ktf

The return of the magnificent seven.
Still seven of us fans and still seven fans who are extremely worried.
Our stranger is keeping low yet small bits of information find their way out. It seems he wants to buy over the big house on the cheap, a fact that has caught the attention of one of the news sheets in the locale. A national title. Questions are being asked. Searching questions. Our man is unavailable for comment, he seems to have flitted to spaghetti western land on a temporary basis. Fair enough that may well be coincidence, everyone is entitled to a holiday. You might claim that he is far from being a daily male for a week at least!
When some of the villagers read or hear of this they leap to all sorts of spin in the absent stranger’s defence. Some hit out at the news sheet, I don’t blame them actually, its not one of my favourites but their story is fact based. The local sheriff fears a smokescreen. Could it be that some of the rustlers fear being hit by a few slugs?
Some of the gringos are amazed that some of the villagers are willing to do this while the man is away. Surely he can speak for himself? Maybe his trusty side-kick would have wanted to comment in his absence. Maybe not. He is the silent man.
But let’s not let the facts get in the way. A spokesman for an interested group, the taxpayers alliance, quoted in the article, is on the receiving end from some posters for making statements that are quite clear. Only someone wishing to misinterpret them could fail to see his point, that Scottish taxpayers’ pesos could be used to fund a scheme, because that is exactly what we have here, a scheme, to buy up a controlling interest in one of Scotland’s oldest football clubs without having to put in even a red cent of your own money Senor Stranger.
Amazingly some of the villagers still discuss on the forums the prospects of cash being put into the team after the CIC takes control. From where? The CIC (in the teeth – or worse). Don’t think so. It will have massive debts to repay and only one sizeable source of income. Remember 52 percent controlling interest means a vote can divert Saints income in almost any direction. It could be packed onto mules and sent off to the lenders in jig time. Circle the wagons. The team could starve!
As for the doubters - well they like the 48 percent of shareholders don’t matter - as the stranger has already said to others and to one of the magnificent seven to his face!
The stranger introduces churches into the mix. A debate follows on the unofficial site. Very quickly that debate becomes a discussion on the merits or de-merits of religion/worship, call it what you will. St. Mirren has never been entangled in this kind of stuff. We are indeed a broad church in the true sense as one poster said. The point is that the debate only showed how fast and how deeply religion divides opinion, attracts ridicule AND DETRACTS FROM THE THREAT TO OUR CLUB.
Another consideration was discussed around the campfire though. A previous poster pointed out that the stranger is a director of the Scottish Bible Society. A connection that surely suggests an agenda or at the very least a willingness to use church contacts to further his ambitions. Many of these churches come from outwith the local community. For someone so connected to take advantage of a situation where as a prominent poster pointed out other directors have been ‘shafted’ and the almost half of shareholders deliberately left behind hardly speaks volumes for the stranger or his moral code. We wonder where that attitude could take our club.
Apparently he has spoken to some of the SMISA villagers recently too. These are decent guys. But some are talking. Some of his comments betray a bit more of his motives. Oh yes he wants the big house and the chair that goes with it. Word on the dusty street is that he is disappointed that the buds will stay in the SPL. His plans are more suited to a lower league club. Some now worry that a first division position may not be low enough. Less than 50 percent present were convinced of the situation to date.
Are we being alarmist? Hell yes, with good reason.
A note to pin to the tree in the village square: At no time has any person been named or individually referred to in these posts. None of us would ever decry anyone for helping the CLUB.

Genuine forum request: I think we should set up a sticky, separate topic for actual club buy-out news. News on there, discussion on here.
That way, I could ignore this stream of repetitive, cyclical bullshit from uninformed gobshites and just monitor a real thread for when updates happen.
Mods?

Somewhere back in the earlier pages of this thread, someone posted that it shouldn't matter who used the facilities - be it a church, the boys brigade, or the Paisley Muslim Carpet Bowls Club.
I think I've adopted the Paisley Muslim Carpet Bowls Club as a device to indicate that I also don't really give a monkeys who hires the facilities as long as they are kind to their grannies and don't support Morton.
I really don't think the Paisley Muslim Carpet Bowls Club actually exist.... although, stranger things have happened. We should encourage all carpet bowls clubs though - so we aren't accused of showing bias and have to jack it in.

