Stuart Dickson

I heard a similar story where the club demanded a guarantee that a minimum of a certain amount of alcohol would be bought and consumed on the night. I don't know if that was the 1877 club or in the hospitality area. The same outcome though - no booking. You'd almost think that someone, or a group of people, weren't keen on increasing the amount of hospitality business the club does at the stadium for some bizarre reason.  

With the lack of win bonuses that been paid this season, the club should have more than enough spare cash to pay for the USH without putting the begging bowl out.

My vote was No and No. These £2 contributions (as I understood it) were to be set aside from day-to-day costs and ring-fenced towards small improvements that would make a difference in some way.
I don't really go along with the argument that these are exceptional circumstances with the team sitting at the arse end of the league table. I'm struggling to remember the last season when that wasn't the case. On the field improvement is a matter for the football club to get right. SMiSA surplus funds should be spent elsewhere. Disappointed that SMiSA members weren't offered an alternative proposal for the funds.
Just my opinion of course.

And here is the very definition of short term thinking. A behaviour that equates to the guy who passes all his wages away on the 20/1 three legged donkey running in the 3.30 on pay day.

The club currently pays out in excess of £1.2m per annum in wages and associated costs. As a result of their recruitment policy St Mirren have got and are paying the likes of Jamie Langfield and Kyle Hutton not to play. They've got Andy Webster - another of the top earners and with 28 international caps often left out of the squad. Yet you think chucking an extra £2k per month at the team will solve all its problems.

Community initiatives will raise money, will bring positive PR and will deliver more interest in the club from local people. That's a long term vision, not short term. It's not even a gamble. Yet sadly those chumps on the SMISA committee won't even put the easiest and most secure of options that I put forward on the ballot paper.

Democracy my arse. There's more democracy in a Tibetan election.

How many of the committee members were voted into their posts and how many were co-opted onto the committee? I asked that question yesterday - still no response. 

This is the same loaded gun talk that Stuart Gilmour used when talking about The Rangers.

How did Armageddon work out?

Cancelled also because of smug gits like you. 
Fecking superfan rank pullers 

To state there would be challenges along the way on our journey to fan ownership seems already like a dim and distant little small print add on. I went into this with crystal clear vision and understanding that football clubs dont make money, they spend it, and the worst offenders spend their own and anyone elses money they can get their hands on, when it is obviously incapable of balancing its books.
So I believed and still do we could/can run the club differently, whilst meeting the challenges of cost, budget, turnover whilst involving the whole community to lift the club, town, team, and people
First thing that appealed to me in our current journey is to "live within our means", a phrase used time and again during "Buy The Buds" so I was pleasently surprised to see we had inherited a surplus at takeover with money in the bank, that I thought would be there for the unaccounted for expenses like USH repair, strengthening the squad in January, and actually building the disabled platform the previous owners abandoned after many promises.
within weeks though it seems the club board have totally abandoned the concept of "living within their means" and see whatever bank balance Smisa has as 'fair game' to plunder. First question is what happened to the surplus on the accounts?
does it currently reside in the bank accounts of messrs Rae & Farrell? Are they paid off in full, or is the club still paying them up in instalments. If ever there was a truly contradictory action to a commitment, then surely it was to say we have to live within our means, but then rack up the expense of paying off a management team, and hiring a new one after SIX league games.
Surely that was an act of folly, naivety, petulance, ego etc this club evidentially cannot afford?
Now it seems whatever the club ask for Smisa to fund... (which is bizarre when you think Smisa owes over £200k but is seen as an ethical choice to lend and seek funding from) they feel onliged to do. The whole concept of this ownership model to me was to put and keep the club on a sound financial footing, without throwing money down a pit, but it seems collectively most of us are doing, asking, suggesting that is what we do.
the club made profit in the last accounts, given where we are in the financial year a projection of end of year accounts would now be a fairly true reflection of the actuals at year end, so before we start throwing all sorts of money sticking plasters at it, should we not be asking for a full prognosis? What are the projected figures for year end, then a prudently run business can take decisions to cut costs if it is projected to miss target, or develop revenue streams to get back on track. Not pour petrol on the flames.
As a rule of thumb take a bankers approach to the club and finances, would they get a loan off a high street bank for the money they want from Smisa after full disclosure in their application???
Now the club need money seemingly just to pay wages, fix equipment etc. The Smisa members are in my opinion unfairly put in a yes/no postion in a highly evocative scenario, suggesting only their vote can "save our season"... what rot!
if Jack Ross was as billed a better manager than we sacked we would not be bottom feeding in a league with part time teams, if we need to free up funds lets start with the ageing goalkeeper who apparently is not going to play anymore, ditto the ageing centre back and the midfielder on a two year contract out on loan. Settle with them, and back the savings for essential needs. These things could 'Save our Season'...
however its a lot more easy to spend someone else's funds especially if you tweak that little think with the heart and not the head button of football fans. The vote and reasons why there even needs to be one are driven by failed business acumen, naivety, incompetence or a darker quest to control. 
The vote will be what it will be, the majority will decide, I and I suspect just about everyone lese will still be Fully paid up Smisa members, but the innocence, hope and lost belief that we are doing it differently will be damaged, and as sure as eggs are eggs they will be back for more, C'mon... why wouldn't they? The money as we are told is just sitting there.
I actully thought it was in bank acounts to pay off our debts, and buy a majority shareholding in SMFC, not to make up the wage and maintenance bill of a multi million business! Still I am sure the directors will be matching everything Smisa funds?

