Chairman's statement

[Sonny]

I do not mind a wee donation to a local community enterprise or anything that may generate more support or use of the stadium (ladies football team, cafe etc) but would like the bulk of the £2 spend to be used to improve the matchday experience and promote the Club in an attempt to increase support. I have already proposed more banners around the stadium like those in the 1877 Club but this option has never come up to a vote. I was happy to donate money to Jack last January to save our bacon and would be happy to donate to situations that are desperate to the Club but I am not happy to pay for routine bills.  The list this time was very poor. I did agree to most but will be more considerate in future as to where the money goes.

But I do agree with Gordon Scott in that Street Stuff in more important to St Mirren than Glenvale and he had every right to voice his concerns. Everyone on here is quick enough to voice concerns over anything.

PS Did we not appoint someone to help promote women's football at the Club. What is happening there?

[Kombibuddie]

Is it possible, GLS submitted other requests & got told "cant give you that much as we're putting Glenvale down for £1800"

Hence why he knew before the SMISA membets, whose money it actually is?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I do not mind a wee donation to a local community enterprise or anything that may generate more support or use of the stadium (ladies football team, cafe etc) but would like the bulk of the £2 spend to be used to improve the matchday experience and promote the Club in an attempt to increase support. I have already proposed more banners around the stadium like those in the 1877 Club but this option has never come up to a vote. I was happy to donate money to Jack last January to save our bacon and would be happy to donate to situations that are desperate to the Club but I am not happy to pay for routine bills.  The list this time was very poor. I did agree to most but will be more considerate in future as to where the money goes.
But I do agree with Gordon Scott in that Street Stuff in more important to St Mirren than Glenvale and he had every right to voice his concerns. Everyone on here is quick enough to voice concerns over anything.
PS Did we not appoint someone to help promote women's football at the Club. What is happening there?

With regards to promoting women's football - sadly the mere fact that you have to ask kinda answers that question.

[kevo_smfc]

Would it be an idea to gather SMISA members thoughts on here or on a new thread on what they would like to see as a project with a 'larger spend' long term.  Take all of the suggestions, create a poll with these plus have an 'other' option included with a field you can fill out, if your suggestion was not one of the popular options listed.

I think if this was publicised well enough and even sent out in a mailing list to members so that no-one can say that they were not informed of these suggestions, it would potentially make all members feel as if they have contributed towards ideas for the monthly spend.

[beyond our ken]

1. The Glenvale option should never have been suggested.  It might be one thing to have a few bob stashed away to support youth football, but it is another thing to be a funder of last resort (I'm assuming) to a club that appears to have good sponsors and other support.  A raffle or bucket collection day at the ground should have been the limit of either SMISA or SMFC support.

2. The chairman should have kept out.  At least until the vote was concluded.

3. One side seems as bad as the other here.  SMISA being selective in supporting one club that is well connected to both SMFC and SMISA and the chairman talking about his support for Streetstuff when the funding for that comes via the council.  Neither side look good on this.

4. to clear up any future confusion, even in the minds of those supposedly in positions where they should know better, rename the £2 pot as an investment fund and have a simple pro-forma placed in front of the voters every so often that states

• where the monies are intended to go
• the nature of the benefit to the supporters or the club
• the likely consequences if we reject the option
• the sum suggested
• Do you support a reduced support option at a default of 10% of what is asked for.
• And if someone asks SMISA for money to save their club, the members should be told if the sum they are asked to sanction is a contribution, full funding and is it likely to solve the problem for at least the next 2 years.

Unfortunately, some community ventures are basket cases and the starting point for even considering a request should be a business/recovery case, just the same as a bank or other community funder would require in order to be duly dilligent.

 

[guinness]

The one thing I never remember being asked is to put the money aside for a rainy day. there seem to be a lot of people on here keen on that but it is the one option I do not remember ever being put forward. Does not have to be all the money. Half put away and half spent would seem about right to me.

