was going to be about buying the club and strengthening ties with the Paisley community. I sought more assurance because I'd already seen the SMiSA board lose sight of its objectives during t-shirt and towel gate when buying equity and getting the fans voice heard was thrown in the bin while Stewart Gilmour saw their banked cash as the clubs to use as it wished. 

This time round the constitution was clear. ALL assets were subject to an asset lock that could only be used to benefit the Community - the community the SMiSA website clearly defined as Paisley. 

Ive been conned. Others have been conned. If this scam had eminated from the relatives of the king of Nigeria in pigeon English it couldn't have been more clear. What I donated to isn't what was promised. I should be refunded and so should any one else who feels ripped off. 

Graeame,  banking the discretionary fund would have been more honest but I want to see it used as was promised. I want to see it benefit the Paisley community. There is absolutely no reason why it can't deliver on that whilst also expanding the club business and generating more income. I've offered suggestions, others have offered help and suggestions. This SMISA board isn't interested. Just as before all they want is for whoever runs St Mirren to love them. It's anything but fan representation and its anything but a Community Benefit Society 

Edited by Bellside Bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

What I was looking for was what was advertised and promised - a Community Benefit Society which would put the football club at the heart of the Paisley Community. Over and over again the website refers to the Paisley Community. E-mails I received from John White and Barry's Mitchell were clear - the Paisley Community was all important to this bid and they needed to ensure it was benefitted. 

I didn't sign up for the £25 per month membership without being absolutely assured that this bid was going to be about buying the club and strengthening ties with the Paisley community. I sought more assurance because I'd already seen the SMiSA board lose sight of its objectives during t-shirt and towel gate when buying equity and getting the fans voice heard was thrown in the bin while Stewart Gilmour saw their banked cash as the clubs to use as it wished. 

This time round the constitution was clear. ALL assets were subject to an asset lock that could only be used to benefit the Community - the community the SMiSA website clearly defined as Paisley. 

Ive been conned. Others have been conned. If this scam had eminated from the relatives of the king of Nigeria in pigeon English it couldn't have been more clear. What I donated to isn't what was promised. I should be refunded and so should any one else who feels ripped off. 

Graeame,  banking the discretionary fund would have been more honest but I want to see it used as was promised. I want to see it benefit the Paisley community. There is absolutely no reason why it can't deliver on that whilst also expanding the club business and generating more income. I've offered suggestions, others have offered help and suggestions. This SMISA board isn't interested. Just as before all they want is for whoever runs St Mirren to love them. It's anything but fan representation and its anything but a Community Benefit Society 

You feel you have been conned and it is your right to do so. It is apparent that you are in a very small minority, as there are still 1300 members continuing to subscribe monthly. Why don't you give it a rest?

By the way I was not aware that pigeons spoke English(even in Nigeria). Perhaps you meant pidgin! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh what a joy it is to go back on the official forum now and watch the tumbleweeds roll by with no bullshit from SD pissing people off, got to admit I only joined here as I was so fed up with him on the official forum.

 

Now he is back on here I will go back over there with occasional forays onto here trying to filter out the SD crap and just focus on the interesting bits.

 

You have the laws of robotics and then you have the laws of SD

1. SD is always right.

2. If you disagree with SD you must be wrong.

3. Law 1 takes precedence in all conversations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Swiss_Saint said:

Oh what a joy it is to go back on the official forum now and watch the tumbleweeds roll by with no bullshit from SD pissing people off, got to admit I only joined here as I was so fed up with him on the official forum.

 

Now he is back on here I will go back over there with occasional forays onto here trying to filter out the SD crap and just focus on the interesting bits.

 

You have the laws of robotics and then you have the laws of SD

1. SD is always right.

2. If you disagree with SD you must be wrong.

3. Law 1 takes precedence in all conversations. 

I don't get people whining about people when it's easy to ignore them? FWIW I happen to find the current batch of posts from Dickson tedious, as is the glee from some who have clearly missed him, but it's easy to ignore or skim over without the need to "name" the person who is causing some stress. Thanks for letting us know where you'll be posting, very informative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bellside Bud said:

No. Andrew Jenkin respond to my complaint for free, funnily enough. 

Yes I did raise my complaints within 6 months of resigning my membership. 

Andrew Jenkin is still dealing with my complaint and were still in communication. 

Are you sure.

The constitution states that you pay the society (1877 Society Ltd aka SMISA) the £500 to cover the costs of paying the arbitrator. Not sure why Andrew Jenkins would be doing it for free as he is not an arbitrator. He should also not be entertaining you as he and you would be in breach of the constitution.

Also arbitrators don't work for anything less that £150/hr.

The constitution states that the arbitrator selection is to be agreed with both parties or nominated by the Chief Executive of Supporters Direct.

