TsuMirren
-
Posts
2,676 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by TsuMirren
-
-
4 hours ago, bazil85 said:
So are you suggesting unless the board have come up with some completely ground breaking, innovative way to make money that no previous board have thought of, they've failed to bring in new income streams? And to make it even more under pressure, they should have done this within 30 months?
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.
-
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.
-
9 hours ago, bazil85 said:
I don't think it's fair to say no one GAF. I'd say a more realistic breakdown of SMISA members would be
- A very small number not in favour of funding the pitch
- A much larger figure in favour
- Larger still (just over half) don't GAF or happy with other people deciding by voting.
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.
-
On 11/27/2018 at 5:40 PM, bazil85 said:
Brilliant to see and a brilliant message. Everything we can do as a fan base to move our club forward helps.
Could be a factor in the next generation of McGinns, Morgan’s, Mallan’s, etc. COYS
It is brilliant, but could have been done so much better. That said, literally nobody GAF so why make more of an effort?
-
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.
-
Just now, bazil85 said:
Sure does... I wouldn’t hold my breath for any money getting saved though tbh
Too much work for you?
-
2 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:
I have
.
Lets see what the take on my proposal for the following option to be included in each and every future £2 quarterly spend pot votes.
- Option : The pot is saved for when the buds is bought.
As an option amongst the club related projects and community initiatives, it provides an option for folk like myself who want to see the money saved. If there is no appetite to save, fair enough, at least the option is there and I will not begrudge the wishes of the majority who vote.
If accepted, it's inclusion will offer a tangible pot the members know can grow to become a meaningful pot of cash for future use which will, benefit The Club we all support.
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.
-
23 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
You’re right for once... it’s exactly like deja vu.
Just like last time it was shown I am not directly linked with SMISA or the club and SMISA weren’t doing anything illegal.
Maybe take your complaint to the ‘FSA’ though. Might need to ask Doc Brown for a hand with that one in the first instance though
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Gotcha!
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.
-
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
4G pitch - club stated they’d fund it another way. Even if they didn’t would the club collapse?
Do you genuinely think the club was on the brink over the equivalent of less than £3k a month? That’s probably less than one of our top players make. If so, where’s your evidence? How are we coping right now when it’s reduced by £5k?
You might be of the opinion we should be saving the money but unless you can physically show evidence these tiny sums of money were make or break then I stand by my point.
Some of us have the opinion we should spend these on short-term costs meaning the club has a bigger budget here and now.
My personal opinion is if the short-term spends that save the club money help keep us and establish us as an SP club over the next few years, that’ll be worth way, way, way more to us than having £150k and being a championship club.
Two different points, one not any more right than the other. Only difference is the voting members would seem to support my view that short-term benefit is the best right now.
As for proving the funds regarding community benefit. It’s been well documented that someone blew the whistle and FCA told them where to go. BTB meet all regulatory requirements as has been shared on here many times.
How you can say I’m wrong and it’s beyond my comprehension when the FCA stance backs me up, I don’t know. I’ll go with the FCA over your opinion though thanks.
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.
-
4 hours ago, bazil85 said:
Not sure it can be described as a ‘cold sour’ as you’ve went onto say, that’s the will of the majority.
I also really struggle to understand why people worry about this after BTB completes. The quarterly money is an absolutely tiny values compared to the money the club generates. We haven’t funded anything that would be make or break for the club if it was a no vote. We were fine for close to 140 years without it, we’ll be fine without it when we’re fan owned. (Also have the added benefit of not having an owner to take a cut of profits like so many other clubs at our level)
Always presented as a bonus to help out with what we vote for and that hasn’t changed.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:
Hence only ONE person (who didnt get a lot of votes the last time) feeling inclined to put their name forward.
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.
-
8 hours ago, St.Ricky said:
I'm not a member but don't quite understand what you are getting at. If you are a member then it seems that you were free to put your name forward but didn't.
The rules seem to be clear:
"We are required to hold a confirmation ballot for members to approve David’s election. If a majority do so, he will be elected. If not, the rules state a member of the SMISA committee will fill the role temporarily until such time as a fresh election can be arranged."
