Tennant's Lager

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's a big generalisation you make. I'm in SMISA and have signed up to the CIC. I can afford £10 a month and the relatively small gamble. However, I agree with the SMISA committee that given the lump of cash they have that every care must be taken before committing. I am pretty sure there are other SMISA supporters in the same boat. No point in stirring up divisions where there aren't necessarily any.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's were I am now. Que sera, sera...whatever will be will be...we're St Mirren from Paisiley...Que sers, sera.
Whatever happens, the season ticket has been bought and we'll be hoping Danny can build on last season...or at least equal the efforts of last season. If it's another relegation battle we'll support the club through that. If the CIC dies, we'll deal with that....if the CIC survives and trun out to be a disaster, we'll deal with that.....if the CIC turns out to be all it could be...we'll ALL be delighted with that.
Cannae wait to see the back of all this as well.

Just all seems to be turning in to a game of who has the best reason to big up or belittle the CIC.
I back the CIC for reasons that are my own. I did the research, I went to the talks and I don't really give a f**k what others are going on about.
I'll be glad to see the back of all this once and for all in the next couple of weeks.

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.

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.