StuD
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by StuD
-
-
Well it appears it's happened again. I post that David Nicol doesn't respond to my e-mails. I'm challenged on it, with the suggesting that I perhaps couldn't spell his name, and when I respond pointing out that his e-mail address is [email protected] and I confirm I did send him e-mails to the correct address, the SMISA protection policy comes into force and I find myself only able to post in the Sin Bin again.
And some have the gall to claim it's a democracy.
-
19 hours ago, marrez said:
For the record, dave's never been contacted by Stuart on email, but maybe he's spelled his name wrong on the email - as its Nicol, not Nichol.
Thats not true Mark. His email address according to the SMiSA website is [email protected]. And even if it wasnt I clicked on the "contact" button on the SMiSA website.
Its over a year ago now but at various points I emailed a number of different SMiSA board members and David was the only one I got no response from.
Edited to add.. Actually on checking back George Adam also didn't respond.
-
1 hour ago, renfrew said:
Only plus side for offices that i can see would be the availability of parking as well as being handy for the M8
There's loads of office space available in Hillington Estate, which is just as convenient for the M8 and office space in Inchinnan which is more convenient for the airport and the M8.
Being next door to a football stadium isn't much of an attraction either, with parking and traffic restrictions every match/ Maybe allowing office tennants a viewing area where they can entertain guests to watch matches - which would compete directly with the Corporate Hospitality that St Mirren currently run - might be deemed attractive.
-
14 minutes ago, marrez said:
GS doesnt pick the Smisa member, Smisa pick the Smisa member.
As for a yes man for GS, nothing could be further from the truth, we currently have a superb Smisa representative on the board who brings a lot to the table and was hugely instrumental in the buyout of the club from the old board. When his tenure is up we will be lucky to get someone else with as much drive and enthusiasm for the club but im confident the members will pick the right guy as we did at the last election.
I don't know David Nichol, hes not a friend of mine, but i don't think hes very good. He hasn't made himself available to the support. He doesn't answer emails. He doesn't respond to posts on forums. And if he is taking concerns and ideas from members to the board theres little evidence of it. IIRC wasn't he also named publicly as Gordon Scotts preferred candidate - even being seconded by him?
Obviously this time round I'm not a member of SMiSA but I do hope a higher percentage of the membership feel engaged than did last time and I really hope theres no attempt - unlike last time - to restrict candidates to the post.
One line in the statement suggested SMiSA were limiting candidates to the board to SMiSA committee members only. I really hope that isn't true. That really would look like a complete carve up.
-
Reilly will be a massive loss. No question about that at all. Danny Mullen is nowhere near as prolific, as direct or as effective. Of course it's probably quite simply the case that Reilly didn't want to stay and play for Stubbs as is his prerogative. Good luck to the lad. I've certainly enjoyed watching him play. He's certainly been one of the better players at the club over the last season.
-
Jaybee, come off it. You want rationality and then you make a subjective statement that Gordon Scott has achieved more as Chairman than others. Really? I didn't like the man but I think the single biggest achievement any St Mirren Chairman pulled off was the sale of Love Street to Tesco. There may have been a great deal of luck involved particularly in terms of timing, but as a business deal it's been by far the biggest in St Mirren's history.
In so far as the boardroom machinations are concerned let me try to be rational by using an analogy. Lets say I have set up my own company making and selling toilet paper. I sell to a particular market and because of the plethora of shit that is posted on this forum my business enjoys tremendous success and rapid growth. However the level of shit on this forum is such that I need to increase production to meet demand and to do that I need investment in my company to afford me the ability to upscale my production. Fortunately for me a venture capitalist sees the amount of shite on BAWA and agrees with me that there is huge profit making potential in this toilet paper business and they are happy to invest in my business in return for a 30% stake in the company and a seat on the board. Now do you think the venture capitalists will appoint their choice of individual onto my board, or do you think that I as chairman of the toilet paper business will get the opportunity to interview everyone working for the venture capitalists to decide which employee I like best and which one I will allow to sit on my board? Do I need to answer it for you?
