Gruffalo

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

With an attitude like that you should be on the SMISA marketing team.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He is in my opinion a dangerous individual with a massive chip on his shoulder. Dangerous as he posts he jackanory(so 80’s) “fake news” stuff as if it was fact. I originally thought he was a poor mans wind up merchant. However the shit stirring stuff that he posts is done so with a venomous undertone and deliberate innuendo. This is to allow him to retract it or turn it on the responding poster. When he is caught out he will pull out the “Please Miss those big boys are picking on me” On the SMISA thread he posts in a manner to discredit the very organisation that he was part of and the one where he served on the committee. Either because he has a petted lip that they don’t agree with his ideas or he is deliberately on a power struggle to discredit the incumbent board and take over himself with his little “Walton” posse

This whole thread is smoke in mirrors in my opinion for some other agenda. Many other posters have contributed to exactly my thinking of the situation. The original poster starts a thread which as usual degenerates in to innuendo of GLS, the SMISA committee, Chairman and their Board Directors capabilities and integrity. All of which is the smokescreen to what the real agenda is. We are led to believe that “The Clique” are acting in our best interests by insisting that SMISA members get to vote on everything and that they have been (self) appointed as the Guardians of the masses. The reality is that SMISA members do not give a feck on how it is run. Provided they buy the buds in 10 years time. The facts are that with a membership of circa 1300, less than 5% bothered to the turn up to the “bring out your dead cats” AGM. Only a third contribute to the votes and they did not have enough volunteers to even hold a committee election. If you don’t like the committee or disagree with their running SMISA then vote them off. If the current above mentioned bodies were not in place who would take over as the committee members, who would be Chairman, who would be the last bastion of the SMISA funds and leader of the free constitution. Hmm I wonder. For the record SMISA should be more open and transparent. However from what I have read I do not think they have done anything other than act in the best interest of their potential investment and their membership.

This is the due diligence that I would expect the Directors of the company to undertake and I would like to think that they have already undertaken this. There are however some on here who have the opinion that because they pay their £12/month that they are entitled to have a say in all of the decisions in the running of the club and how the money is spent.

Why does the club need to explain any deals that they conclude. The Directors of the business are accountable to the shareholders and only them. They make decisions fir the good of the club. That is their legal duties. There are rules in place for the shareholders to call the Directors to task if required. The fall down is that GLS is the majority shareholder and he can do what he basically wants. It's time for certain sections of our fans to let the qualified people get on and do their job and not question or expect to be notified on every decision that goes on. On on the flip side if you have any genuine concerns on any of the connections that the club have you are within you rights to table them. I would however expect that before concerns were raised that proper due diligence be undertaken. Unlike most fans you are on the SMISA board and have the ear of the Directors

You trawled the net and found 2 stories on the CEO of our new sponsor. One is from 4 years ago and relates to a TUPE type disagreement the other is that he bought a piece of land for $22.5m that was linked through previous owners to a scandal. Now had you done a google search on CETCO, LDV, Clydeside, Grahams etc then you would have found scandals related to those businesses. Your the self professed business guru and would know that most successful businesses have some skeletons in the closet

What blatant shit stirring !! I suspect you post innuendo so that you can retract exactly what you are trying to shit stir when it blows up in your face. “I never said that I just asked a question” So we get a company that is willing to sponsor the club and the first thing you do is question their motives and slag off their CEO. What you fail to do is realise or deliberately exclude from your post is that one of the guys on their board resides in Lochwinoch and is probably the St Mirren Fan that was instrumental in the sponsorship deal. Never saw the same outrage when companies like Braehead, CETCO, Grahams Buses to name a few wanted to sponsor the club

I am in no ways defending the use of mobile phones when driving. What i suspect HSS was getting at was that there are many other avenues of poor driving habits that are getting ignored while the authorities concentrate on the one item which is mobile phones. It is indicated that circa 50-75 deaths per year are related to people using their phones. Where as 250 deaths per year are related to drink offences. What is the scariest stat is that over 1500 people are killed every year while parked on the hard shoulder. Using the above stats i would suggest that rather than find your CD turn your radio on instead.

i have no knowledge whether she ordered the killing however if you read the link you posted it makes no reference to her ordering his assassination. If fact it states that she ordered the suspect to be detained as soon as possible. Before she handed the operation over to the specialist firearms command.

While you are correct that taxation does not discriminate against age I am sure that the level of tax collected from under 16's equates to the level of tax paid by a millionaire pipe fitter. If your happy to insist that under 16's and over 65's contribute the same level of tax as you to avoid you being called a government scrounger then so be it.

You are wrong...... again You have used selective figures in an attempt to justify you argument and ignored the facts. 1. 65 million is the population. Only circa 65% actually have the ability to pay taxes due to their age. 2. Taxes only equate to circa 38% of the government revenue 3. By paying your income tax your national insurance and your VAT on goods only equates to circa 60% of the money collected by the government in taxes. Once you have analysed the above then you will work out that you are being subsidised by others. There is no shame in it as most of the population are in a similar boat its just that they have the sense to see the facts.