saints fans survey 2017

[melmac]

5 hours ago, buddiecat said:

To save it is not and never has been an option, the options are spend it all every quarter or don't spend then spend it next quarter or next again, to save it a majority of members would have to vote no to every option right up until we buy the controlling shares. You will not find all of that written down anywhere but the controlling majority on the SMiSA board have stated that it is for spending every quarter, they do not want to save it, they had a new line put into the constitution which roughly states they will assist the club in any way they can and that line will be used to spend money even if we vote to not spend any more. I have not heard of the new constitution being approved by supporters direct or the finance body as yet, it may have been but i certainly have not had any contact from the SMiSA board to say it has.

Its not been approved by members never mind approved by a body who are not regulatory and only produced the template rules.

[bazil85]

18 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

You could have saved yourself a pile of typing if you had just read the second line of my post you quote "totally respect the members vote".

the issue for me is not what the options are, but the chairman spitting his dummy out to try and bully members into giving him their funds. He greatly belittled himself by doing this, regardless of what he felt.  

The members may have voted against it anyway, but by him going public and attacking smisa he makes himself look weak and insecure. When you say 'the majority of fans' do you mean Smisa members or the general support? I ask because only 800 odd, out of 1300 smisa members responded to the survey, and given the range of options coming from that i dont see how you can say there was a majority of 'members' in favour of any of the options.

who said every penny should go to the community? 

Where in the Buy the Buds campaign does it say every penny will go to the club?

 

The chairman has provided an open and honest communication in relation to what he sees as a conflict of interest (Check any studies on conflict of interest it will recommend honesty). To use the term bully is unbelievable. He is the chairman of our football club and I, along with many fans appreciate his input and thoughts. Seems to be a lot of people are getting annoyed for very little reason. The vote remains the choice of the members. 

As for the 800 out of 1,300 I said in my post. My assumption is the members that haven't voted are happy with the way things are going and are more concerned with getting fan ownership over the line. Haven't seen or heard one whisper from the fans that don't vote that they're unhappy and they certainly aren't using their democratic right to express dissatisfaction. They're also thankfully not cancelling memberships in protest. 

So it neither says every penny will go to the community or every penny will go to the club. We have always had options to support club, community or if we don't agree carry the money (or some combination of these). That's what SMISA have said, it will be a democratic vote. Not sure how you've got from me saying 'I'd he happy for all the money to go to the club' to 'SMISA said every penny will go to the club' 

Just feels a wee bit like you're trying to find things to be unhappy about when the majority seem to be showing signs they're satisfied. 

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

 

Vote no & the money gets saved. Right?
Till when??

Carry over till the next vote?
Carry over till a vote of choice?
Carry over until the Buds is Bought?

The "saving it" option has not actually been defined, so, unfortunately bud, it really isn't that simple.

I'm an advocate for saving some/most of the pot for big ticket items or for when the club is in fan ownership (buds is bought rather than a majority shareholder being a fan) than spunk it every 3 months on a little bit of this & a little bit of that.

Match quality footballs for a full time professional football club to train with. FFS. Do me a favour

Next we'll have the printing of the numbers on the 1st team shirts.

 

To be honest it is pretty clear, save it is save it. Next quarter if there is a vote to use £16k or save it again it'll be fan choice. Some fans may want to save it for a rainny day but the bottom line is this is a democracy. If people want to spend £16k next quarter then that's how they'll vote, to take that right away from us just because a few fans want a rainny day fund right now isn't fair. How can they be any clearer when no one knows the proposal for next quarter? 

Got to remember us funding these items frees money up for OUR FOOTBALL CLUB the money they would of used is saved for other things as our club sees fit. What's wrong with that? this us versus them mentality is crazy to me. The current board care about the football club as much as we do. Why is them holding more cash such a bad thing?

[Lord Pityme]

29 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The chairman has provided an open and honest communication in relation to what he sees as a conflict of interest (Check any studies on conflict of interest it will recommend honesty). To use the term bully is unbelievable. He is the chairman of our football club and I, along with many fans appreciate his input and thoughts. Seems to be a lot of people are getting annoyed for very little reason. The vote remains the choice of the members. 

As for the 800 out of 1,300 I said in my post. My assumption is the members that haven't voted are happy with the way things are going and are more concerned with getting fan ownership over the line. Haven't seen or heard one whisper from the fans that don't vote that they're unhappy and they certainly aren't using their democratic right to express dissatisfaction. They're also thankfully not cancelling memberships in protest. 