I myself am an atheist of around 26 years, but I have to say I am somewhat alarmed about the rise of "fundamentalist atheism" as preached by dawkins and the like.
This thread, or some people "representing" the atheists on this thread, has become a bit silly.
Respect should be granted to any belief system. Similarly, atheism and agnosticism should be respected also.
Fundamentalism is stupid, no matter whether it be Muslim, Christian or atheist.
As billy bragg once said, "a poet with all the answers has never yet been built".

i'm a bit lost as to the problem with a church group using a suite at st mirren's ground. The OF problems are more to do with drunken ignorance rather than religious differences and don't really translate into normal practising religion.
Good on the club for finding alternative revenue streams.

1. Isn't a "count" - it's pedantry of the highest (read lowest) order.
2. Glad to see you have been nominated to speak for all atheists on this matter. When did this happen? Or were you naturally selected to be the representative? Of course, that can't be the case as it is the smartest that rise to the top, not the most smug/arrogant... If I have understood the theory correctly.
You should really read Dawkins et al for some concise and accurate information on Atheism instead of assuming what you believe to be true and spouting it on here as if it is fact.
Atheists do indeed adhere to an ideology, the ideology that there is no Christian God. If Christians believe that there is a God and that He is revealed trough the scriptures and through the person of Jesus Christ, then the Atheist ideology is opposed to this. It is impossible to not have an ideology. Ideology is defined as the study or concepts and ideas. In the context used in this thread it is about beliefs or lack of beliefs that form that way that a person lives. Even if someone doesn't know that they have an ideology, the way that they look at life, the things that they do, their aims and goals all for their ideology. A person can't have no ideology.
Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, doesn't "bind people in one mindless mass". That is Atheist scaremongering and shows a clear atheist ideology and agenda to indoctrinate people about the "evils" of religions. Maybe some do, but most churches I am aware of encourage their members to think, study, debate and come to their own conclusions on matters of faith, doctrine, ethics etc. Religion and Christianity will always have extremists, but don't be foolish enough to allow the few to influence your view of the many.
And on that, to suggest that religion "binds people into one mindless mass" is an attitude the type of which you claimed atheists don't have. This makes you a religious bigot.
So, let me get this straight. A person's lack of a belief in a Christian God means that they will dismiss the teaching of the Christian faith and therefore hate Christian teaching and what the Christian faith stands for. And this type of hatred, of a belief system is perfectly rational? So, extreme negative emotion because a person doesn't hold to the beliefs of another person is the product of careful thought? So, if I hated Darwinism and the exponents thereof, that would be borne out of rational thought? Or is it just your point of view, your own hatred, your own prejudices, your own bigotry and your own non-ideological ideologies that are a result of rational thought and everyone else's are a result of... Eh... Mashed potato? Pie in the sky? The TV? What? Your point of view is conceited and arrogant to the highest order and really quite offensive to read and process.
Just as not all Christians (Roman Catholic or Protestant) are bigots, neither are all Atheist. They are happy believing what they believe and, when given the chance, will respectfully put their point of view across. But others, like You Bluto, are bigoted. They (you) spout derisive, maligning, negative, scaremongering, ill-informed misinformation in a mocking and condescending tone and try to so in the name of rational or religious or atheistic superiority. It is sickening to read and smacks of hypocrisy. Thankfully most people, religious or atheist aren't like you and don't spout as repulsive and ignorant bile as you do.
Live and let live, buddy
Hope this helps.

