Lord Pityme Posted June 17, 2018 Report Share Posted June 17, 2018 The recent Record article by Scott explaining how he controls the Smisa committee as well as the board really shows why the fan ownership game at Smfc is a bogey. Ffs he's even bragging about how he picks the Smisa committee. Made a troubling decision so much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted June 17, 2018 Report Share Posted June 17, 2018 It must be really difficult to be you my friend; living in a universe where everything isn't just; as you would decree, where people can't or won't appreciate your sagacity, where even those who run a tidily football forum limit your audience and thus further constrain the immense importance of what you need to impart in those dumb people who just don't understand how important your views are and why everyone should believe in you. Personally I thought you were talking Poo .................. but what do I know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 10 hours ago, jaybee said: It must be really difficult to be you my friend; living in a universe where everything isn't just; as you would decree, where people can't or won't appreciate your sagacity, where even those who run a tidily football forum limit your audience and thus further constrain the immense importance of what you need to impart in those dumb people who just don't understand how important your views are and why everyone should believe in you. Personally I thought you were talking Poo .................. but what do I know Well at least i dont post the drivel above and seek to offer my judgement on others. You seem to believe you are superior to others by your words here, although it would appear the opposite is more likely the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 Theres a popular misconception over on the smisa thread that Smisa will take over from Scott as soon as it has the funds. This is indeed what is in the contract between smisa and Scott. But before the ink dried on that contract Scott told us (smisa board) that he wasnt shifting for less than ten years, and indeed with his constant cash grabs of what were guaranteed ring-fenced funds to buy his shares, he is ensuring that day of total fan ownership will continue to drift, possibly if numbers drop for ever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: Well at least i dont post the drivel above and seek to offer my judgement on others. You seem to believe you are superior to others by your words here, although it would appear the opposite is more likely the case. If I appear superior to you my friend; that is simply because you have an inferior style of debate ............ hardly my fault. I am not to sure that 'the big man did it mister and he keeps on doing it and nobody listens to me when I tell them what a bad man he is' is a rational argument. It sounds more like if nobody pays me any attention I am going to throw a wobbly. And by the way, the people I 'offer my judgment on' lay their selves open for comments by posting their opinions on here. I certainly do not disagree with everyone, in fact I am selective in those whom I choose to respond to and they generally 'in my opinion' are those who are particularly opinionated, strident or repetitive regarding a particular subject. Just as a matter of interest are you implying that your drivel is superior to mine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 And also: you should be endlessly grateful to me for even BOTHERING to respond ...........nobody else has Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: Theres a popular misconception over on the smisa thread that Smisa will take over from Scott as soon as it has the funds. This is indeed what is in the contract between smisa and Scott. But before the ink dried on that contract Scott told us (smisa board) that he wasnt shifting for less than ten years, and indeed with his constant cash grabs of what were guaranteed ring-fenced funds to buy his shares, he is ensuring that day of total fan ownership will continue to drift, possibly if numbers drop for ever! But right now there’s nothing better than being the figurehead for his club’s future, even if it’s not making him a bean A smile that only gets wider when he explains the provenance of the cash advance that made the whole deal possible. “I had 13 high-end houses, all rented out. I was there about three or four months in the year, playing golf but without partying constantly, honestly. I ended up selling up and using the funds for what we are doing here.” “The St Mirren Independent Supporters Association, SIMSA, has good people but you have to be careful to protect yourself. So I like the fact you have to spend so much time on their committee before you can be on the board. “I don’t get a wage from anywhere right now, albeit I’m looking to change that outside of the club. It takes a particular kind of negative person to turn what GLS said in this article to the negative. Turning someone into the devil for not taking a profit but wanting to protect his investment is frankly ridiculous. If he doesn't leave for 10 years, who cares? It's what we all signed up for. It’s been clearly shown that there is no ‘cash grab’ happening. Not sure what you’re still not getting regarding the funds being paid from the £2 pot. It’s frightfully simple to understand. By the time the deal is done, all the £10/ £23 funds will be in place to purchase the club, it’s clearly costed! As for your comment about fan numbers ‘continuing to drift’ SMISA have already came out saying this isn’t happening. The drop-off is in line with expectations before the deal was concluded (and budgeted for) and there is no evidence that significant numbers are cancelling