So it neither says every penny will go to the community or every penny will go to the club. We have always had options to support club, community or if we don't agree carry the money (or some combination of these). That's what SMISA have said, it will be a democratic vote. Not sure how you've got from me saying 'I'd he happy for all the money to go to the club' to 'SMISA said every penny will go to the club' 

Just feels a wee bit like you're trying to find things to be unhappy about when the majority seem to be showing signs they're satisfied. 

Err... had to lay a trail of breadcrumbs to find my way back out of that post. Most of what you state, i have never said, or suggested.

again the second line of my post "totally respect the members vote" is the most important. The chairman has no business whatsoever using official club statements to ATTACK an independent fans group, and seek to unfairly influence a democratic process. He had his say with Smisa, he should have accepted their decision like a man and realised they wont agree on every point, but are still completely focussed on the same aim.

and again you make huge assumptions about what members who havent voted want! Thats just nonsense mate. 

How will you feel if Smisa make public statements when they dont agree with a decision the chairman has made? He is the one creating unhappiness, with petulant dummy spitting.

let the members decide, its their money, not his!

[bazil85]

Err... had to lay a trail of breadcrumbs to find my way back out of that post. Most of what you state, i have never said, or suggested.
again the second line of my post "totally respect the members vote" is the most important. The chairman has no business whatsoever using official club statements to ATTACK an independent fans group, and seek to unfairly influence a democratic process. He had his say with Smisa, he should have accepted their decision like a man and realised they wont agree on every point, but are still completely focussed on the same aim.
and again you make huge assumptions about what members who havent voted want! Thats just nonsense mate. 
How will you feel if Smisa make public statements when they dont agree with a decision the chairman has made? He is the one creating unhappiness, with petulant dummy spitting.
let the members decide, its their money, not his!

So now he's a bully and he's attacking SMISA? Ever considered some SMISA membership appreciate our club chairman thoughts? Because I certainly do. It changed my vote and I'm glad he kept us informed that this is contrary to the interests of OUR FOOTBALL CLUB. What fan wouldn't want this information? TBH I'd be more annoyed if he stayed silent.

If SMISA ever did come out against the club I wonder if you'd have the same stance that they were bullies and attacking St Mirren?

Again members are able to decide. Members deciding with more information is only a good thing instead of a lack of transparency about concerns that directly impact our club. Don't make the mistake of thinking all members are disappointed in this honest statement.

As for my assumption, it's an assumption because they aren't saying otherwise. Those who choose not to use their vote, that's absolutely fine but I think it's a fair assumption that they're not overlay concerned. In fact in a lot of cases it's not an assumption, I know and have spoken to several members that don't bother with the vote because they're happy to go with what other fans decide. Nothing wrong with that imo.

[Lord Pityme]

36 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

So now he's a bully and he's attacking SMISA? Ever considered some SMISA membership appreciate our club chairman thoughts? Because I certainly do. It changed my vote and I'm glad he kept us informed that this is contrary to the interests of OUR FOOTBALL CLUB. What fan wouldn't want this information? TBH I'd be more annoyed if he stayed silent.

If SMISA ever did come out against the club I wonder if you'd have the same stance that they were bullies and attacking St Mirren?

Again members are able to decide. Members deciding with more information is only a good thing instead of a lack of transparency about concerns that directly impact our club. Don't make the mistake of thinking all members are disappointed in this honest statement.

As for my assumption, it's an assumption because they aren't saying otherwise. Those who choose not to use their vote, that's absolutely fine but I think it's a fair assumption that they're not overlay concerned. In fact in a lot of cases it's not an assumption, I know and have spoken to several members that don't bother with the vote because they're happy to go with what other fans decide. Nothing wrong with that imo.

 

Thats a might lot of assumptions right there!

You know what they say if you 'assume'..?

if you just think through what the consequences of the chairman's statement mean...

he is basically opposed to Smisa allocating funds to any youth football in Renfrewshire, because as he sees it that is money he could get, and is in competition with SMFC in the community. Aside from the obvious short-sightedness of not encouraging youth football, and the talent it may produce, as well as the health and social diversion benefits it has by keeping kids occupied etc, most youth football clubs don't charge kids who can't afford to pay, wheras all the soccer camps etc are quite costly, and i believe (happy to be corrected) youngsters in the smfc youth teams have to pay subs.

so if you have a blanket ban on funding all youth football, you are hurting those in poverty, and ignoring the social benefits the individual and the community get from our youth being engaged in sport.

also consider SMFC are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to run Street Stuff on behalf of the council. The club dont fund it, but if all youth football clubs took our chairmans stance they could rightly contest the money the council pay to Smfc could come to them as they are equally qualified to deliver Street Stuff!

someone in the council in charge of looking after and creating diversionary programmes like Street Stuff might take a new view on paying all that cash to Smfc if its seen they are trying to monopolies all youth intervention funding? 