And I object to them NOT being associated (whatever that means) with any religious organisation. My grounds for objections? Diversity, inclusivity and multi-culuralism.
I can object just as much as you can on just as valid grounds.
Oh, and on that, as I have some experience in this, it is very hard to justify (without being taken to court and ruled against), if you are advertising your premises for people to hire out, to discriminate again a particular group because of religion, sexual orientation, race, gender etc. So, unless you want the club taken to court and tarred with all sorts of brushes, they really have no choice but to allow it.
A reasoned debate? What, based on the inaccuracies of your interpretation of Christianity and Christian doctrine and on the blanket fallacy that all science agrees with all other science, is 100% provable and not based on assumption and "faith"? A reasoned debate in which you expound the virtues of modernist atheistic humanism but those who desire to express the hope they have found in their faith or the greater meaning and calling of their existence or the life that they didn't know they could have or the freedom or healing or purpose will be roundly mocked and called weak-minded and told that their points of view are meaningless because the are individual and post-modern and based on feeling as opposed to "reasoned argument". Which, by the way, is all that Atheism is, a feeling, opinion, though on how the universe might work. Darwinism, as you openly lauded in an earlier post has a very slim evidence base and is largely theory that, for lack of another more provable scientific answer has become the mantra for those who can't be arsed looking deeper into life or the origin of such. There is no reasoned debate in Darwinism, there is no reasoned debate in humanistic atheism. It is as much based on feeling assumption, hope and faith, as religion is. Excepting that, religion has centuries and millennia or research, debate, conversation, scholarly input, theism, writing speaking and thinking attached to it to give it weight an validity. Humanistic Atheism, has about 20 years of poorly researched and poorly regurgitated misinformation produced by poorly educated, prejudiced individuals with a desire to make the world a boring and poorer place. A reasoned debate would be one, but since you have no foundation from which to debate that isn't misinformation or mocking, I see that as being unlikely.
No insults, just the advice to go and research Orthodox Christian Doctrine on Creationism vs what you just reckon people in churches think about how the world was made. You may be shocked.

And I object to them NOT being associated (whatever that means) with any religious organisation. My grounds for objections? Diversity, inclusivity and multi-culuralism.
I can object just as much as you can on just as valid grounds.
Oh, and on that, as I have some experience in this, it is very hard to justify (without being taken to court and ruled against), if you are advertising your premises for people to hire out, to discriminate again a particular group because of religion, sexual orientation, race, gender etc. So, unless you want the club taken to court and tarred with all sorts of brushes, they really have no choice but to allow it.
A reasoned debate? What, based on the inaccuracies of your interpretation of Christianity and Christian doctrine and on the blanket fallacy that all science agrees with all other science, is 100% provable and not based on assumption and "faith"? A reasoned debate in which you expound the virtues of modernist atheistic humanism but those who desire to express the hope they have found in their faith or the greater meaning and calling of their existence or the life that they didn't know they could have or the freedom or healing or purpose will be roundly mocked and called weak-minded and told that their points of view are meaningless because the are individual and post-modern and based on feeling as opposed to "reasoned argument". Which, by the way, is all that Atheism is, a feeling, opinion, though on how the universe might work. Darwinism, as you openly lauded in an earlier post has a very slim evidence base and is largely theory that, for lack of another more provable scientific answer has become the mantra for those who can't be arsed looking deeper into life or the origin of such. There is no reasoned debate in Darwinism, there is no reasoned debate in humanistic atheism. It is as much based on feeling assumption, hope and faith, as religion is. Excepting that, religion has centuries and millennia or research, debate, conversation, scholarly input, theism, writing speaking and thinking attached to it to give it weight an validity. Humanistic Atheism, has about 20 years of poorly researched and poorly regurgitated misinformation produced by poorly educated, prejudiced individuals with a desire to make the world a boring and poorer place. A reasoned debate would be one, but since you have no foundation from which to debate that isn't misinformation or mocking, I see that as being unlikely.
No insults, just the advice to go and research Orthodox Christian Doctrine on Creationism vs what you just reckon people in churches think about how the world was made. You may be shocked.

