Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
thewhiteman

saints fans survey 2017

Recommended Posts

Or the sale of McAllister. 

But then that's the point I'm making. Paying staff wages for a limited company should only be done in return for equity or in the form of a director loan. It should never have been a gift from a Community Benefit Society with a strict asset lock in place - especially when the claim that it is actually to the benefit of the Paisley Community is as spurious and as tenuous as it could possibly be. 

 

It doesn't breach the asset lock, if it did then Supporters Direct would have raised it as an issue. I also doubt the FCA would have approved the constitution.

 

As for the Academy paying thousands back, what utter frigging nonsense. Seriously, absolute bloody nonsense. We're in a joint venture, we will support you and look to make you grow. But, hey, don't go bringing in extra funds as we'll only demand our donations back.

 

I also think it's time to just let the members discuss things on here without SMISA board interaction. If you really want to make contact you can via email, twitter and even face to face. If an idea is important enough, flesh it up and send it on. If you're not getting enough news, make direct contact and request more. If the site is wrong, raise it via the direct contact avenues available.

 

Thanks for joining, I appreciate it and hope you enjoy the experience. If you haven't joined, please consider doing so and being part of this major project.

 

Bye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when SMISA first started the goal was to get the voice of the fan / the paying customer heard in the boardroom. 

Remember yesterday when Bazil claimed that the SMiSA reps weren't shitting themselves away and that they were approachable and listening. 

Wonder how that stacks up with Kennys latest post?

SMISA isn't fit for purpose. It never was. 

Edited by Bellside Bud

Share this post


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

Remember when SMISA first started the goal was to get the voice of the fan / the paying customer heard in the boardroom. 

Remember yesterday when Bazil claimed that the SMiSA reps weren't shitting themselves away and that they were approachable and listening. 

Wonder how that stacks up with Kennys latest post?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 


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? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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:

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

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  

×