[kevo_smfc]

Could there be options including:

1. Save £2k from this spend
2. Save 4k from this spend
3. Save all 8k
4. the rest of the options for community/club spend? 

[bazil85]

Thats a might lot of assumptions right there!
You know what they say if you 'assume'..?
if you just think through what the consequences of the chairman's statement mean...
he is basically opposed to Smisa allocating funds to any youth football in Renfrewshire, because as he sees it that is money he could get, and is in competition with SMFC in the community. Aside from the obvious short-sightedness of not encouraging youth football, and the talent it may produce, as well as the health and social diversion benefits it has by keeping kids occupied etc, most youth football clubs don't charge kids who can't afford to pay, wheras all the soccer camps etc are quite costly, and i believe (happy to be corrected) youngsters in the smfc youth teams have to pay subs.
so if you have a blanket ban on funding all youth football, you are hurting those in poverty, and ignoring the social benefits the individual and the community get from our youth being engaged in sport.
also consider SMFC are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to run Street Stuff on behalf of the council. The club dont fund it, but if all youth football clubs took our chairmans stance they could rightly contest the money the council pay to Smfc could come to them as they are equally qualified to deliver Street Stuff!
someone in the council in charge of looking after and creating diversionary programmes like Street Stuff might take a new view on paying all that cash to Smfc if its seen they are trying to monopolies all youth intervention funding? 

I think you're blowing it a wee bit out of proportion to say he doesn't want to fund any youth football in Renfrewshire. I'd also say you're also making an assumption that fans think this statement is a bad thing.

All I see is a football chairman trying to protect the clubs interests. That for me is and I'd assume... (that word again) the majority of St Mirren fans is by far and above the most important aspect here. To think GS is jeopardising youth football in Renfrewshire from a stance on £1,500 is a bit of a jump for me.

[Lord Pityme]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

I think you're blowing it a wee bit out of proportion to say he doesn't want to fund any youth football in Renfrewshire. I'd also say you're also making an assumption that fans think this statement is a bad thing.

All I see is a football chairman trying to protect the clubs interests. That for me is and I'd assume... (that word again) the majority of St Mirren fans is by far and above the most important aspect here. To think GS is jeopardising youth football in Renfrewshire from a stance on £1,500 is a bit of a jump for me.

 

Glenvale dont as far as i can see do it differently to any other youth football club, so if you want to block funds to them because they are set up to encourage youngsters to join and be coached by their guys, as opposed to smfc guys... does it not follow you would want to block any funds allocated to any youth football as they all operate the same way?

or is it just Glenvale singled out for blocking?

[bazil85]

Glenvale dont as far as i can see do it differently to any other youth football club, so if you want to block funds to them because they are set up to encourage youngsters to join and be coached by their guys, as opposed to smfc guys... does it not follow you would want to block any funds allocated to any youth football as they all operate the same way?
or is it just Glenvale singled out for blocking?

You'd have to direct that question to GS. For me I'm happy to take advice of our chairman in what's best for our club.

[Lord Pityme]

14 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

You'd have to direct that question to GS. For me I'm happy to take advice of our chairman in what's best for our club.

 

Ok I'll 'assume' then he doesn't want to see any youth football getting Smisa funding and vote accordingly.

[bazil85]

Ok I'll 'assume' then he doesn't want to see any youth football getting Smisa funding and vote accordingly.

If it was that black and white I'd be surprised. Any man and his dog could see that would be counterproductive. More likely just because of the direct conflict.

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

 

If it was that black and white I'd be surprised. Any man and his dog could see that would be counterproductive. More likely just because of the direct conflict.

 

My final word on it.

the reasons the chairman gave for taking his stance to influence members to vote no apply to all youth football clubs in Renfrewshire mean, you adopt that stance then you are labelling them all as in 'direct conflict'.  They all operate the same way.

[Gruffalo]

On ‎28‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 12:11 AM, buddiecat said:

I would add - save it until we buy out the shares, because the SMiSA board interpret saving it as making the next spend even bigger and rest assured the club and academy will have no problem in asking for double the amount next time round. Meanwhile board members and guests have no problem in getting their free food and refreshments on a match day, maybe they should have a "pay for your dinner and refreshment day" and fund the new equipment needed that way, not a fat cat in hells chance of that happening though.

