Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by TsuMirren

  1. I have a question also. Are you all not utterly ashamed by the lack of support given to the club's women's team? Every other Scottish professional club, with a women's team, puts you to shame.
  2. That would be the definition of new! 30 months is easily long enough. SMISA could do that by actively encouraging members to donate. The club could do it by being a bit more active so far as bringing in new corporate partners or facility hires. Not to mention offering more of the training gear worn by the staff. Major new money is hard to find, inviting new sponsors to hospitality instead of filling empty tables with friends might be a start. A business club, with certain concessions. Or promote the women's team in some frigging manner and maybe more sponsors will come in.
  3. Seeing as SMISA can't be bothered... It's a year since SMISA and the St Mirren Women's team (the official one Alan) began their partnership. They've had a decent first season and will continue to grow. Many professional clubs now have their own women's team and it's fantastic that we do. I'd, even though I'm no longer a member, like to thank you all for voting their funding through. I take great pride from having been involved.
  4. I was talking about doing it better, ergo views on the vote don't matter. I'm referring to sitting on it for a year, not having a specific fundraising campaign and limiting the size of the £2 pot as a result. There is a lot of talk about Foundation of Hearts, but they and other groups don't sit around saying "we're only volunteers", refusing to explore funding streams and taking plaudits for doing very little outside the basic function.
  5. It is brilliant, but could have been done so much better. That said, literally nobody GAF so why make more of an effort?
  6. One of the obvious issues is that the spend isn't for the full duration of contracts. Yes, you can "mutually terminate"...that's not free though. For two you MT you're probably using about 70% of a salary slot in the pay off. Spending all that money did get us up, but it's not sustainable.
  7. Won't happen, it's been raised in the past and there's no interest in it. Chances are it would lose anyway as the majority of members feel they're just donating and the money should be for the club. Under that premise, I don't see why they don't just include it. So little risk with the reward of appearing to listen.
  8. What complaint? Another one man debate started by you. You keep going on like I was never "in the room", but you were. You have never shown anything, I merely accepted it as very difficult to prove. Have I said they're doing anything illegal? In actual plain English mind you, not Bazglish. Anyway, those club accounts are intriguing aren't they.
  9. No no Tony, he's not directly involved at club or SMISA level. Thousands will back him up on that. The fact SMISA can't demonstra...ooooh chilling levels of deja vu! Literally no point continuing with the discussion.
  10. Yup, as I was saying. FSA took nothing to do with the accusations. All that was covered at the time, you chose to ignore fact yet again. I said they can't demonstrate that they qualify for community funding, also a fact. Meanwhile, you're having a one man debate about the club collapsing.
  11. Nonsense, just utter dripping nonsense. No £2 pot = No new 4G pitch at Ralston. At the very least SMISA should spend the next 8 years putting away 150K. "A bonus...", so discuss footballs, discuss other operational spend facilitating additional spend on the wage budget and explain the 2K that the club couldn't find for the women's team. It was a cold sore because SMISA can't demonstrate that they qualify for community funding. A community benefit society that can't demonstrate community benefit. The above is all well beyond your comprehension as your attempts to defend it all fails every time. At least the majority are honest and just don't care. Even Gordon is just doing what he'd naturally do by looking for every commercial advantage.
  12. Last time was David's to lose, he couldn't have lost if he tried. Myself and David R were basically splitting the need for change voters. The worrying aspect is that only one person stood now. We're now well in to the takeover project and have reached a point where everyone is just "ach, it'll be alright" so nobody can really complain much. Even the recent £500 spend was authorisation via vote instead of the previous donations method, so lessons have been learned. The one huge cold sore is covering operatonal spend under various guises. Though, again, the majority vote it through and the £2 pot is further seen as at the club's becon call. I just hope it's all noted down for when the club is actually fan owned, because it'll be the same cycle again with potentially a lot less members paying in.
  13. That's not a rule I remember from the constitution. May be an agreed by a few, seen by a few rule. "We are required..." is f**king poor language, like a band putting out a contractually required album. David is a more than worthy candidate and will do a great job. He did lose last time, but then Gordon was interviewed on BBC Alba and gave David Nicol his public backing.
  14. SMiSA were told to not pay for players wages again. So, they do it indirectly by paying for things the club "don't cover". It'd be much easier to just become a Limited company, admit it's just crowd funding and pass it all over. It'd definitely get voted through.
  15. Great to see a community option, but to have SMiSA funding the Community Trust? Does this mean SMiSA will no longer look to run their own community projects? More worrying, are the Community Trust now the second club related Trust incapable of securing community funding?
  16. Well done. I didn't realise I was getting my money back...
  17. You, of course, have failed to understand the definition of impact. What you mean is no detrimental impact whatsoever. The plan is ahead of schedule, there is no will to complete early and memhers should be pushing for either early completion or the implementation of a float fund for use post-completion...communication by e-mail of course.
  18. Which they will. Tony and Dicko's monumental bull aside, there's nothing that I can see which will lead to numbers dropping below 1,000. A committee of 2 could facilitate that, especially as it's obvious the drive is to fund the club prior to actually buying the club and be genuinely fan owned.
  19. Oh shoosh! Not to mention, you can save your disappointment. The deal is a ten year commitment, individuals can make their own choice regaring theirs.
  20. Of course, the vote deadline would be the end of July. Not to mention...a vote option that doesn't see the club gain from it?
  21. There was a price for their shares plus some small loans here and there. SMISA covered the share payments to the former board. But then, I've never actually seen all the takeover agreement documents.
  22. Bob etc took on a club with the administrators at the door, Stewart etc took on a club around 2 million in debt. Gordon took on a well run club with no financial worries, there was no ship to steady and in all honesty the management and players have achieved promotion. As for denying what is blatant, I'm fully able to see you don't have a clue what you're talking about with regards myself and me leaving SMISA. Your posts also don't deserve much time, can't be any more open or honest than that. Keep sooking the dummy!
  23. Gordon hasn't achieved as much as Stewart etc or Bob etc, that's just a fact. The rest of your post in regards to myself, well it's nonsense.
  • Create New...