Jump to content

Gruffalo

Saints
  • Content Count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Gruffalo last won the day on May 15 2012

Gruffalo had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Gruffalo

  • Rank
    Reserve team sub

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Deep Dark Wood
  • Interests
    Mice, Owls, Snakes and Foxes

Recent Profile Visitors

898 profile views
  1. The good thing about debate is that I get to disagree with you. I would prefer more options on the ballot. Problem with a limited option of 3 is that you could set the vote up to ensure that one is presented as an out and out winner. It is noted however that with a shorter list you have a final decision that is representative of the greater membership. With more options on the list then real winner comes through. Problem with more options is that a minority could win. More options also has the consequence of raising the blood pressure of many of the posters on the forum.
  2. So we have 4 options presented to vote on. Option 1 masquerades as a youth option Option 2 is a blatant club/ground option Option 3 is a community option Option 4 is a save option To some fans none of these options are good enough. In option 3 we are being asked to fund a community idea of Christmas Dinner for vulnerable members of our society where the local Salvation Army will give up their time, the club will give them access to the facilities etc but it is being perceived that the club are still getting something out of it. I get LPM berating the SMISA vote at every opportunity. However to then twist in my opinion what to date is the best idea of community involvement in to some sort of club stealing agenda is really scraping the barrel. The community option gets my vote provided Wardrop and Scott are not getting a free meal that day. I'm away to wash my hands and dry them on my trousers
  3. 660 member of 1257 voted. Therefore only 52.5 % of the membership bothered voting. 46% of the membership voted yes. 6.5% of the membership voted no. The no votes are now claiming they have a mandate for a second vote on the subject. As that's the Scottish way.
  4. Stu. Absolutely. To think that within 1 hour of winning the league on Saturday there were contributors to this thread who thought that rather than celebrate the league win they would come on here and still moan about a vote that had already been decided on by the majority that participated.
  5. The membership did have input, their input was to vote the proposal through. I voted no however respect that the majority had a different opinion on it. That's called having a democracy. Businesses are run on pre-determined decisions. A business run by committee is a business that will fail. Also as far as I'm aware the members have the right to make a proposal to the committee for future votes.
  6. Agree to your point in principal however by continually discounting the views of the minority and allowing that minority to leave SMISA will eventually erode your majority theory. The irony of this debate is that many of the contributors have openly admitted that they are not even in SMISA.
  7. FCA only interest in governing CIC is on registration. The fines dished out by the FCA relate no the societies not submitting their registrations over a number of years. The FCA also state they do not get involved in disputes between societies and their members The last section of the constitution for SMISA states that the Supporters Direct (hope I got it right this time) appoint an adjudicator in the event of disputes. Not the FCA.
  8. What a lot of bluster. Your quoting the apparent rules without actually reading them. The constitution is so open you could drive a bus through it and use the wording to suit what ever ends you require. As for it being illegal that is for the FCA to decide. The FCA are never in a month on Sundays going to investigate it and even if they did there could easily be a justification for the spend. Furthermore the FCA have transferred their jurisdiction to the Supporters Trust therefore they do not really care. The constitution has been quoted on many occasions. However it is worth digesting again. All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.8.1 The society must not use or deal with its assets except-8.1.1 where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for the benefit of the community; What is the definition of "the community". Not sure I have seen it defined anywhere. Is it people of Renfrewshire/Paisley or could it be defined that St Mirren Supporters and the club are a community. SMISA could also be classified as a community. The assets are subject to a restriction on their use. However they can be used directly or indirectly for the benefit of the community. As far as I'm reading you could claim that the assets are being used to assist in principal the St Mirren community and the wider Renfrewshire community. Therefore the funds are free to what ever SMISA see fit to use them for. They are holding a democratic vote and it is for the members to decided what to do. While I do not agree with the use of the funds in this manner it looks like SMISA have all the bases covered and its for the members to decide. In my opinion there are no breaking of rules only bending of them.
  9. With an attitude like that you should be on the SMISA marketing team.
