Tennant's Lager

I'll be there on Tuesday for damn sure.

So you would absolutely refute any claim that the questions in the poll closing on Wednesday were reverse-engineered to obtain what would appear be a favourable outcome for the proposals which only publicly emerged y'day? Good. What we need now is clarity on the position of the club & 10k Hours wrt the aforementioned latest proposals. Hopefully this can be addressed over the coming days and the meetings next week. Personally speaking I for one find the idea abhorrent that a Newco Rangers could be parachuted into any other position than 42nd out of 42 in the league structure and don't understand why the latest proposals are being bundled together with said Newco Rangers emerging at notionally position #22, when the vast majority if not all measures outlined could (and should) be happening quite independently from the Rangers issue. The Saints fans need straight talking and honesty from the 'higher ups'. Please let this be the case going forward.

I voted y'day and only passed on the voting link to the other member this afternoon, so feck all to do with me

Should be sorted now thanks to the Divmeister.

Sent an email as suggested about exactly this y'day - still waiting on a response.... Edited to add - I notice the email address here isn't the same as the others - have re-sent the email to the 'members' one as per the other sections. An unfortunate typo Div.

Sounds good to me, I'm in (at least a few times)

Nice idea. How much do you reckon admission would be?

Agree totally with this. The other point I'd make is that it's oft suggested that the SPL clubs would let the Currant Buns back in with changes to the voting system, prize money distributions etc. The question has to be - what do people expect would happen if they were told where to go and it was Dundee or Dunfermline taking their place? Suddenly 11-1 votes to change things, things such as the above, as desired by the 'diddy clubs' look a lot more likely do they not? By the time the Blue Bigots got their way back up to the top flight, they could find it a very different SPL indeed. That's why I'm convinced their Green cousins will vote to keep them - the other 11 would rightly shaft them as well.

Aye, it's like a Saints Aid auction - fast updates for the last hour or so until the deadline...

Speculation on my part but would have to imagine people should be able to join after it's up and running with little difficulty. As for the bar entrance...I'm guessing it would (or at least could) operate much the same way as the entry into the stadium with a smartcard system?

One of the first 'directions' from members to reverse this? I'll certainly second it.

Totally agree JT. While I've come up with a decision today, it really wasn't easy and wouldn't for a minute look to force it on anyone else's. Some people will come to this early, some late and some not at all. We all have the best interests of the club at heart though and will get involved with how it's run at a level we feel comfortable with.

Funnily enough was just talking about that - thoughts are the last totals before the change to the money figure said 33 and 0 respectively?

Are you going to ramp up the amount of updates to the total on the site today/tomorrow? One a day is too few methinks.

Having given it no end of considered thought, I've finally decided to join 10k Hours again. I have concerns about it yes, and the bid may still fail clearly, but the end thoughts have been what do I want to happen, and that if there's anything I don't like, they could and should be changed and I reserve the right to shout my mouth off about it if not. I know plenty of people on here do and will take an alternative view and have no problem with that at all. Ultimately I'm something of a naive optimist and what will be will be.

Partly true...have to love 'Enjoy the Silence', but despise that 'Just Can't Get Enough' monstrosity...between the Green Bhigots, L'Pool, Bolton, Blackpool, Sky, ITV4 & even Kevin Painter in the darts to name just a few in recent months...I'm f"king sick of hearing it!! Nae shortage of flagpoles though...quite a few hundred here - anyone that wants one drop me a PM.

Fine with me if it does. I don't claim to be that important but to say I was using SMiSA as a stick to beat RA is frankly complete garbage when I was seeking answers to questions that I felt should be asked. I was happy RA had answers to them at the time. Well sorry for thinking that more information has come to light, information that I happened to think people may like to know given the repeated comments about SMiSA on this forum. Again, complete tripe. There are a number of differing opinions within even the committee of SMiSA, let alone the wider membership. I would say I am more in favour of 10k Hours than some, less than others for all that matters. As for consulting SMiSA, when the organisation has been asked to put in £50k of money raised by supporter subscriptions I don't think it's asking too much for the membership to be given the info necessary to make a decision. To claim otherwise is ludicrous quite honestly. Oh and as for your last comment, I really couldn't care less if we have fan ownership of the club if it is under the auspices of 10k Hours, SMiSA or the Incorporated Intergalactic Federation of Associated St Mirren Supporters. The acid test is whether is is democratic, fit for purpose & workable.