memberships because of GLS. But we already know your POV doesn’t require evidence . We continue to be way ahead of schedule and focusing on increasing, not falling number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, bazil85 said: But right now there’s nothing better than being the figurehead for his club’s future, even if it’s not making him a bean A smile that only gets wider when he explains the provenance of the cash advance that made the whole deal possible. “I had 13 high-end houses, all rented out. I was there about three or four months in the year, playing golf but without partying constantly, honestly. I ended up selling up and using the funds for what we are doing here.” “The St Mirren Independent Supporters Association, SIMSA, has good people but you have to be careful to protect yourself. So I like the fact you have to spend so much time on their committee before you can be on the board. “I don’t get a wage from anywhere right now, albeit I’m looking to change that outside of the club. It takes a particular kind of negative person to turn what GLS said in this article to the negative. Turning someone into the devil for not taking a profit but wanting to protect his investment is frankly ridiculous. If he doesn't leave for 10 years, who cares? It's what we all signed up for. It’s been clearly shown that there is no ‘cash grab’ happening. Not sure what you’re still not getting regarding the funds being paid from the £2 pot. It’s frightfully simple to understand. By the time the deal is done, all the £10/ £23 funds will be in place to purchase the club, it’s clearly costed! As for your comment about fan numbers ‘continuing to drift’ SMISA have already came out saying this isn’t happening. The drop-off is in line with expectations before the deal was concluded (and budgeted for) and there is no evidence that significant numbers are cancelling memberships because of GLS. But we already know your POV doesn’t require evidence . We continue to be way ahead of schedule and focusing on increasing, not falling number. Aye.... yir maw! Scott gets to be chairman for ten years at least (well his promise in the binding contract with Smisa lasted minutes), he also gets to dip into ringfenced funds that were set up for one purpose.... to buy his shares! So he is delaying that contractual agreement to suit himself. in addition he is guaranteed to have his funds paid back in full regardless of what shape he leaves the club in, or as seems to be the case he just keeps accessing smisa funds so members are never in a position to buy him out. As well as continually interfering and unduly influencing what is laughably supposed to be a wholly independent body. so when you say "we" continue to be ahead of schedule... you know you are completely wrong dont you? instead of the sum of all members contributions being what it should amount to at present. It is tens of thousands below that level it should be at because Scott has rifled it a number of times. And if we have, as seems probable a 'difficult' season or two now more people will stop their smisa subs. Thats just a fact of life. so you have the perfect storm of diminishing contributions, as well as a gaping hole in the accounts that cant be filled in as the numbers dont add up. You are mixing up "costed" plan, with "feckin hopeful" plan! Edited June 18, 2018 by Lord Pityme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Aye.... yir maw! Scott gets to be chairman for ten years at least (well his promise in the binding contract with Smisa lasted minutes), he also gets to dip into ringfenced funds that were set up for one purpose.... to buy his shares! So he is delaying that contractual agreement to suit himself. in addition he is guaranteed to have his funds paid back in full regardless of what shape he leaves the club in, or as seems to be the case he just keeps accessing smisa funds so members are never in a position to buy him out. As well as continually interfering and unduly influencing what is laughably supposed to be a wholly independent body. so when you say "we" continue to be ahead of schedule... you know you are completely wrong dont you? instead of the sum of all members contributions being what it should amount to at present. It is tens of thousands below that level it should be at because Scott has rifled it a number of times. And if we have, as seems probable a 'difficult' season or two now more people will stop their smisa subs. Thats just a fact of life. so you have the perfect storm of diminishing contributions, as well as a gaping hole in the accounts that cant be filled in as the numbers dont add up. You are mixing up "costed" plan, with "feckin hopeful" plan! Apart from: Aye yer maw; the rest of your response is the literary equivalent of 'the perfect storm' just keep repeating what you say and everything and everybody will fall down and give in and it will all end your way. NOT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 1 minute ago, jaybee said: Apart from: Aye yer maw; the rest of your response is the literary equivalent of 'the perfect storm' just keep repeating what you say and everything and everybody will fall down and give in and it will all end your way. NOT So you know its factual, but you dont like admitting someone else flags it up, hence the constant deflection, or indeed any debate of the issues? Keep skimming the surface, leave the thinking to those who give a shit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Aye.... yir maw! Scott gets to be chairman for ten years at least (well his promise in the binding contract with Smisa lasted minutes), he also gets to dip into ringfenced funds that were set up for one purpose.... to buy his shares! So he is delaying