SMISA Annual Report 2018 email

[StuD]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Will be interesting to see, I agree. I’ve always said I don’t think they’re proactive enough. Had people mention about sign-up forms inside the newspaper and presences at games etc but as a season ticket holder and SMISA member I have never seen one shred of promotion to sign-up for BTB since the deal concluded. That would suggest to me a lot of others haven’t seen it either, so plenty to do. I’m excited to hear what they propose in the summer  

It does disappoint me the number of (former) members that are so harsh on SMISA & BTB. One of the main things they said was they’re learning as well and doing what they can, they’ll make mistake but they asked for patience. To highlight ‘f*ck ups’ (personal opinion) and be IMO so harsh on a group of people that aren’t in this for profit, that are only in it for the love of their football club to me is very unfortunate. 

Almost as if there is zero tolerance to get things wrong with some people. It’s off to the bank to cancel their 10 year commitment. 

Well I know I've said this before Bazil - and I'm not going to speak for anyone else - but I cancelled because it was the second time I felt mislead and ripped off by SMISA. I was one of the first sign ups when SMISA opened. I had a single digit membership number - 8 - IIRC. Then t-shirt and towelgate happened. Second time round I sought assurances and was promised this time round the deal was focused on ownership and on the community, then a few short months later the money is being used to buy consumables and to pay wages for the first team. As the old saying goes fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. 

I take the opposite view to you though. I'm disappointed that the SMISA board isn't under greater scrutiny from all levels of the support. This is the group that will eventually own a majority share in the football club and who will be St Mirren's voice in the corridors of power at the SFA and the SPFL. The members should be on their case to make sure everything is being done correctly, in compliance with the constitution, with full transparency, engagement and honesty - rather than the perpetual spin and heavy handed attempts at influencing what should be free votes that gets emitted all the time. The apathy that members have is what I find truly worrying. 

[div]

I think the vast majority of Saints fans can see the huge positives surrounding SMiSA and what they are doing.

Sure we won't all agree on the discretionary spends (isn't democracy great?) and even some of the decisions that are taken by the organisation, same as we won't always agree with decisions the football club take. That's life as part when you are part of a large group of people.

Nobody I'm sure was in the least bit surprised as to the identity of the first people to jump ship on BuyTheBuds and why these people felt the need to broadcast all about it online.

These are the same people that now spend the vast majority of their online time moaning about how shite it all is.

The rest of us will just keep paying our money and keep supporting the guys who are doing their level best to deliver fan ownership.

[bazil85]

38 minutes ago, StuD said:

Well I know I've said this before Bazil - and I'm not going to speak for anyone else - but I cancelled because it was the second time I felt mislead and ripped off by SMISA. I was one of the first sign ups when SMISA opened. I had a single digit membership number - 8 - IIRC. Then t-shirt and towelgate happened. Second time round I sought assurances and was promised this time round the deal was focused on ownership and on the community, then a few short months later the money is being used to buy consumables and to pay wages for the first team. As the old saying goes fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. 

I take the opposite view to you though. I'm disappointed that the SMISA board isn't under greater scrutiny from all levels of the support. This is the group that will eventually own a majority share in the football club and who will be St Mirren's voice in the corridors of power at the SFA and the SPFL. The members should be on their case to make sure everything is being done correctly, in compliance with the constitution, with full transparency, engagement and honesty - rather than the perpetual spin and heavy handed attempts at influencing what should be free votes that gets emitted all the time. The apathy that members have is what I find truly worrying. 

Will they though? Again Stuart, appreciate your input but it's exceptionally short-sighted in regards to the grand scheme.

SMFC will be fan owned for many years after everyone currently associated is a goner. I'd also say, does a part of you not want to look at it rationally and say 'well the £2 is only a fraction of the grander plan,' it's a nice to have but should 16%/ 8% of your monthly commitment really be the straw that breaks the camels back with this one? 

[TsuMirren]

1 hour ago, linwood buddie said:

He forwarded me the message.

Dear former SMISA member

Your contribution to the future of St Mirren FC won’t ever be forgotten. It’s there in permanent ink on the SMiSA wall on the south-east corner of the Paisley 2021 Stadium, alongside all the other names who helped make the dream of St Mirren one day being owned by its supporters possible.

We noticed your membership of SMISA has lapsed and we would love to have you back on board.

Since the takeover of the club in 2016 following the #BuyTheBuds campaign, we’ve seen St Mirren go from the brink of the lowest moment in its history to one of the best – from the edge of a first-ever relegation to the third tier of Scottish football to the incredible title-winning celebrations of the last few weeks, and the return of Premier League football.

Be in no doubt SMISA played a role in that – the additional investment our members have made on and off the park through the £2 pot is already making a real difference, and one the club have acknowledged. At the same time, we are investing in projects which are bringing the club and community closer together. You can read more detail on our website here.