  10. Come on you have to admire the audacity of the club. Rather than keep asking every quarter for SMISA to bank roll some club consumables/initiative they ask for a lump sum upfront to be bankrolled by future SMISA quarterly spend. Such a suggestion ties up practically every future quarterly spend for the next 2.5 years. On a separate partly related issue. Why are SMISA requesting to purchase tickets again from the Club for £3k under the masquerade its of for the community. Tickets bought at face value which equates to even more funds going to the club. Surely the club could make that gesture themselves or even offer to match the gesture by discounting the tickets. Individuals on here are pointing the finger of blame at the club. The club is not the issue. They are only, as a business, trying to exploit every funding avenue open to them. Cheeky but fair play. The real problem is the lack of leadership, innovation and foresight of the board that represent SMISA. I worry for the future. If SMISA want to be serious as being custodians of the club they need to start running SMISA as a business. Stop ego maniacs wanting to get involved and stop being the clubs lapdogs.
  11. There are some people posting on here trying to turn a resignation from the SMISA committee in to a drama. Hints of all sorts of Machiavellian shenanigans going on. Covert Fans Council spies infiltrating their way on to the SMISA board to try and report back to GS and the club and fleece SMISA of that £2 per month that equates to £8k per quarter. Am I missing something. SMISA was originally formed as an independent group of fans to assist the club where it could but also as a group to ensure that the board at the time were accountable to the fans. SMISA kept that stance all the way through the proposed sale of the club to potential cashless groups. They showed no interest or desire to buy the club. (possibly as they knew they could not backroll it) SMISA then made a decision to put together their own bid to ultimately buy the club. In doing so they need the financial support of both the fans and ultimately some sugar daddy to back roll the whole thing. This is the point where SMISA no longer became independent. You can’t be independent when you are in bed with the very people that you are supposed make accountable. The bit I am missing is the constant debate and derision about committees/board members/£2 monthly spend/SMISA/SMFC/ FC and GS. When in reality they all have the same principal agenda at the end of the day. That agenda is hopefully SMFC. When people join groups/committees/boards they do so with a desire to work and promote the organisation. However they also join with their own agenda. Sometimes you quickly find out that your agenda does not align with the organisation or with the other agendas that individuals have. It should be remembered that GS as 51% shareholder controls the club and everything about it. He as a Director of the club and with the other Directors should still be held accountable and it is SMISA role as a shareholder, having a Director on the board and purchaser of the club to do so. There is so much debate about the £2 spend and who is influencing its expenditure. Its forgotten that the actual spend is ultimately based on a vote not an individual.
  12. So paying for a meal while you are working is showing leadership. Hmm. Bowling Club mentality I think. Being a Director comes with, by law, compulsory duties, on the basis that the remunerations of the directors in the accounts is nil then this is classed as voluntary. Its semantics that turning up on a Saturday is not compulsory. However there are certain individuals on here who would berate the board if they were in the stands on a Saturday and not representing the club while entertaining the free loading visiting team/board. The company accounts demonstrate over the years a track record of the directors regularly putting money in to the club in the way of Directors Loans to see the club through cashflow issues.
  13. What a narrow minded view. The board (some of which) as well as putting up their own money, working on a voluntary basis to run the club are now to be expected in your mind to pay for their own meal while they are representing the club on a Saturday along with the guests that they invite along. They are running a corporate business not a bowling club. Expect better for them to be supported and where required challenged through the proper channels rather than the snide remarks and innuendo on every decision they make.
  14. Are you sure. The constitution states that you pay the society (1877 Society Ltd aka SMISA) the £500 to cover the costs of paying the arbitrator. Not sure why Andrew Jenkins would be doing it for free as he is not an arbitrator. He should also not be entertaining you as he and you would be in breach of the constitution. Also arbitrators don't work for anything less that £150/hr. The constitution states that the arbitrator selection is to be agreed with both parties or nominated by the Chief Executive of Supporters Direct. Can you advise who the arbitrator is.
  15. So lets be clear you paid your £500 in accordance with clause 122 of the constitution to allow your dispute to be arbitrated. Can you advise who Andrew Jenkins and his colleagues decided to be the arbitrator 122. Any person bringing a dispute must deposit with the Society the sum of £500 or such other reasonable sum as the Society Board shall decide. The arbitrator will decide how the costs of the arbitration will be paid and what should be done with the deposit. I also presume you lodged your complaint within 6 months of leaving SMISA in accordance with clause 121.2 121. Every unresolved dispute which arises out of these Rules between the Society and: 121.1 a member; or 121.2 any person aggrieved who has ceased to be a member within the six months prior to the date of the dispute; or Taking cognisance that you have not posted on here for circa 6 months and at the time as your other alias advised that you had made a complaint I am surprised that you have not escalated a complaint against Supporters Direct against your complaint against the society. They appear to be dragging their feet. If I was you I would seek the services of a solicitor to register a complaint against Supporters Direct who failed to deal with you complaint against the Society. I really do not know why TSU engaged with you for so long.
×
×
  • Create New...