that contractual agreement to suit himself. in addition he is guaranteed to have his funds paid back in full regardless of what shape he leaves the club in, or as seems to be the case he just keeps accessing smisa funds so members are never in a position to buy him out. As well as continually interfering and unduly influencing what is laughably supposed to be a wholly independent body. so when you say "we" continue to be ahead of schedule... you know you are completely wrong dont you? instead of the sum of all members contributions being what it should amount to at present. It is tens of thousands below that level it should be at because Scott has rifled it a number of times. And if we have, as seems probable a 'difficult' season or two now more people will stop their smisa subs. Thats just a fact of life. so you have the perfect storm of diminishing contributions, as well as a gaping hole in the accounts that cant be filled in as the numbers dont add up. You are mixing up "costed" plan, with "feckin hopeful" plan! Again, we know you can't grasp this but by the time the shares are getting used to buy the club, not one penny would have personally lined GLS pocket or be used for any purchase other than that of shares. Using funds during the 10 years is one thing, but the money is getting replaced. We demecratically voted to say that was okay, your opinion didn't win, need to let it go and just accept a majority of SMISA members are okay/ indifferent to this. He's guranteed to get his money back and not profit from it. How can you make this a negative? You know another way he'd be guranteed to keep that money? By not bloody investing in the first place. He should be thanked for what he's done, not criticised for wanting to protect his money. What financial benefit does he get from running the club into the ground? £0 What financial benefit does he get from progressing us? £0 He also does not have undue influence (I think you need to check the meaning of that expression), any financial decsion from SMISA involving BTB is down to paying members. He has zero power to change that. Undue influence would be say if he had say 700 votes personally. Nothing you've said in the last three paragraphs is correct. If you don't think having close to 1,300 members (against a target of 1,000 and reservations for them to fall below that number), a costed plan (exactly what it is) and no significant drop-off above expecations isn't us ahead of plan it's laughable. But why believe me? Lets do some maths, and lets do it with modest assumptions. Say 1,250 paying members at £12 a month since launch (for ease will say two years). We know numbers aren't that low and a number pay the higher £25 a month. Target situation 1,000 paying £10 a month 1,250 paying £10 a month £240,000 £300,000 Even at the lowest estimates we are £60k over plan and still overplan even when you take away the £50k which voters democratically agreed to do. We know you have a personal dislike for SMISA, GLS and SMFC. It is obvious in all your posts and you can't be subjective about anything that comes out. SMISA no more headline? Embarassing yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 10 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Again, we know you can't grasp this but by the time the shares are getting used to buy the club, not one penny would have personally lined GLS pocket or be used for any purchase other than that of shares. Using funds during the 10 years is one thing, but the money is getting replaced. We demecratically voted to say that was okay, your opinion didn't win, need to let it go and just accept a majority of SMISA members are okay/ indifferent to this. He's guranteed to get his money back and not profit from it. How can you make this a negative? You know another way he'd be guranteed to keep that money? By not bloody investing in the first place. He should be thanked for what he's done, not criticised for wanting to protect his money. What financial benefit does he get from running the club into the ground? £0 What financial benefit does he get from progressing us? £0 He also does not have undue influence (I think you need to check the meaning of that expression), any financial decsion from SMISA involving BTB is down to paying members. He has zero power to change that. Undue influence would be say if he had say 700 votes personally. Nothing you've said in the last three paragraphs is correct. If you don't think having close to 1,300 members (against a target of 1,000 and reservations for them to fall below that number), a costed plan (exactly what it is) and no significant drop-off above expecations isn't us ahead of plan it's laughable. But why believe me? Lets do some maths, and lets do it with modest assumptions. Say 1,250 paying members at £12 a month since launch (for ease will say two years). We know numbers aren't that low and a number pay the higher £25 a month. Target situation 1,000 paying £10 a month 1,250 paying £10 a month £240,000 £300,000 Even at the lowest estimates we are £60k over plan and still overplan even when you take away the £50k which voters democratically agreed to do. We know you have a personal dislike for SMISA, GLS and SMFC. It is obvious in all your posts and you can't be subjective about anything that comes out. SMISA no more headline? Embarassing yourself. Yeah you made up another set of numbers, but if you really want to be informed then contact Smisa and ask for the full set of figures (members are entitled to see them) showing where we actually should be with cash in hand given the contributions since day one. And where we actually are having given the club over £100k of our funds? dont take my word for it, ask them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 