What a narrow minded view. The board (some of which) as well as putting up their own money, working on a voluntary basis to run the club are now to be expected in your mind to pay for their own meal while they are representing the club on a Saturday along with the guests that they invite along.

They are running a corporate business not a bowling club. Expect better for them to be supported and where required challenged through the proper channels rather than the snide remarks and innuendo on every decision they make. 

[Lord Pityme]

1 minute ago, Gruffalo said:

What a narrow minded view. The board (some of which) as well as putting up their own money, working on a voluntary basis to run the club are now to be expected in your mind to pay for their own meal while they are representing the club on a Saturday along with the guests that they invite along.

They are running a corporate business not a bowling club. Expect better for them to be supported and where required challenged through the proper channels rather than the snide remarks and innuendo on every decision they make. 

If i was running it only the visiting team/board would be on a freebie. Show some leadership and be seen to be doing all you can to bolster the club finances. As you say it's voluntary not compulsory, and there has been no announcement of club board members putting their money into the club.

[HSS]

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

If i was running it only the visiting team/board would be on a freebie. Show some leadership and be seen to be doing all you can to bolster the club finances. As you say it's voluntary not compulsory, and there has been no announcement of club board members putting their money into the club.

Is that your final,final word on it? 

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, HSS said:

Is that your final,final word on it? 

Different subject bud, c'mon read the posts and keep up!

[Gruffalo]

4 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

If i was running it only the visiting team/board would be on a freebie. Show some leadership and be seen to be doing all you can to bolster the club finances. As you say it's voluntary not compulsory, and there has been no announcement of club board members putting their money into the club.

So paying for a meal while you are working is showing leadership.  Hmm. Bowling Club mentality I think.

Being a Director comes with, by law,  compulsory duties, on the basis that the remunerations of the directors in the accounts is nil then this is classed as voluntary. Its semantics that turning up on a Saturday is not compulsory. However there are certain individuals on here who would berate the board if they were in the stands on a Saturday and not representing the club while entertaining the free loading visiting team/board. The company accounts demonstrate over the years a track record of the directors regularly putting money in to the club in the way of Directors Loans to see the club through cashflow issues.

 

[Lord Pityme]

2 hours ago, Gruffalo said:

So paying for a meal while you are working is showing leadership.  Hmm. Bowling Club mentality I think.

Being a Director comes with, by law,  compulsory duties, on the basis that the remunerations of the directors in the accounts is nil then this is classed as voluntary. Its semantics that turning up on a Saturday is not compulsory. However there are certain individuals on here who would berate the board if they were in the stands on a Saturday and not representing the club while entertaining the free loading visiting team/board. The company accounts demonstrate over the years a track record of the directors regularly putting money in to the club in the way of Directors Loans to see the club through cashflow issues.

 

Bowling club mentality is everyone on the board expecting a freebie! Or the chance to thieve the sausage rolls.

missed my point.. being a director is voluntary, if you are only in it for a free lunch and the opportunity to look big and important you are the wrong choice. Which current directors have put money into the club?

I know 1300 other people who have put in tens of thousands and expect nowt in return.

[linwood buddie]

No just the free meal but what about the comfy seat?

[Kombibuddie]

12 hours ago, bazil85 said:

To be honest it is pretty clear, save it is save it. Next quarter if there is a vote to use £16k or save it again it'll be fan choice. Some fans may want to save it for a rainny day but the bottom line is this is a democracy. If people want to spend £16k next quarter then that's how they'll vote, to take that right away from us just because a few fans want a rainny day fund right now isn't fair. How can they be any clearer when no one knows the proposal for next quarter? 

Got to remember us funding these items frees money up for OUR FOOTBALL CLUB the money they would of used is saved for other things as our club sees fit. What's wrong with that? this us versus them mentality is crazy to me. The current board care about the football club as much as we do. Why is them holding more cash such a bad thing?

Unfortunately, it's not pretty clear for the question being asked.

Back to the original point, it was suggested to SMISA that an option was added to each & every vote for the £2 pot money (or a portion of it) to be saved for when The Buds were bought.  At no time has it been suggested to suspend the quarterly vote/spend.  Therefore, your assumption of an impingement on democracy is incorrect.

It has been a request to put the option on the vote to save that particular £2 pot, not carry it over but save it for when SMISA are the majority shareholder.  That would be for the SMISA members to vote on & decide spend or save. That's not compromising democracy either.

