StuD

Q1 - yes I did. I resigned my membership in January 2017. I didn't cry, however I was angry that promises made to me both personally by a number of SMISA board members and in their representations during the BTB campaign were being broken. Q2 - Yes and no. As you often do you're mixing your assertion and opinion with fact. I complained to SMISA that I had been mislead and asked for a refund. That was denied so I appealed. When that too was rejected I went to the Financial Conduct Authority who told me that they didn't deal with individuals who had a complaint against an organisation and who referred me to Andrew Jenkin at Supporters Direct. He admitted he had a number of concerns about some of the transactions that SMISA had been making but after investigation he took the view that SMISA had broken their pledge to me as a "one off" whilst the contribution of approx £8000 to the club to help pay players wages was them protecting their asset - the 30% stake they had taken on in the club. I was never asked for money by anyone and I never backed down. I simply ran out of places to complain to. Lord Pityme has already alluded on this thread as to what happened without going into specifics and as he has clearly stated Bazil really shouldn't be taking comfort from my experience. Q3 - You think I've got no emotional capacity for Community Ownership of Football Clubs? Really?! Q4 - To correct some of the assertions being made on here about me and my complaint. You'll notice I haven't posted on any other thread and I am keeping my posts on here to a minimum. Q5 - I have never made any advance to be any sort of "insider" at the football club. Unlike others on here I have never made any attempt to get myself onto the SMISA board, or put myself up for election to be a fans representative on the club board. I've also not put myself forward for the Fans Council, and I was never interested in running the clubs official website. The only time anyone at the club "spurned" me was when I offered St Mirren 33% of ALL income to my then new start up - a Text Messaging business. Gilmour rejected it at the meeting you allude to where I am supposed to have been "chased from the boardroom". In truth what happened was a few months later I was contacted by an "employee" of the club who asked me if I'd be willing to tell them how to set up a text messaging business for the club - which I refused to do, obviously. And a couple of years later - after I'd sold my business - I was invited back to the club to talk Campbell Kennedy, Norrie Jamieson and Kenny Pointon through how to set up a text messaging service for the club. This time I gave them the assistance they required including the names of contacts and suppliers but nothing happened with it for 8 more years by which point the world had moved on to using mobile internet on 3g phones. As for the rest of your post it seems to all be your assertion and opinion which you are entitled to. I like things done properly which can be a nightmare for those around me, of course, but I'm also a grafter who gets results - something that seems to have been appreciated by many of the people I have worked with on a number of projects both professionally and as a volunteer. And as for your assertion about grudge holding - you can believe whatever you want, but the people who I remember arguing with me most vehemently in January 2017 were Buddiecat, TsuMirren and Lord Pityme, yet today we appear to be on the same side.

And presumably my sour grapes would be because I wanted SMISA to hold to their Buy The Buds promise of closer community involvement and SMISA decided not to bother. It's sad that Bazil85, Gordon Scott, Tony Fitzpatrick and SMISA seem to think that anyone who wants things done correctly is somehow running some anti St MIrren conspiracy - rather than realising that it's actually about wanting to see a strengthening of the fan buy out, wider club appeal, growth of the club, and increased revenue from streams outwith tapping up the same supporters over and over again.

I would imagine they used the model rules that Supporters Direct have for Independent Supporter Associations - unless they've already submitted amended rules to the FCA. If they haven't then the rules are pretty clear. The Supporters Direct rules also detail the process for rule changes. Including the need for a Special General Meeting. Of course maybe SMISA made up and submitted it's own rules. In which case they should be available, not just to board members, but to all members of the society.

Yeah, you haven't read the Act have you Bazil85? Maybe you should try it. It's not quite The Cat in the Hat but I'm sure you could manage it.

Bazil85 also stated many times that two ballots were not necessary to use ring-fenced funds and that a simple majority vote was sufficient to allow for the rule change that released previously ring-fenced funds for the purpose outlined in Aprils spending proposal. Now whether the £50,000 from ring-fenced funds involved a rule change or not is for other - higher powers - to decide. However Bazil85 is incorrect in so much as that one vote cannot cover both a rule change and the use of ring-fenced funds. Under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act (2014) you cannot implement a rule change without a Special Resolution and the Special Resolution Meeting must have a minimum of 21 days notice. The vote for the April Spend was released by e-mail to members on the 4th of April and the vote concluded on the 14th of April. There was no notice at all served of any Special Resolution and further to that any change of rules has to be submitted to the FCA for authorisation before it can be passed. Hopefully the SMISA board are more aware of the Act that governs them than Bazil85.

Nope you aren't getting off that easy. Tell me if St Mirren aren't the only ones at our level then who are the other ones that own two grass parks, and an astroturf pitch that they aren't allowed to rent out? You are the one who has stated time and time again that it was important that SMISA members dip into their ring-fenced funds to pay for this so that £50,000 wasn't taken out of the playing budget for next season. All I am doing is asking what plans SMISA have in place to ensure that when the same situation arises again in 8 - 12 years time that £150,000 won't have to be taken out of the playing budget to finance the maintenance cost. I assume SMISA do have some sort of plan in place - don't they?

Really? How many other clubs at our level own an astrograss pitch they can't rent out and two full sized grass parks that require a full time groundsman?

The average lifespan of an astroturf playing surface is between 8 and 12 years. So given that, what provisions are SMISA putting in place to ensure that next time this happens they have the full £150,000 in place to meet the cost?

It shouldn't be that confusing. The "hard liners" you refer to are simply those who read and absorbed the literature that was available before Gordon Scott took over the club - and they want SMISA to live up to their promises. If it was always SMISA's intention to be a fund raising vehicle for St Mirren FC Ltd then the Community Benefit Society model was the wrong one to use. If the intention was to spend the "discretionary fund" on Sports Scientists, players wages, and consumables for St Mirren FC Ltd, then the fund should have been set up outwith the Community Benefit Society and SMISA should have been much clearer in it's literature that this money would only some times be used to benefit the local community. Here we see SMISA breaking yet another promise. The proposal is that protected, ring-fenced funds that are supposed to be kept safe for the eventual take over of the club from Gordon Scott, is to be loaned to St Mirren FC Ltd and repaid, not by St Mirren FC Ltd, but by the members of SMISA. I am a strong supporter of community ownership of football clubs. I always believed passionately that it would be very much to the betterment of the sport if senior football clubs were much more closely linked to their local communities and if resources from the community and from the football club could be shared to cut costs and increase revenue. I wanted BTB to be done properly and for it to be a success. Unfortunately SMISA has reverted to type, lost focus, gone back to the days where it bought t-shirts and towels for the club and forgot completely it's commitment to be the fans representatives on the football club board. It's abused it's Third Sector status and the benefits given to Community Benefit Societies and I can't see anything but a tumbling house of cards as awareness of the abuse grows. What I will say though is that I commend the debate that has happened on here over the last few days. It shouldn't be suppressed like others tried to do last time. It's certainly been enlightening.