[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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. 

 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

22 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Yes, someone such as yourself who is so very obviously heavily involved in SMISA at a high level really should be familiar with it. 

I must admit, I doubt SMISA have any rules as such. More a case of ensuring the accounts will look okay, so invoices for things. Aside from that, nah. I certainly never saw a rules document, though there was plenty of talk of having one.

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. 

Quote

81. The funds of the Organisation may, to the extent permitted by the law for the time being in force and with the authority of the Board, be invested: a) in the shares of any subsidiary company or society; in any manner expressly authorised by the Act; but are to not be invested otherwise. 

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We have all heard the rumours about how your last complaint to the FCA got on, how about firing in another one? 

If Bazil85 is indeed incorrect then SMISA are looking at a rather hefty fine. I'll just wait here until that materialises...  In the meantime I'm sure we'll get some 'FCA don't care' comments. A regulatory body that aren't bothered about imposing fines? What a time to be alive!

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

25 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No idea but we certainly won't be the only ones.

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? 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Same provisions as almost any other club at our level with the same kind of pitch.

Very few clubs have a rich chairman or benefactor now that can fund such purchases, we'll cover it out of our running costs. The only difference this time is we've had the opportunity to support through SMISA contributions. It's in no way an indication that it would not be affordable otherwise or in the future. In fact the proposal said as much. It clearly stated in the event of a no vote the club would pay for it out of its budget. Will be same in 8-12 years as required. 

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 3 Monthly Spend]

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? 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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.