I was at the game, caller. Now, on the SMiSA thing lets be very clear. I made the decision to bring up the point about the constitution myself, not with any coercing from the rest of the SMiSA committee. I did this because I felt a duty to do so, given that the two best qualified people on that to analyse it (Wullie Bell & Alistair Colquhoun) could not be present at the meeting as said earlier, and also as an individual, concerned quite honestly that if I sign up (again) to 10k Hours that at some point in the future, the directors of the CIC (with no involvement from the wider membership) could change the minimum for Direct Debits from £10 p/m to considerably more than this, as outlined by the analysis of said constitution by SMiSA in their statement. Personally I thought this was the most important thing to raise, and with Richard saying anything not presented in the meeting at the start could be changed I wanted to know if this extended to constitution clauses that people may be concerned about. Now Richard's response made it clear that a similar/identical clause is in SMiSA's constitution. However, I have since had a conversation with Wullie Bell (the trust's secretary) and it seems that it is not exactly as cut-and-dried as Richard made out at the meeting. The clause in SMiSA's constitution is, as I understand it, in a context that its committee cannot take any significant decision without input from the membership. They certainly could not do so with regard to changing the monthly sub amount without a members vote. I did say at the meeting, that there was precedent for exactly this - namely that when the subs were reduced from £10 p/m to £2 p/m it was carried through by postal member vote after being recommended by the committee. That said I freely admit that I was not aware of this fact re the context and that it wasn't just a decision to allow the members a vote, rather than absolutely required. It could be said that Richard played a fly one with that, a subtlety that I for one was certainly unaware of. It's a shame Wullie & Alistair weren't able to attend the meeting or the facts would have been made clear at the time. As I've said all along, my intention is simply to ensure that the truth outs. If I didn't do a great job on that then I can only apologise and accept I wasn't able to do so and that there are others better qualified. Personally I'd say it would be going to far to say Richard was out to humiliate SMiSA (and if anyone asks, no I didn't feel it either). That said, he likely has gotten away with an argument that he probably wouldn't have had Wullie & Alistair been present last week. I will say however that at the end of the meeting, Chris Stewart came and talked to me about the constitution and he said there were a number of things within SMiSA's that 10k Hours may look to adopt in theirs as part of a redraft, and he took a copy of their statement re the constitution that I had printed off. I'm therefore hopeful that at least some of the concerns can and will be addressed in the future. As far as SMiSA's future involvement (or lack thereof) is concerned - they have made it clear when issuing their statement of withdrawl of 'in principle' support, that they would review the situation if the information they need to go to the members is made available. There's clear due process for all of that so it would take some time for them to get back to the position with the CIC they were in, if they so wished. As for my own decision on 10k Hours - in all honesty I'm considering it still as regards signing up again. If anyone asks me I'd encourage them to make up their own mind with all the facts available and make their choice accordingly. Personally I'm concerned that it's being rushed to, and in doing so mistakes can be made. The general principle is great, and that was enough to win my support initially yes. However with all that's happened, is has to be right that everyone takes on all information available and makes their decision on that. Alas, the cold, hard facts of rules & numbers have to add up just as much as this appeals to the heart otherwise it truly would be a no-brainer. I am looking forward to it being concluded though, whatever happens.

A little request - can we stop with all the analytical cock-waving of determining who is a 'true' Saints fan please? It doesn't matter when you start, how you start, your past history, your background, your family, your politics, your race, religion, colour or anything else. No Saints fan should ever have to justify their support of the club to another - we have enough problems with that with ill-educated opposition fans & neutrals pigeonholing us to suit their own twisted ideologies and/or ignorance. With that in mind the last thing we need is to be doing that of our own. End of.

Personally I'm not giving a toss about that. If REA & co had answers to the questions - great, lets hear them. As it was, they had retorts - fine. I simply felt the point re the constitution had to be asked given WB & AC were away on holibags and it may otherwise have gone unasked. If they hadn't been, someone would surely have asked why given the previous statement (and of the ones published, personally I thought that was the most important to raise)...? No hidden agenda - simply want the truth to out.

They weren't there as they were on holidays arranged before the meeting, so you can kindly take the 'couldnt be bothered to turn up' remark back, cheers.

It had been intended that last year's was going to be the last one we did before 10000 Hours took it on. We were subsequently approached about doing one this year, but due to a combination of time constraints and personal circumstances meaning that people couldn't commit to taking it on, unfortunately we simply weren't in any position to do so. In any other year my guess is we would have done it but it simply wasn't possible this time sadly. I've heard varying accounts of how successful the 'Saint for a Day' event was. It seems that there may have been some of the usual organisational issues on the club side of things, but by and large it seems to have been a successful event with more put behind it, and I'm glad of that. Here's hoping the club learn any lessons needed for any future ones. As I've said elsewhere, a fans game is an easy hit to raise money for YD, and there's really no losers with it, only winners.

It's the apostrophe. It's been doing that for years.

I think you were there on the night, but I believe the question was asked at the last meeting (the one intended mainly as a sign-up session for new members) by our chairman Alastair Colquhoun and he had said that Chris Stewart replied saying they would 'look into it' as it may be something they need to think about. For what it's worth, personally speaking I'd think even in the event that the resolutions are passed in full (which I doubt btw) it's extremely unlikely to have an affect but you can never be too careful when talking about the future of the club. It wasn't really a factor in SMiSA stepping back though as this has come about some time after the vote was requested from the members.

At the risk of intruding on a private love-in between you & Sid and while I am happy to be corrected, I don't believe this is the case. A Newco as proposed by various schemes at Greyskull would seek to actually transfer the member share of the SPL that is held by the club's company, to another company (ie a Phoenix Rangers). It's that share transfer that would need to be voted on by the 6-man SPL board (or the member clubs if they successfully make the change there). That surely isn't what the CIC are seeking to do - the member share of the SPL would surely still continue to be held by St Mirren FC Ltd. Where I have been concerned wrt SMFC is resolution 3 (paricularly combined with the new penalty outlined in resolution 1) and it was myself that drew the other SMiSA guys attention to it having seen the explanation of the to be voted on FFP sanctions here. As it happens I had simply been looking to understand what the rule changes would mean in general terms wrt the situation at Greyskull but reading that, have to say I instantly thought of the CIC. While I don't know if it would apply in strict legal parlance (something which the CIC must clear up one way or other) and as stated in the link it could be challenged, the draft constitution makes clear that the CIC would be bound by the Companies Act 2006, and without expert analysis I would have to imagine one company owning a controlling stake in another of 52%, being able to make decisions on/for company, would surely be such an undertaking as outlined to which the resolutions would apply if voted through?