Bad Management hurts the Club. 
Not fans. 
SMISA could empty their Bank Account and hand it all to Ross who employs 2 or 3 Alan Gow types. 
Ta ta St Mirren Football Club. 
Do not gamble the SMISA FUNDS. 
And lose your Superfan SMISA default fud attitude. 
Dafty 

Hallelujah. 
Got it at last. 
You're correct. 
THIS ISN'T A RAINY DAY
So keep the funds in the SMISA Bank till it's pishing cats n dugs. 
PLEASE DO NOT GAMBLE THE FANS MONEY. 
Ross will save the Team with ease without spending. 
Sorry for my tone, but you deserve it. 
FFS 

Gordon is in charge a very short time.
And has us in debt already.
Why didn't he do due diligence on all things  at Greenhill Road (including USH) before spending money on a worthless Football Club. 

^^ This.
Pro-rata investment in accordance with share %. It's just business.
We are saving to buy out another shareholder.
This should be the purpose of SmisA, not diluting funds.
Just a thought ;-)

Whilst I don't agree with putting the money towards the playing budget I am happy to accept what the majority vote for. However, my concern is that the members are not getting all the options available put to them. For example getting the shelters for the remaining disabled people for the corners, especially at this time of the year would be a priority for me.
I'm pretty sure on the USH thread it was mentioned several times that all the options would be put forward and then they could be voted on. That's all I want and thought I was getting... But instead I'm left disappointed that we either have a Yes or No poll for what the committee deem as being priority.

According to a St Mirren director who engaged on a Tweet of mine last night stating the club need to live within its means, if we lived within our means Alex Rae would still be the manager.... Bit concerning he's implying we're not living within our means - who is picking up the loss then?

My view would be that reducing expenditure elsewhere to pay off a contract is living within means, but SMISA topping up a wage budget isn't...

With regards to the loan, again, don't have an issue with loaning the club money and don't necessarily feel a need to vote on this as the money would be returned. But to state that they wanted to consult the membership but couldn't because of time restrictions is lame. It takes five minutes to send out an email to the members.

More than that. Their version of democracy is to attempt to silence opposition.

I'm free to put my money wherever I like. It certainly won't be in to an organisation where gambling seems to be the mantra of those controlling the funds. f**king bonkers

SMISA sooper dooper fans are showing true colours. Bad enough before when the likes of Calum abusing punters asking relevant questions while Buy The Buds campaign was going on. 
The bottom line is this type of fans money must not be gambled.
Rainy day only.
If Jack Ross is incapable of saving our Club without new players, he should be booted out the door now.
We haven't fabulous players but they are better than most in our league.  

And here is the very definition of short term thinking. A behaviour that equates to the guy who passes all his wages away on the 20/1 three legged donkey running in the 3.30 on pay day.

The club currently pays out in excess of £1.2m per annum in wages and associated costs. As a result of their recruitment policy St Mirren have got and are paying the likes of Jamie Langfield and Kyle Hutton not to play. They've got Andy Webster - another of the top earners and with 28 international caps often left out of the squad. Yet you think chucking an extra £2k per month at the team will solve all its problems.

