TsuMirren

It's already funded from the April vote. I could get negative about no mention of thanking anyone who served on the board/committee, but won't. Plenty of spin in there though, but as said before it just does not matter as BTB is in no danger. Supporter's Direct Scotland support SMISA, so nobody will get any traction with a complaint against SMISA's operations...NOBODY! My postings have always been aimed at gettiing SMISA to do more or giving clarity on the deal itself. I still think it's a disgrace the women's team had to crowd fund, still think Gordon had no right to put out a statement and still feel SMISA is run to the pre-conceived direction of 4 people. Here's hoping 18/19 sees more action, more drive and hell of a lot less fruitless discussion and/or havering.

I've avoided this form of response until now, but just shoosh! I didn't say it wasn't better and I'm not being negative. Honest, open, informative...not negative.

Yeah, I think it had to be some sort of programme that was SMISA's and only SMISA's. So, funding of the Panda Club, the Youth Academy and obviously the 50K facility wouldn't count. You'd need to do something like funding SMISA members through coaching badges then either run SMISA Community sessions away from the Dome or make those coaches available to local boys clubs. Or even start your own boys clubs based purely around development. Could obviously be girls, just using boys as an example. Of course, the community lenders wouldn't fully fund it and you'd probably need strict rules around coaches being poached or moving on.

Of course you have, I've highlighted it numerous times. The BTB deal is structured so that the offer will be made in 10 years, with Gordon not having a legal obligation to accept it. I asked to see the takeover documents, but was never given access. Heck, I was only an elected director of SMISA so I suppose I had a cheek to ask. In fairness to Gordon, he was flexible with regards the 50K facility. But he had to be as SMISA have been unable to secure a loan (I've no doubt that needed very little negotiation as Gordon wants his money back...so, he'd not kill the deal). Indeed, they've been unable to provide suitable evidence that they qualify for a community loan. That's mostly as every idea they had involved funding things for the club. Oh and the USH loan wasn't interest free.

As per The Holy Grail, it obviously depends upon your definition of peril. Gordon's never going to be questioned now, I literally can't think of one thing he could do within reason that the fans wouldn't support. As said before, fine if you're Chairman at a regular club. The other thing is, you and I as non-SMISA members shouldn't have been part of the debate anyway. Public meeting, secure web link, full presentation of finances and a vote on the night possibly extended to season ticket holders. But, even then, the second anyone says "this gives Jack more money" it's backed anyway and debate becomes redundant. Personal view, not sure 100K is worth giving up a second stand for. You now have away fans entering from all four corners of the ground...just doesn't sit right on many levels, first one being safety.

Yup, yup, indeed, certainly will.

It was the method of how it was done, not the actual doing it. Breaking a key promise and not running a simple pre-vote to cover the ring-fence breech. On top of that they've, quite frankly, done as little as possible to manage and mitigate this...that being the risk around the 4G needing replaced. It was known about for nearly a year, yet we end up where we are and with this discussion because the majority of the committee are inept and utterly incapable of being pro-active. Who would have contributed to fundraising for 50K...we all would. Everyone posting here, every adult fan who goes to games, locals, distant fans and maybe even club sponsors. But, we'll never know.

Plan was for SMISA to pay, you can't expect every member to just keep paying. Also, read the bloody text on the wall. There are plans to add to the board, not sure it's an incentive to join though. SMISA will own the shares, not each member, so it doesn't really matter if a few drop off here and there.

I believe that's also confidential, maybe even so much so that Stewart isn't aware and hence he believed he was being 100% accurate when talking to Div. As of February, post-accelerated payment talks, there was still a payment plan in place. At the same time a plan was agreed to finally begin facilitating the 50K facility for the club.

Indeed, just like their should have been a pop-up SMISA banner in the members bar and in hospitality. So many small things that could bring great rewards.

It's as good as all complete, you're taking around July/August and negligible figures. Confidentiality of course procludes me from saying any more.

Won't happen, email or nothing. Like any other successful organisation works that way. I mean, imagine if Scotrail did that or Renfrewshire Council or a political party or even an engineering firm. "We've not had any negative emails" - "Great, crack on". On the 10 years thing, you'd probably need circa 600 members all making representation at the same time before they'll even look at it. It's just not in the plan, pretty much as simple as that. The next committee meeting is a week on Monday, so pop along and ask your questions. Discussion on here is fine, but it's not going to get far. Even if someone did pick up on it, someone else will ask "was this person a member?"

Yeeeeeeeeeah, you've no contact with or involvement in the committee/club. 2024, mention that year in a committee meeting and you'd think you'd used the N word. Even that involves membership dropping below 1,000 at some point.

Well, they've nearly all received their money.