We are proud of what we’ve achieved to date and want to achieve more. It was only possible because of the strength and commitment of SMISA’s membership. The more members we have the stronger we are – now and over the long term as we build for a fan-owned future which ensures St Mirren can forever stay in the hands of the people who care for it most…you.

You can still be a part of that. We have a range of membership options, with various benefits attached. Signing up is easy to do via our website. We’d be delighted to answer any questions you may have via [email protected]

You played your part before in helping shape St Mirren’s future. We’d love you to come back and do so once again.

We’re on our way

The SMISA committee

I honestly believe that if SMISA came out and stated that the time frame could change (shave at least 2 years) or that £100,000 would be saved for a rainy day fund upon takeover (say approx 12.5K per year) then more may join/come back. Allow members to target their £2, create fund raising streams, get the club mentioning them (not just via a note to David) and open themselves up a little bit. Not everything needs to directly benefit the club, that's why the club have their own staff to do that. 

"Stronger" when 100 extra is only £600 a quarter (is the club THAT poor) and additional £10 or £23 makes no difference to the time frame. That's the wrong message.

 

[linwood buddie]

19 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

I honestly believe that if SMISA came out and stated that the time frame could change (shave at least 2 years) or that £100,000 would be saved for a rainy day fund upon takeover (say approx 12.5K per year) then more may join/come back. Allow members to target their £2, create fund raising streams, get the club mentioning them (not just via a note to David) and open themselves up a little bit. Not everything needs to directly benefit the club, that's why the club have their own staff to do that. 

"Stronger" when 100 extra is only £600 a quarter (is the club THAT poor) and additional £10 or £23 makes no difference to the time frame. That's the wrong message.

 

He has been reading the threads regarding the Ring-fenced funds and the report and he's not interested , says he left when GLS jumped in regarding helping Glenvale.

[Kombibuddie]

I didn't sign up at the start as I was unsure of the proposal and the intentions of a couple of the loudest contributors. Since they're various forms of resignations and the promising signs of intent by the board I joined up.

I've got no problems with having a different view to others, well with any decent human. Because if we all had the same view I don't believe we'd get as much done and prosper. Don't ask me to explain that, I know what I meant even if nobody else does.

One person I'd like to get back in the fold like BinEK also wrote about and I wasn't referring to earlier is Kenny Morrison. His enthusiasm, knowledge and experience will be a loss.

Ps i always preferred Kombi [emoji14]

I joined up at the start, same way I did to the 1877 Club.
These are the small things I can do whilst living down in London. I only manage to get to 1 or 2 matches per season (due to work & football coaching commitments through the season).
This is my way of doing my bit.

I have no gripe with SMISA as such but would like consistency.
I don't want to dig them out, as I, being involved in running a Youth football club with 200+ players and also being involved with one of the leagues down here, appreciates the work that any volunteer does.

I am not for spitting the dummy or cancelling my SMISA membership if a poll result is not how I voted.
In it for the long haul but I will discuss my points/concerns/objections etc and keep mind open to others points of view too.
I don't know the SMISA folks at all but
I'll make my mind up about individuals after i've met them, not how they come across on a forum.

Anyways,
I sold the Kombi (1971 Westie) and that's what brought the name change.
If i picked a user name to do with a favourite player, it'd be Alan Logan.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

True, although I’d speculate the ‘sheep’ are probably a minority. We’re all adults and should be able to make our own opinion. I think people that don’t have an opinion of their own are a lot more likely not to vote. 

Yet, around half of the membership don't vote.

[linwood buddie]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

True, although I’d speculate the ‘sheep’ are probably a minority. We’re all adults and should be able to make our own opinion. I think people that don’t have an opinion of their own are a lot more likely not to vote. 

Yet, around half of the membership don't vote.

That's a big flock.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

True, although I’d speculate the ‘sheep’ are probably a minority. We’re all adults and should be able to make our own opinion. I think people that don’t have an opinion of their own are a lot more likely not to vote. 

Yet, around half of the membership don't vote.

Yep, likely made up of people indifferent to the vote. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, linwood buddie said:

That's a big flock.

Bigger the better, more people for and more people indifferent to combat the extreme minority against BTB/ SMISA/ SMFC 

[linwood buddie]

Just now, bazil85 said:

Bigger the better, more people for and more people indifferent to combat the extreme minority against BTB/ SMISA/ SMFC 

So you are saying if folk don't agree with what SIMSA do they are against St Mrren ? That is some statement.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, linwood buddie said:

So you are saying if folk don't agree with what SIMSA do they are against St Mrren ? That is some statement.

I didn't say that. I said there are an extreme minority against BTB or SMISA or SMFC. 