30 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: o you know its factual, but you dont like admitting someone else flags it up, hence the constant deflection, or indeed any debate of the issues? Keep skimming the surface, leave the thinking to those who give a shit! Don't you mean think .......... shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 10 minutes ago, jaybee said: Don't you mean think .......... shit Is this Buddie Marvelous, Jaybee, St Ricky or one of your other split personalities..? Do you guys even know anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 50 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Yeah you made up another set of numbers, but if you really want to be informed then contact Smisa and ask for the full set of figures (members are entitled to see them) showing where we actually should be with cash in hand given the contributions since day one. And where we actually are having given the club over £100k of our funds? dont take my word for it, ask them! We are more than on track, we know the £50k is getting paid back over the coming months and democratically, members are happy with that. We are not behind target, we are considerably ahead. Fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, bazil85 said: We are more than on track, we know the £50k is getting paid back over the coming months and democratically, members are happy with that. We are not behind target, we are considerably ahead. Fact. If its the £50k for the 3/4g pitch you are referring it will take two and a half years transferring money from a fund that was supposed to be a 3 monthly discretionary spend, into the ring fenced funds that were rifled contrary to promises given when BtB happened. Then you've got the othet £50k loan facility that has no payback term attached at all! So the members could still be owed tat money when they take over the majority shareholding. i have no idea what targets you think we are ahead of, as the funds are over £100k behind where they should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted June 18, 2018 Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: If its the £50k for the 3/4g pitch you are referring it will take two and a half years transferring money from a fund that was supposed to be a 3 monthly discretionary spend, into the ring fenced funds that were rifled contrary to promises given when BtB happened. Then you've got the othet £50k loan facility that has no payback term attached at all! So the members could still be owed tat money when they take over the majority shareholding. i have no idea what targets you think we are ahead of, as the funds are over £100k behind where they should be. We know you don't like it but the bottom line is the £50k for Ralston has been agreed by members and the paying back of it is very well costed and fully sustaiable given current membership numbers (even if we seen more of a drop-off) Us agreeing to fund this and take the money back from the £2 fund does not put us behind target the deal is not going to conclude in the next 30 months so no rational individual can claim it puts us off target. The £50k loan facility was contractually built into the BTB plan and was detailed as a discretionary use for the club. That's what we signed-up for, so again to use that £50k as evidence we're behind target is simply wrong. Regardless of both your above points being absurd regarding us being behind targets and your unfounded speculation that 'the members could still be owe that money when they take over the majority shareholding.' a quick bit more maths shows your concerns are again without foundation. As above I've taken very reserved member numbers. Assuming GLS doesn't sign over the club for the full eight years remaining target situation 1,000 paying £10 a month 1,250 paying £10 a month £960,000 £1.2 million Anyway you look at it, your concerns are in no way, shape or form close to justified unless we see a massive drop-off way above anything we've seen in the last two years. You make it out like the £50k Ralston vote is armagedon yet it's had little impact on paying members. What do you think would actually have to happen for member numbers to fall to the situation where your predictions come true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 18, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2018 2 hours ago, bazil85 said: We know you don't like it but the bottom line is the £50k for Ralston has been agreed by members and the paying back of it is very well costed and fully sustaiable given current membership numbers (even if we seen more of a drop-off) Us agreeing to fund this and take the money back from the £2 fund does not put us behind target the deal is not going to conclude in the next 30 months so no rational individual can claim it puts us off target. The £50k loan facility was contractually built into the BTB plan and was detailed as a discretionary use for the club. That's what we signed-up for, so again to use that £50k as evidence we're behind target is simply wrong. Regardless of both your above points being absurd regarding us being behind targets and your unfounded speculation that 'the members could still be owe that money when they take over the majority shareholding.' a quick bit more maths shows your concerns are again without foundation. As above I've taken very reserved member numbers. Assuming GLS doesn't sign over the club for the full eight years remaining target situation 1,000 paying £10 a month 1,250 paying £10 a month £960,000 £1.2 million Anyway you look at it, your concerns are in no way, shape or form close to justified unless we see a massive drop-off way above anything we've seen in the last