Community initiatives will raise money, will bring positive PR and will deliver more interest in the club from local people. That's a long term vision, not short term. It's not even a gamble. Yet sadly those chumps on the SMISA committee won't even put the easiest and most secure of options that I put forward on the ballot paper.

Democracy my arse. There's more democracy in a Tibetan election.

You didn't and it doesn't.

For me, SMISA investment should be in things that guarantee a return on our investment.

Otherwise, we could have turns each month on Bet365 to see if we could help the club.

And how does rainy day money being spent on players guarantee this?

Who are the members of the SMiSA Committee? If Kenny and David have been co-opted on, and all of the people still in the "Who Are We" section of the SMiSA website are still committee members than I make that 13 people on the committee when the constitution says "there should be no less than 5 and not more than 12."
Also how were the existing members given their places on the committee - or board as the website likes to describe it? Were each of them elected, or co-opted?  

Well if that's the charge it would hardly be new would it? Most on here have seen me as a mischief maker for most of the years I've been on the internet.
Do you think the club looks like it's pulling in the same direction? 

Thanks Kenny. Could you suggest to the SMiSA committee that this be rectified on the website so it's far more easy to find?

Absolutely delighted I cancelled my Direct Debit to SMISA.
Feel totally vindicated now.
Farcical and disgraceful that, what should be " rainy day money " is getting gambled on players.
It's bad enough over the years that generally our Admission Money is given willy nilly to undeserving overpaid shite players.
IF THE CLUB HAS NO MONEY PRESENTLY THEN NOT A FECKING PENNY SHOULD BE SPENT ON PLAYERS IN JANUARY.
This is fecking lunancy which we will regret.
NO GAMBLING PLEASE.

As a point of principle, I can't vote in favour of this proposal.
I appreciate how critical things are just now, and I don't have an issue with trusting Jack Ross' judgement in terms of players, but this isn't for me. It isn't a sustainable arrangement, and we need to concentrate on what is sustainable.
I won't be cancelling my direct debit, though. That would be f**king silly!
 

SMiSA have covered the cost of the repair to the Undersoil Heating without referring to the membership. The agreement with the board of directors is that it is in the form of an interest free loan. The committee it appears thought that "it was better to put this money to use for the benefit of the club when it would be sitting in the bank otherwise." Nice, huh. 
Then the vote this month for the £2 per month spend of cash is just spend it on the playing squad, with a subsequent question of whether the membership want to top up the £2 per month pot with money left over from last month. This is not taking the form of a loan. Nope. The members of SMiSA are expected to take a gamble with the accumulated cash pot, and presumably the next three monthly cash pot, on the judgement of Jack Ross, that the one single player that this might help purchase will save the club from relegation. Sadly there were no alternative options put forward by the committee - no mention yet again of investment in community projects to put the club at the heart of the community. 
I'm going to have to seriously consider whether SMiSA have misappropriated their intentions, and whether I am willing to continue to give over £25.00 per month to a group who clearly do not intend to fulfill their pledges in their pre buyout propaganda. 

Just received the latest SMISA mailing regarding the next £2 pot to be spent.
"There are other types of project we want to and will put before you in future – but we feel if there was ever a time to prioritise investment in the playing budget, it is now."
If the majority of members want to vote for that then fine. But it shouldn't be an option between investing in the playing squad or keeping the money. It seems that the SMISA committee are making a decision then giving us a yes/no vote on it. Instead of letting us vote on all available options.
It's been mentioned on here several times that the various spending options would be put forward to be voted for. Why are SMISA preventing us on voting for some of these projects just now? The £8k pot could allow us to purchase the disabled shelters for the corners at the time of year the weather is at its worse, something I would rather we paid for now instead of the playing squad budget or keeping the money.
If the majority still voted for the playing squad then that's fine, that's where the money should be spent, but the alternative options should be available to be voted on. It seems like SMISA are deciding what options to give us, instead of giving us all the options.
We have also loaned the club 15k to fix the USH, I have no issue with this. But it should be a decision for the members to decide. I appreciate it was a matter of urgency but could the club not have waited 24 hours? In this day and age where Mailchimp takes 5 minutes to issue a quick mailing, and most people emails are linked to their phone, we could easily have carried out a flash vote.
This doesn't sit well with me. It's not the committees place to decide what takes priority it's for the members to decide.