In the past 20+ years, St Mirren has not been cash strapped, in fact, every penny has been a prisoner for the most part. But in the past year or two, St Mirren has brought in sizeable transfer fees that should mean, it can afford to pay it's own bills. Fir me, it is not a case of them & us.

One day SMISA will need some cash reserves of its own. Why, in your opinion, is looking to the future & building up a bit of a bank balance for when the buds is bought, such a bad thing?

[bazil85]

On 10/31/2017 at 9:58 PM, Graeme Aitken said:

Unfortunately, it's not pretty clear for the question being asked.

Back to the original point, it was suggested to SMISA that an option was added to each & every vote for the £2 pot money (or a portion of it) to be saved for when The Buds were bought.  At no time has it been suggested to suspend the quarterly vote/spend.  Therefore, your assumption of an impingement on democracy is incorrect.

It has been a request to put the option on the vote to save that particular £2 pot, not carry it over but save it for when SMISA are the majority shareholder.  That would be for the SMISA members to vote on & decide spend or save. That's not compromising democracy either.

In the past 20+ years, St Mirren has not been cash strapped, in fact, every penny has been a prisoner for the most part. But in the past year or two, St Mirren has brought in sizeable transfer fees that should mean, it can afford to pay it's own bills. Fir me, it is not a case of them & us.

One day SMISA will need some cash reserves of its own. Why, in your opinion, is looking to the future & building up a bit of a bank balance for when the buds is bought, such a bad thing?

the £2 fund was set up as an additional fund to support short-term costs and community project planning over the course of the proposal. I fully appreciate the benefits in starting a reserve fund however giving the circumstances that (I believe) not one vote has resulted in carrying over money even by a quarter, what's the chances of fans wanting it carried over indefinitely? I personally don't see SMISA and St Mirren as separate forces. I see them as a vehicle to deliver the best for the team I support. A big part of that for me is fore-filling the wishes of my club now, not in several years time. If the funds can go towards costs now meaning the club keeps the money they would of spent for something else then I'm happy. Say we don't spend money now, fortunes change and we end up in league 1 like we nearly did last season. Would having this safety pot be great when we go fan owned? Of course not, the revenue the club would have lost would be much larger. Why not use the money now in ways that save the club money for spending elsewhere that might get us back into the top flight and generating more money and even better academy players? 

Why put off benefiting the money now for our own needs when we're fan owned? The money could be used now and the club has use for the funds now so that'll get my vote and looking at the way most people vote, it'll always get a majority vote. Guess it boils down to help our club now, save money for ourselves in 8/9 years time. One choice for me. 

Final point is, fans can still vote no (they don't seem to but they can) if that money is carried SMISA can then clarify what that means but what's the point in debating something that never happens? 

[bazil85]

Unfortunately, it's not pretty clear for the question being asked.
Back to the original point, it was suggested to SMISA that an option was added to each & every vote for the £2 pot money (or a portion of it) to be saved for when The Buds were bought.  At no time has it been suggested to suspend the quarterly vote/spend.  Therefore, your assumption of an impingement on democracy is incorrect.
It has been a request to put the option on the vote to save that particular £2 pot, not carry it over but save it for when SMISA are the majority shareholder.  That would be for the SMISA members to vote on & decide spend or save. That's not compromising democracy either.
In the past 20+ years, St Mirren has not been cash strapped, in fact, every penny has been a prisoner for the most part. But in the past year or two, St Mirren has brought in sizeable transfer fees that should mean, it can afford to pay it's own bills. Fir me, it is not a case of them & us.
One day SMISA will need some cash reserves of its own. Why, in your opinion, is looking to the future & building up a bit of a bank balance for when the buds is bought, such a bad thing?

I don't think it's a bad idea. Just all votes have been in favour of short term gains so I don't see much of a point in it being any more clear other than voting no.

For me, I'll always put the club first. If they want money to fund short term projects now, let's give them it now to hopefully improve the position when we get the club. Why save money for nine years when we can make a difference now? For me it's not us and them. In the here and now St Mirren can use that money for good and if we fund aspects of the club, the money the club would have used can be invested elsewhere.

[bazil85]

Anyone know when the vote result will be out?

[buddiecat]

On 02/11/2017 at 4:42 PM, bazil85 said:

Anyone know when the vote result will be out?

Usually comes out straight away,maybe a bit of grief with Gordons statement but i'm just guessing there.