two years. You make it out like the £50k Ralston vote is armagedon yet it's had little impact on paying members. What do you think would actually have to happen for member numbers to fall to the situation where your predictions come true? Continually making up guessitmates Bazil isnt the same as citing actual figures. Again request the full figures from Smisa, them you can see the members are way behind where the subs paid should be as cash in hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 16 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: Continually making up guessitmates Bazil isnt the same as citing actual figures. Again request the full figures from Smisa, them you can see the members are way behind where the subs paid should be as cash in hand. I’m not making up figures, member numbers were announced only two months ago and the figures I’m using are further behind them. It shows clearly that you’re wrong, I’ve read all provided figures regarding SMISA accounts and there is nothing that suggests we’re behind. If you think you have some evidence to the contrary please feel free to share. Although, let’s be honest, you having actual evidence? Why break a habit of a lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 You are not quoting actual figures mate. Remember the old quote about "Statistics".,? what you are doing is timesing the number of members by an estimate of their subs to come to a estimated figure. Theres no account of all the things like Fan Walls, POTY dinner tables, Memorial Dinner tables, legal fees, admin etc in your estimates. Or money spent on Premium member events. add, or should i say subtract from that over £100k smsa have given to the club and members would be astonished to see what the actual cash in hand figure is - v - where it should be if we use your estimates as a guide. if you want evidence to confirm this you can ask smisa who are duty bound to provide the full figures. Although i guess you wont want the real info? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said: You are not quoting actual figures mate. Remember the old quote about "Statistics".,? what you are doing is timesing the number of members by an estimate of their subs to come to a estimated figure. Theres no account of all the things like Fan Walls, POTY dinner tables, Memorial Dinner tables, legal fees, admin etc in your estimates. Or money spent on Premium member events. add, or should i say subtract from that over £100k smsa have given to the club and members would be astonished to see what the actual cash in hand figure is - v - where it should be if we use your estimates as a guide. if you want evidence to confirm this you can ask smisa who are duty bound to provide the full figures. Although i guess you wont want the real info? So do you think I'm over stating? Going by SMISA 'actual' details the numbers currently are 1,260 and 13% pay the higher £25. By using 'actual' figures, we'd be even further ahead than I stated. I was given a reserved estimate which shows you're wrong. I know this is again difficult for you to understand given your hatred of SMISA and SMFC but Fan Walls, POTY dinner tables, Memorial Dinner tables, legal fees, admin etc in your estimates. Or money spent on Premium member events. Have al been factored in. It's not like someone just completely forgot about them when coming up with the 1,000 figure You keep coming back to the £100k which isn't relevant to this at all. I don't know how much clearer it can be made to you that the £50k for Ralston is perfectly costed to be repaid given current (even with significant drop-off) member numbers and the other £50k was part of the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: So do you think I'm over stating? Going by SMISA 'actual' details the numbers currently are 1,260 and 13% pay the higher £25. By using 'actual' figures, we'd be even further ahead than I stated. I was given a reserved estimate which shows you're wrong. I know this is again difficult for you to understand given your hatred of SMISA and SMFC but Fan Walls, POTY dinner tables, Memorial Dinner tables, legal fees, admin etc in your estimates. Or money spent on Premium member events. Have al been factored in. It's not like someone just completely forgot about them when coming up with the 1,000 figure You keep coming back to the £100k which isn't relevant to this at all. I don't know how much clearer it can be made to you that the £50k for Ralston is perfectly costed to be repaid given current (even with significant drop-off) member numbers and the other £50k was part of the deal. So what you are saying is £100k coming out of the ring fenced fund to buy the shares isnt relevant to your projections??? Hope youre no doing anyones accounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: So what you are saying is £100k coming out of the ring fenced fund to buy the shares isnt relevant to your projections??? Hope youre no doing anyones accounts. It's not relevant to say we're not ahead of schedule given £50k is getting re-paid and costed and the other was part of the deal. Very clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted June 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 I would say it's pointless going round in circles with you Baz... but I dont think the ends join up to even do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted June 19, 2018 Report Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said: I would say it's pointless going round in circles with you Baz... but I dont think the ends join up to even do that. They don’t. but why hope did they have based on such a negative, irrelevant and down right inaccurate thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.