Why should the set up be any different at St Mirrren. SMISA are the institution providing investment in return for a seat on the board. Gordon Scott should not be dictating to them who that person should be, what skills that individual should have, or what criteria any individual needs to meet before that individual is appointed. The choice of who to appoint to that seat on the board should belong exclusively to the members of SMISA.
-
55 minutes ago, jaybee said:
The short answer is because he owns the club, but would or could there be a reason why HE would care, as I said earlier HE 'controls' the club, how HE does it, whether subtly or overtly is immaterial, HE da boss, HE runs things, HE directs play. just so we know HE IS IN CHARGE. OK so what is your problem, given that he does not have to play ball with SMISA, but fairly obviously wishes to, .............. Listen to the man when he speaks about St Mirren, to me he is genuine; otherwise why plough his cash into a failing club. If HE wishes to make sure that whoever SMISA elect to the club board, is competent; what is the problem, if you have a problem please refer to all the HE's. And just to answer your BIG question 'Why should the football club Chairman be allowed to restrict the choice of who the membership can elect? And this is me speaking, nobody else, but my response would be because it belongs to him, is his, has control, be da boss. Get it please say you do.
just as an aside and no disrespect to you specifically intended here; more an open response to all other individuals who feel similarly: but just what makes you think that you have better ideas than the bloke who put up his cash to save your club, honestly; give the man some respect, he has done more in 18 months than anybody else who previously was in charge of this club. Or did you all forget that.
And by the way I am just a supporter like yourself and whilst I enjoy the debate and perhaps taking the mick out of some of you who get so embroiled in fantasies, i am not nasty as some others are, I reuse to stoop to that level. at least ........................ so far
Wow. Ok. So really LPM is right. The concept of Fan Ownership at St Mirren is dead. There's no real point in SMISA or Buy the Buds, because Gordon Scott owns the club, controls the club, etc, etc. I guess SMISA are just really there to hand over cash whenever Gordon Scott demands it, and they are there to guarantee that Gordon Scott gets his money back when he's bored and walks off in 10 years time.
Maybe it's time SMISA updated that website of theirs to show the truth. It's not really a Community Benefit Society at all cause the Community isn't benefiting. It's not really about getting the fans a voice on the board because Gordon Scott will dictate who gets onto the board and he'll decide what's said, and what SMISA's funds gets spend on. And the member benefit section needs a re-write too since it's promised that your £12 membership makes you "eligible to run for director of SMFC" - not eligible if Gordon Scott likes you and you have what Gordon Scott believes is the appropriate skills and experience - or if you've served enough time on the SMISA committee to be part of the carve up.
Well it's good they got the pretence out of the way. Might as well scrap SMISA and just have all the direct debits paid straight to the clubs bank account ,
-
5 hours ago, St.Ricky said:
Did the owner of Hull not try to change their name to Hull Tigers? I could be wrong.
In the 1970's Coventry City tried to change their name to Coventry Talbot as part of a sponsorship deal. The Football League blocked it. I don't think the Tiger thing was anything to do with sponsorship at Hull, it was just that their Chairman preferred the name "Tiger" to "City" - feckin weirdo that he is. Anyway that was blocked by the FA.
-
1 hour ago, SaintGlenburn said:
If someone came n chapped my door n said.. "Ill pay your Mortgage for 4 years if you let us call it Simple Digital house instead of 15 xxxxxx Grove"
Id sign up right away.
Would any of you honestly say no?
Any business wants naming rights on my pad for cash its a no brainer. Tampax Tower, BrewDog Bungalo, Coke a Cola Cottage... Wouldnt give a toss. Its literally free cash.
Other than if your getting a chinky delivered for half time or a taxi will you ever need to use the words Simple Digital. Maybe not even then.
I would say no.
It's my house and I've paid for it, I've fought for it, and I've had to pay for it again so I wouldn't be letting anyone have any control over anything to do with my property. To me that is a no brainer. Having your house renamed in such a commercial and tacky manner - even if it was only for a short designated period - would have a detrimental effect on the value of the property.