[Lord Pityme]

18 minutes ago, guinness said:

The one thing I never remember being asked is to put the money aside for a rainy day. there seem to be a lot of people on here keen on that but it is the one option I do not remember ever being put forward. Does not have to be all the money. Half put away and half spent would seem about right to me.

I remember clearly at a BTB meeting a question to the panel asking 'will there be a rainy day fund?' And the person asking the question got a positive response! Add to that the £2 pot was always billed as a 'Discretionary Fund' that meaning its the members who use their discretion to allocate, or not allocate funds from it. Indeed during BTB campaign it was explained numerous times that it was up to members to decide, what, when and how much is allocated, or left in the fund.

in my opinion to move things forward the Smisa committee need to put forward a more basic vote among members to guage how many want to either:

spend all of it?

spend some of it?

spend none of it?

then they could get down to the detail (if the vote goes that way), of deciding what it is spent on 'club, community matchday experience enhancements etc...

[beyond our ken]

On reflection, I'm finding a wee bit more sympathy for the chairman's position than I did earlier.  He is charged with developing youth football at this level via Streetstuff, it benefits both the club and the community.  The measure, or one of the measures, of that will be the numbers who are attending Streetstuff events.  If SMISA are funding Glenvale then GS might well consider this competitive and potentially put in jeopardy future Streetstuff funding from the council.  He might well have felt the need to publicly distance himself from the Glenvale request.

[linwood buddie]

Not read through this whole thread but its ok helping out Glenvale the problem with that is what happens if next time round another boys club wants some help and then another? Basically it could be an endless procession of  these clubs requiring aid , we have a youth set up that benefits the club if players progress in future years. 

[melmac]

The chairman done what he had too as their would have been an obvious confliction in what the club were themselves trying to achieve. It's really about time smisa employed someone with a fiduciary duty to look after the regulation and financial side of things, the bowling club mentality needs to stop.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

1. The Glenvale option should never have been suggested.  It might be one thing to have a few bob stashed away to support youth football, but it is another thing to be a funder of last resort (I'm assuming) to a club that appears to have good sponsors and other support.  A raffle or bucket collection day at the ground should have been the limit of either SMISA or SMFC support.
2. The chairman should have kept out.  At least until the vote was concluded.
3. One side seems as bad as the other here.  SMISA being selective in supporting one club that is well connected to both SMFC and SMISA and the chairman talking about his support for Streetstuff when the funding for that comes via the council.  Neither side look good on this.
4. to clear up any future confusion, even in the minds of those supposedly in positions where they should know better, rename the £2 pot as an investment fund and have a simple pro-forma placed in front of the voters every so often that states

• where the monies are intended to go
• the nature of the benefit to the supporters or the club
• the likely consequences if we reject the option
• the sum suggested
• Do you support a reduced support option at a default of 10% of what is asked for.
• And if someone asks SMISA for money to save their club, the members should be told if the sum they are asked to sanction is a contribution, full funding and is it likely to solve the problem for at least the next 2 years.

Unfortunately, some community ventures are basket cases and the starting point for even considering a request should be a business/recovery case, just the same as a bank or other community funder would require in order to be duly dilligent.
 

I believe smisa are required to consider properly presented (and costed?) options from community groups. That's why the Glenvale option had to be taken forward.

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I believe smisa are required to consider properly presented (and costed?) options from community groups. That's why the Glenvale option had to be taken forward.
 

Gonnie no dae that.....................pointing out the Chuckle Brothers attempts to undermine anything SMISA related isn't big or smart. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Gonnie no dae that.....................pointing out the Chuckle Brothers attempts to undermine anything SMISA related isn't big or smart. 

Genuinely trying not to take sides in this particular fight. Just made my post to add some clarity...or at least it was an attempt to.
It was only when thewhiteman pointed out earlier in the thread that I realised that the way to reject all options was to both for none of them.