Could also say 'all of the above' I suppose though yeah, given some of the comments on here. Damn near an apocolypse at the thought of anything SMISA doing having a remote benefit to St Mirren. 

[Kombibuddie]

I didn't say that. I said there are an extreme minority against BTB or SMISA or SMFC. 
Could also say 'all of the above' I suppose though yeah, given some of the comments on here. Damn near an apocolypse at the thought of anything SMISA doing having a remote benefit to St Mirren. [emoji38]

What a load of utter nonsense.

Raising concerns is not anti BTB, SMISA or the club.

Hasn't SMISA said they are learning?

If no one raised concerns and no one engaged in discussion, SMISA could just bumble along, believing it is doing well and no learning would ever be made.

And if it went tits up, there'd be the fallback of "nobody said. We just done what we thought was best"

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

What a load of utter nonsense.

Raising concerns is not anti BTB, SMISA or the club.

Hasn't SMISA said they are learning?

If no one raised concerns and no one engaged in discussion, SMISA could just bumble along, believing it is doing well and no learning would ever be made.

And if it went tits up, there'd be the fallback of "nobody said. We just done what we thought was best"

You're right, of course it's not, that's not what I meant.

But there are some on here that regardless of what comes out about SMISA, BTB, SMFC, even difficult decisons over tickets for next season or a small amount of money for the Panda club, it's always met with doom and gloom, there are some on here that our football club can do no right.

Fortunately they are in the minority (very present, but the minority none the less) 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

So the biggest single group don't vote as opposed to voting either yes or no to all the proposals.

[bazil85]

3 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

So the biggest single group don't vote as opposed to voting either yes or no to all the proposals.

True, what’s your point? 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

True, what’s your point? 

There's many points.
One would be that the majority of members don't vote in favour of a proposal.

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

There's many points.
One would be that the majority of members don't vote in favour of a proposal.

Bit of a meaningless point then isn't it? If you take that approach then you may as well say less 6% of members were opposed to the approach.

Might not of been a majority for but it was a damn sight more than 6%. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Bit of a meaningless point then isn't it? If you take that approach then you may as well say less 6% of members were opposed to the approach.
Might not of been a majority for but it was a damn sight more than 6%. 

What approach?
I'm talking generally - I'm not aware of any of these votes which have generated a majority of members being in agreement. That's not meaningless.

[bazil85]

55 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

What approach?
I'm talking generally - I'm not aware of any of these votes which have generated a majority of members being in agreement. That's not meaningless.

Unless you look at the members that voted. Then it's a massive majority. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Unless you look at the members that voted. Then it's a massive majority. 

So you say, repeatedly. However it's meaningless to my point.

[bazil85]

21 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Unless you look at the members that voted. Then it's a massive majority. 

So you say, repeatedly. However it's meaningless to my point.

And your point is meaningless to mine I guess. 

[StuD]

Did anyone notice another contradiction in the Annual Account? 

David Nicol reports on the clubs financial position and he claims it's healthy. The club spent more money that expected on wages, but that was offset by a greater than budgeted for league position. Yet when talking about how the £50k for the astrograss replacement was to be funded they talk about using the £50k credit facility that was ONLY supposed to be drawn down by St Mirren FC Ltd in the event of cash flow problems as is stated both in last years AGM minutes, and it even states this in this annual report. So which is it? Is the £50k being drawn down upon because the club is having cash flow difficulties, or has the SMISA board unconstitutionally extended the credit terms so they can be drawn down at any time without the club having cashflow difficulties? 

Secondly, if you look back to the last years AGM the claim there regarding the £50,000 credit facility is that it was enabled by a Special General Meeting held in March 2016. Fair enough. However if a resolution was passed to provide the credit facility to the club, why wasn't the detail of this facility put into the Constitution and submitted to the FCA? Was that to hide it from the FCA? I don't think so but it is how it looks. 

Also if you go further back you can see that the Special General Meeting was not compliant with with 2014 Act. There is no notice of the Special Resolutions to be considered at the SGM. Indeed the notice states "We are unable to go into any more detail at this time but full information will be provided on the night." They also failed to give the statutory required 21 days notice of an SGM, and it's not recorded anywhere in the SGM notice that any resolution to provide a £50k credit facility to the club was approved, or indeed any mention of what percentage of the membership voted at the SGM to prove that it was a valid vote. 

Now Basil will say I'm being pernickety and in this instance yes I am - however once again this highlights that SMISA is not being compliant, and that it's not fit for purpose. How have those details managed to get past the auditors? 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

And your point is meaningless to mine I guess. 

You were replying to my point *sigh*
It's not the playground but it's like debating with a five year old

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

You were replying to my point *sigh*
It's not the playground but it's like debating with a five year old

Whatever makes you feel better pal.