A football stadium though? Even if the name sticks long after the naming deal has ended it's not going to matter. St Mirren are quite right to take the money. At least this time round it's not taxpayers money that could have been much better utilised.
-
1 hour ago, jaybee said:
Why would I put you on ignore and allow the gibberish you spout to go unanswered, you say 'God help him if there happened to be someone represent the fans interests who actually had a spine. I say: when you put up somewhere around 800K to buy a controlling interest (note the word controlling) then you might be listened to, might! but personally I very much doubt it; especially if you were spouting the same drivel as currently. The chairman; who I know nothing o;f other than he owned a building firm called Laidlaw Scott, put in his money and insisted on a controlling interest .in other words he owns more than anyone else and what he says goes. Is that how he operates; I think not, otherwise you would have nothing to moan about would you? Just how long he and his BOD take to formalise a 'long-term' plan for the club is 'how long it takes' .............see controlling interest. I am sure your sarcasm and wit might terrify him into ...... well" laughing out loud I would imagine. The sad fact is my friend that he is a successful businessman who knows a thing or two about how to generate a profit and given that, I would much rather that his ideas were given credence than yours, especially since he owns the club and you seem to be simply a NUMPTY.
Gordon Scott clearly is running scared though Jaybee. If he wasn't he wouldn't be trying so hard to control SMISA.
SMISA owns a 30% stake in the club. As such the membership is entitled to elect one of their members to represent them in the club board. Why should the football club Chairman be allowed to restrict the choice of who the membership can elect?
-
3 minutes ago, jaybee said:
Why should people pay any attention to someone who used to be a member; but couldn't be bother to stay a member and prefers to shoot his mouth off in a forum where others who are still members seem to disagree, who should we believe?
No-one HAS to pay attention to me. They / you could easily put me on ignore or simply pay me no heed at all. However you don't and I suspect the reason for that is because you might think I have a point.
Gordon Scott appears to have taken two years to come up with a plan that sees future growth of the club now being dependent on non match day revenue. A few of us pointed that omission out when the stadium was built in the first place. I applaud him on his speed of thought and I hope he gets it right. It doesn't take much of a search to understand that in immediate area of the stadium there are already a number of office blocks that have been vacant for a number of years. Widen the search out and you see loads of "office space" advertised along the M8 corridor as being either immediately available or available for development. I suppose Gordon Scott must believe that office space in Ferguslie Park on a corner plot of a football stadium, with a shared car park that will be difficult to gain access to on match days is highly sought after.
I guess it's useful, as a back up, for the Chairman to be able to hand pick his fans representative on the St Mirren board as a useful patsy to ensure that if he continues to need to dip SMISA funds it continues to happen with no objection. God help him if there happened to be someone represent the fans interests who actually had a spine.
-
To be fair I don't think Cockles knows how to hack anything....
-
5 minutes ago, faraway saint said:
That's what I said.
So you did. Sorry I'm struggling to stay awake. I'm not sure if it's the football that's responsible or reading your posts
1-1
-
9 minutes ago, faraway saint said:
1-0 half time, one piece of magic, games been disappointing, lots of pretty stuff but no real threat.
Brazil will win....................I could be wrong.
Aye disappointing. Only one real piece of quality.
-
27 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:
I think the perception has been that you need to have been on the SMISA committee before being elected to the SMISA board. That, of course, is because so few people have stood for election. It's certainly not a pre-requisite.
Tsu? Is the SMISA committee and the SMISA board not the same thing?
-
40 minutes ago, faraway saint said:
Excellent game, Mexico, especially in the first half, were superb.
The world cup is doing not too bad Stuart.
I've enjoyed the two games so far today. Mexico were wasteful but it kept the game exciting.
Lets hope Brazil turn it on tonight
-
1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:
Do we know he has?
Its ambiguous, certainly, but I reckon it's more likely to mean that it's the preferred/realistic route than an obligatory one.