Can you advise who the arbitrator is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2017 at 9:53 AM, bazil85 said:

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. 

believe that and you'll believe anything, this is all for the comittee, not the club, not the fans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gruffalo said:

Are you sure.

The constitution states that you pay the society (1877 Society Ltd aka SMISA) the £500 to cover the costs of paying the arbitrator. Not sure why Andrew Jenkins would be doing it for free as he is not an arbitrator. He should also not be entertaining you as he and you would be in breach of the constitution.

Also arbitrators don't work for anything less that £150/hr.

The constitution states that the arbitrator selection is to be agreed with both parties or nominated by the Chief Executive of Supporters Direct.

Can you advise who the arbitrator is.

 

I complained to the FCA, they referred me to Andrew Jenkin. I've been dealing directly with him. I wouldn't really trust anything that is in the SMiSA constitution. The SMiSA board seem to treat it as an irrelevance so I'm not sure why you think this would be any different. 

SMISA are members of Supporters Direct and as head of Supporters Direct Scotland Andrew Jenkin clearly has influence. He hasn't told me to f**k off and to give him peace yet. If he does maybe I'll need to look at alternatives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

believe that and you'll believe anything, this is all for the comittee, not the club, not the fans

Yep. 

The evidence is all there. David Nichol was elected as SMISA representative on the club board. Despite that representation on the club board opposition fans were still moved into the family section for two games this season.

SMISAs objective was always to buy shares in the club to give ordinary fans and customers a voice in the club boardroom. As a SMISA member I sent David Nichol two emails, neither were responded to. Posts on here were completely ignored and when I sent three emails to the general email address - one as a member and two after resigning -  I eventually got one response 21 days later. In that email the person responding made it clear he'd known about my complaints listed on here but he had refused to answer until I sent them an email. 

Of course it's all about the committee. Just look at the vote that saw SMISA putting money in to pay players wages. No other options were entertained by the SMiSA board at all. Just spend on wages with the vote worded so as to make the alternative look catastrophic, or do nothing with the money

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get people whining about people when it's easy to ignore them? FWIW I happen to find the current batch of posts from Dickson tedious, as is the glee from some who have clearly missed him, but it's easy to ignore or skim over without the need to "name" the person who is causing some stress. Thanks for letting us know where you'll be posting, very informative. 


It's like a wee secret society.
I could imagine a situation like this occurring, in the stands & down the pub.

"Pssst, Dicksons back on BAWA"

"Right, i'm away home to get online and get outraged"
[emoji3]



Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are these circular arguments meant to encourage my family and myself to become members? 
Give me 5 straightforward reasons anyone should join?
Please.


How about
1. It benefits your football club
2. It benefits your football club
3. It benefits your football club
4. It benefits your football club
5. It benefits your football club

Just a thought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that perhaps not many want to be seen as being hoodwinked, and admit it, but surely the youth academy have a moral duty to offer to pay back the thousands Smisa have given them, since they just got £15k from a sponsor, and the money they got from Smisa meant we would no lo longer be funding the Panda club....
doesnt anyone else feel uncomfortable with being guided to vote to fund the academy when they are cash rich, and the Panda club is left out..?


No, why would we want it back? Invest the money back into the academy. Not like that money is lining people's pockets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

SIMPLE THEN - SO WHY HAVE SO MANY NOT YET JOINED. ARE WE NOT TRUE FANS?

More than blind faith is needed.


How about
1. It benefits your football club
2. It benefits your football club
3. It benefits your football club
4. It benefits your football club
5. It benefits your football club

Just a thought

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bellside Bud said:

Is it ringfenced for the Academy? Asset locked maybe? Or can it just be absorbed into the clubs running costs like all SMISA's membership subscriptions appear to be? 

I know you were found out, and not before time, by all and sundry on the official site and asked to "sling yer hook", but do you have to come back on here regurgitating your boring, belligerent bile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

I know you were found out, and not before time, by all and sundry on the official site and asked to "sling yer hook", but do you have to come back on here regurgitating your boring, belligerent bile?

Didn't realise Stuart Dickson was back.

Stuart Dickson is no longer back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it ringfenced for the Academy? Asset locked maybe? Or can it just be absorbed into the clubs running costs like all SMISA's membership subscriptions appear to be? 


I really don't know what you have against our club. Are they doing this, are they doing that. I genuinely could not care less how they use it, as long as it benefits our football club.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Everyone will have different reasons for not joining. I just feel a lot are a bit on their high horse about why they haven't joined. The absolute rubbish on here about not being reimbursed for players wages after we sold someone or when the youth academy was given more money! It amazes me the number of people that want something back from St Mirren.

I may be in the minority (or from the way the votings went probably not) but I have full trust in the people running our club to do what's right for the team. If it was up to me I'd say let them fully decide how to spend the discretionary fund.
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...