2, I never said it would. Missed the point completely. They could have paid the entire 150K and still make the 10 years. A group of scouts could make the 10 year deadline at this point. Although they might not take well to being told to stop being so keen. Problem with the Panda Club and sport scientist is they'll both meet to come from the same 3K or draw from a future spend. Then you'l have the "SMISA wish to have less spend polls in order to have a larger available pot" consultation. So everyone will have even less say. Though, maybe most have missed it, SMISA could just come out and say "this phase is primarily about buying the club" to get through limiting the level of engagement.

I, for the last time, don't have an agenda. Mention it again and I may finally actually offend you, call you a big poo for example.

Gordon has indeed put money up, but just to balance that out a bit he is getting that back and it's significantly less than the offer he made when the club was initially up for sale. That money, he wouldn't have gotten back. The 50K will have been restored, but what about the lost interest? Not a substantial amount, bit it is still lost. I think Gordon has done a great job, in comparison to other Chairman running a standard club. St Mirren have SMISA though and, frankly, he still has a bit to learn with regards working alongside them. Tony's also right that it's in no plan, within the core group, to complete the deal early.

Oooooft, this has escalated hasn't it. Two quick things: One, I do indeed feel there is more to Bazil. Far too much feels like information where you either had to be in the room or you know someone who is. Two, the results of the recent SMISA Survey really are being used to push some borderline questionable things whilst querying other legitimate community engagement. Had that survey included the question "should SMISA look to conclude the BTB deal sooner" it would have been very different and seen results that those in charge would not have liked. But, heaven forbid the members are allowed involvement to that degree. Not to mention, as said before, fundraising was an obvious option and so easy to facilitate if you are either not lazy or aren't functioning under influence from elsewhere. The SMISA survey also never asked a single question about opening up the £10 pot for other uses. Yet, because it's discussed at a joint SMISA/SMFC board meeting, where no doubt it was basically pre-decided anyway, SMISA bypass the actual part about asking if the principle is okay. "It's time bound", yes and it was manufactured very well to be so. I say very well, but really I mean as well as the Sport Scientist being hired pre-vote or the Panda Club option not being stand-alone or the club not going "oh, £7,150 or so, can we get circa £800 worth of footballs added". Possibly even as well as not being sure the women's team are official even though there was an official press release and photo shoot. Or as well as setting a target of 1,400 members and doing nothing, literally nothing, to drive it..."which pub this month?" I assume the Buddievision piece on SMISA is coming soon and that Gordon will mention them in interviews... I can't wait to see how 3K will fund the sport scientist, the Panda Club and all manner of other things come the next vote. There's bound to be a schedule based on club priorities, it'd be madness to not have a pre-determined schedule for the next 2 years considering you've slashed 5K from each pot.

Sour grapes? Beeeeeeeeeeeecause? I was on the SMISA board, I resigned. I actually stood up, offered my time, enabled some community engagement and received praise for it. Exactly why would I have sour grapes?

Yes, someone such as yourself who is so very obviously heavily involved in SMISA at a high level really should be familiar with it. I must admit, I doubt SMISA have any rules as such. More a case of ensuring the accounts will look okay, so invoices for things. Aside from that, nah. I certainly never saw a rules document, though there was plenty of talk of having one.

But, that will is only being actioned upon pre-determined options with very little prior input from the membership. So, it's not really as they see fit is it.

There's cosy and then there's allowing the club to run/direct the society. The club has a Fans Council, which could easily fundraise and be used to drive covering essentials or whole life cost funding. "As they see fit..." spending shouldn't be at the behest of what the club do or do not want to run with. That said, SMISA also need to be a damned sight more pro-active, which I quite frankly never see them doing. I say that, having offered to run elements of certain things and been all but ignored because two or three people didn't see the need or the point.

Nah, never mentioned here. Right, there is a board made up of elected members and they also form part of the committee. I've no idea why SMISA keep saying committee, there's a board and non-elected members sitting on the committee shouldn't be voting at meetings. They've no obligation really, but obviously being on the committee gives you a flavour. The board could have various committees working underneath, but at the moment there's only one. Non-members can't hold any sort of position, obviously they can attend sessions at the pubs...but, who goes to a pub pre-match to discuss SMISA? Even when I was on the board and still a member I think I had maybe 7 people ask me a question. I even recall chatting to yourself in the bar, but that was prior to being elected. I had interaction on twitter, but again twitter bad/email good!

Ah, you can attend...every 2nd Monday from 6PM in the UWS hub. I think we had one member come along and ask a question. You could also argue that the non-elected committee members count in that regard. Most of them have now been elected, with only David Riley and Louise Swanson not having been in the election. Plus I suppose John, but he's an SLO anyway.

Not the most constructive way of putting it across Tony, but yeah. Of course, there should actually be a book of minutes that the members can freely gain access to. The upkeep of which is the responsibility of the societies secretary. As for the above, they've no intention to have a members only forum and would prefer this section of B&W Army was removed.