There you are again with the insults.
Its a great freedom that we enjoy whereby anyone can decide to attend any place of worship. I do however object to my football club becoming associated with ANY religious organisation.
Throughout this thread I have seen the words "intolerant" and "bigot" thrown about without justification against anyone who does not agree that St Mirren should be associated with a religious organisation. Its a shame really as a reasoned debate may have held some interest.
For the record I do think that any organisation that teaches that the world in which we live is only 6000 yrs old is indeed dangerous!
What insult will that opinion provoke?

Proper apostrophe use, is a figment of yours. Therefore, a bit of education is completely relevant!

If they hired a room out to a group for that purpose, I may enquire about renting out a room for the purpose of bringing together those who don't care who hires the rooms at the stadium and get pissed off when people use thier lack of education and blatant religious prejudices to make a big song and dance about who uses the space at the stadium.
For the sake of the booking form, I may call it the "Amalgamted Collective of The Extreme Fundamentalist Church of Tamborines, Swords, Inclusivity, and Ancillary Muslim Ladies Carpet Bowls Society".
Anyone care to join?

Actually a brilliant post.
What's the issue that people have?
Please explain to me, using sensible words and properly constructed arguments, why this a big deal...

Do you also not like church-going people?

He is now.
I was dragged to see c*ltic twice when I was a nipper by an uncle. My dad took me to see the mighty Johnstone Burgh when I was wee. I wasn't a St Mirren fan until the first day of the 1976/77 season, when I was browsing in the old Listen record shop across from the museum, and two Saints fans were in. One of them turned to his mate and said "Look at the time, better get down to Love Street!" - I decided, on the spot, to go too, as I had nothing to do that day. I stood on the North Bank, liked it, came back the next time, and kept coming. It was a 1-1 draw with East Fife. Both goals were own goals.... it was pish.
We all had to start somewhere.

Ye did.
Whoosh?
Also... over a 100 replies to this non-subject.
Shows ye that, especially in the West of Scotland, Churches should not be associated in any way with fitba. No need for religion to try to infest every corner of life, surely?

You should be ashamed at yourself. Not only have you made yourself look like an idiot, but you have offended me and I'm sure you have offended more fellow buds with that comment.

It's completely negative and small-minded that people would think this is a bad or wrong move.
The whole idea behind the CiC model is that we increase the revenue of the club, one of the major strategies for this is to maximise the income from the stadium facilities. There really aren't any other businesses who would need conference facilities on a weekly basis, especially on a Sunday.
This equates to regular income, on a day and time when no-one else would use the place.
Try to put your religious prejudices aside and consider the good of the club and a local organisation. Also the opportunity to increase the fan base with members of the church and the kids that probably go. I can't see any negatives in this.
And I have no agenda, if it was the Renfrewshire gay and lesbian Subbuteo society or the Paisley muslim carpet bowls team, I couldn't care less. Regular income and potentially more fans... Everyone's a winner!

It's completely negative and small-minded that people would think this is a bad or wrong move.
The whole idea behind the CiC model is that we increase the revenue of the club, one of the major strategies for this is to maximise the income from the stadium facilities. There really aren't any other businesses who would need conference facilities on a weekly basis, especially on a Sunday.
This equates to regular income, on a day and time when no-one else would use the place.
Try to put your religious prejudices aside and consider the good of the club and a local organisation. Also the opportunity to increase the fan base with members of the church and the kids that probably go. I can't see any negatives in this.
And I have no agenda, if it was the Renfrewshire gay and lesbian Subbuteo society or the Paisley muslim carpet bowls team, I couldn't care less. Regular income and potentially more fans... Everyone's a winner!

It seems some people see St Mirren as some sort of elitist organisation and have no desire to see the fan base rise. It's pretty sad the there is such a high level of intolerance within our support. Hardly a good foundation for a community club

A church?
A church at a football ground?
A church at St Mirren park?
FFS this CIC must be desperate for money.
We could have church on a sunday, scouts on a monday, BB's on a tues, devil worshipping on a wednesday, bingo on a thursday and hairdressing/basket weaving on a friday with Saturday usually booked for football!
Anyway I hope this "church" will become fully paid up members on the CIC at the £10,000 per annum.