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
12 minutes ago, div said:
That’s EXACTLY what we will use it for. And as we sink our gallons of free beer we will all chant “RINGFENCED, RINGFENCED” round a bonfire featuring a life sized Stewart Dickson with fireworks up his arse.
This of course will set fire to the AstroTurf but f**k it, we will just buy some more.You self important clown!
-
18 hours ago, div said:
"Of course"
I'm just plain old stupid, but I do know one thing, and that's when fan ownership is delivered I'll be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other 1200 or so of us who saw it through!
Well done. I didn't realise I was getting my money back...
-
2 minutes ago, div said:
Yeah we will need to agree to disagree on this one. The asset we are investing in is the football club.
The club wanted help, asked for help, and SMiSA were in a position to help.
The majority voted in favour of them helping and the nett result is that the club is in a healthier state and there will be no impact whatsoever on the share purchase plan.
Anyway, McGinn windfall comes in, I agree we should get our £50K back earlier.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Drew said:
Paul is a good mate of mine (we're in a clique, FFS), but I think it is fine to be disappointed when people pull out. As fine as it is for folk to exercise their prerogative to do just that.
I've already indicated that I'm pretty laid back about how things are administered. Maybe that's just me, but this seems like a potential once in a lifetime opportunity (warts and all) to achieve something special for our club, and to achieve that together. As long as the long term goal isn't lost, and the good of the club is at the centre of what we do, I hope that folk will stick it out.
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.
-
24 minutes ago, div said:
Genuinely puzzled by this and anyone else who has chucked Buy The Buds for any other reason than personal finance situation changing, or death.
I saw it as a ten year commitment and hopefully the vast majority did too.
Disappointed to see this!!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.
-
12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Would be a nice gesture I'd say.
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?
-
1 hour ago, pod said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't there a debt to the former chairman and board members.
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.
-
33 minutes ago, jaybee said:
Contradicting a statement without offering supporting justification is what is actually non-sense, as indeed is denying what is blatant, but then again if you do not have the capacity to rationalise an argument then this is perfectly undestanable
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!
-
1 hour ago, jaybee said:
In response to TSU: I have watched and read some of your previous rants and am aware that you threw your dummy out the pram some time ago and yes indeed you are one of those 'other individuals who feel similarly: ' that I referred to. I said I thought StuD was a Numpty , well I think you just joined the club my friend. The reason being is that both of you have extremely selective comprehension, firstly I was not responding to you specifically in regards to what I stated over Gordon's achievements in the said period of time .........however be honest and read what was written and TRY your best to fully comprehend what was said. Did either of those others take St Mirren from the situation which we were in 18 months ago ...................... on such a similar journey as to where we now are? I think not. You however are entitled to your opinion good sir.
In response to you StuD: part of what I said above applies, It appears to me that you are choosing to have a selective understanding of what I stated. Is this because I deliberately over-emphasised my point of just who actually owns the club? Which I did in an attempt to show that GS who could simply do whatever it is that he personally thinks is good for the club, is NOT actually doing that at all. He is attempting to integrate the St Mirren community into decisions as best he can. Now in the case of trying to integrate the community into wider decision making circles, I can and do speak from experience. Having worked in this sector for a considerable number of years and in a variety of locations I can say that when you increase the number of community people around a table, metaphorical or otherwise; you substantially decrease the chance of reaching any sort of agreement that suits everyone. My response to you last time StuD was with a degree of reasonableness; because it did seem you were trying to argue rationally and I would have to respect that even if I disagreed with what you stated. However it would seem that you too have spat out your dummy, your response, is simply argumentative, I say yes .you say no. I say in. you say out. I say red . you say blue. words like sublime and ridiculous come to mind. I suspect that the truth of the matter is the BOD and GS are trying to come to a mutual understanding of how best to proceed, I rather think that it's a new undertaking for GS also, I very much doubt that he asked committees for approval when he was conducting his building enterprise and irrespective of how much money he fronted to buy his 51%, he did it, whilst others talked about it.
And finally: i am more than willing to debate other persons opinions, however it would be nice if they argued rationally and were not NUMPTIES.
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.
SMiSA Chairman
in SMiSA
Posted
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.