******************
We've seen on other threads that the standard of football journalism is questionable these days. Having said that perhaps one of the "sausage roll munchers" at SMiSA could clarify the issue.
Fair enough but its meant to be a direct quote. Its a good interview otherwise
-
Just now, stlucifer said:
And what rule states that someone MUST be elected to the board as soon as the join the SMISA committee?
Oh aye. And away in bile yer head, and stop trying to make everything sound like a conspiracy.
What the f**k are you on. He's said that someone has to serve time on the SMISA committee before going on the club board. That simply isn't true. The position of fan representative on the club board is open to all members of SMISA. Any member can put themselves up for election so long as they have someone who seconds it and it's for the membership to decide who they want to represent them on the club board.
Last time there was a board election the SMISA Committee tried to fudge it by placing a skills requirement on the position. After I challenged it - I was still a member back then - they eventually backtracked and stated it was indeed open to all members regardless of skills or experience. Now Gordon Scott has suggested that the rules have been changed, that you must be a SMISA committee member before being elected to the club board. There's been no EGM, no rule change, and no vote on the matter. Gordon Scott needs put back in his box. He's clearly speaking out of turn.
-
1 hour ago, stlucifer said:
Try quoting the whole thing. He mentioned that he started off wondering if he should blab every decision to the supporters. The fact of the matter is there are those who could undermine their efforts by blasting out to all and sundry. For instance someone with an agenda,
could manage to get themselves onto the SMISA committee. To get on the board trust has to be earned.
Aye I read that but Gordon Scott cannot simply change SMiSA rules on a whim like that. Neither for that matter can SMiSA without an extraordinary general meeting
-
“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."
Sorry? What?
-
2 hours ago, shull said:
1955 League Cup Final.
-
29 minutes ago, LargsBud said:
The optimism and feel good factor around the club within the last year has been the highest its been since 05/06. Wonder what happened that year?
No, I get your point. Football fans are typically glory hunters. They love winning things. That's correct isn't it? That's why all the Celtic fans I know are wonderfully happy people who live life their own wee optimistic bubble. Hence my proposal. 42 leagues with just 1 team in each. More leagues, smaller numbers of teams in each - that's what you wanted wasn't it? Then everyone can enjoy seeing their team win every singe week, every single year. Perfect isn't it?
Hmm, thinking about it maybe gerrymandering the leagues to ensure more success isn't the best way to go. it might just cheapen the achievement - maybe huh?
-
10 hours ago, LargsBud said:
I really never get this arguement of expanding the league. Bigger league means more meaningless games.
It also means less leagues. So less champions. The best time ever supporting St Mirren have been the 3 years we have won the 1st Division. Im sure the fans of teams who won league 1&2 would also agree. I would never swap that for finishing 11th in a 14/16/20 team league.
We should be looking at it as a positive that we have such a strong 2nd tier. Not to decimate it by lumping everyone into one big league to have an absolute diddy 2nd tier full of part time teams.
Ooh, I like your thinking. What we should do is go with 42 leagues with one team in it. Every week fans would be able to celebrate winning, whilst also being able to moan that they lost. And each season they could all enjoy cheering their team around the town on an open top bus whilst also having an excuse to drown their sorrows for finishing bottom of their league.
-
It's not been a good tournament at all yet. The Portugal v Spain game was a belter obviously and I thought Peru v Denmark and the Argentina game v Iceland were passable, but beyond that there has been nothing to set the tournament alight yet. Nigerias version of possession play was very reminiscent of the shite you see in the Scottish Championship. Defenders passing the ball around with no intention or plan to do anything with it at all, the opposition not pressing, and when the defenders finally get bored with it, they lump it 60 yards forward, usually straight into touch.
SMISA no more...
in The Sin Bin
Posted
So long as you don't criticise anyone or anything at the club you'll be fine.
I didn't breach any forum rules or regulations and I believe I was respectful in my responses. Yet regardless I'm in the SIn Bin again all because I said David Nicol didn't answer some e-mails.