civilsaint
-
Posts
471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by civilsaint
-
-
You might think it is a place for celebration...
Sadly, just as much chance of getting something stolen as getting lucky. Staff as useful as a chocolate teapot. Thanks for nothing.
They'll happily take the money with no responsibility.
-
Hopefully Viennas is next to get flattened.
-
21 hours ago, HSS said:
An ex Genova chef is opening a restaurant at the old TSB in Neilston Rd,next door to the Balny.
Ahh. That's what I heard (but didn't realise it was an ex). Good for Neilston Rd.
-
heard a rumour there might be another one opening elsewhere - anyone heard the same?
-
9 hours ago, lovestlegend said:
Looks like a landslide to me:
1. Proposal to make £50,000 available to part-fund the replacement of the Ralston astroturf:
YES - 579 votes (88%) / NO - 81 votes (12%)
A lot of bitter people on here belly aching and nobody’s listening.Pretty much the result I expected. IMO it excellently demonstrates the issue with fan ownership. That is precisely why I think it was irresponsible to put that kind of vote to the members. Professor John Curtice (a.k.a. Mr Pollster) would have a field day pulling apart this approach to polling.
But SMISA are free to do as they see fit. Good luck and genuinely hope the make a success of it.
-
2 hours ago, bonzoboys said:
It has all become terribly confusing on here for the ordinary fan who bought in to the idea of buying the club. Quite frankly, I and I suspect many other fans are sick of seeing personal vendettas from either inside or outside of SMISA. Some of it may be factual and very valid points but it is so difficult for the ordinary fan member to separate fact from fake news. The forum is an “open debating shop” but for many fans it is also a way of keeping up with what is going on within the wider St Mirren world.
In the past, I bought a small amount of shares to do my thing in supporting the club. The £12 spend seemed a natural thing to do. If honest, I didn’t really look at the constitution when I signed up this time. I suspect most of us just want to see a future for the Club. Happy to assume our money is gathering in a big bucket to be handed over to Gordon and at that point we will have a real discussion about how the members run the club. Unfortunately it is that naivity that many of the hard liners either within SMISA or on the fringe are depending on to let them have their way.
The role of SMISA in this whole affair has always confused me. Paying my £12, am I a member of SMISA or simply an outsider funding them? How are we going to get a responsible board out of a group that struggles to get sufficient support to fill its committee? Not fully their fault, we are mostly apathetic when it comes to stepping forward to support such groups even if we like what they do for our club.
The £2 spend is a commendable idea, but even there, it is becoming more contentious as every quarter goes by. I sometimes read some of the ideas, question their relevance and wonder whose personal hobby horse it really is.
I am an early voter. I tend to read the papers as they come out and “trust’ what I read to base my decision on. Yes I am guilty of being an uninformed voter. Having seen this month’s ensuing debate that situation will certainly change going forward.
This recent spate of posting has just brought home to me how fragile this whole set up is. I know SMISA don’t post on forum, fair point, but perhaps a formal statement to clarify the legality of it all is needed. That wasn’t fully clarified in the original proposal. Part of me feels sorry for SMISA, they could in fact be doing a great job and this is simply somebody stirring things. I do however think that given the mud slinging regarding the legal situation of what is a substantial sum, they do need to respond.
There is a lot of reference to SMISA being a “community group” with obligations to the wider community around the club. That is all well and fine, but they are also custodians of my and many other people’s money in our attempt to take the club in to fan ownership. Perhaps they need to be careful in not mixing up these two objectives. The £2 spend they can play with to meet their community responsibilities but the £10 is to be managed to buy the club shares as soon as possible.
The 3 monthly spend has been contentious for a while now and if we are not careful it will only get worse.
I sadly am one of those remote fans who doesn’t stay in Paisley and can’t attend games or SMISA events, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care how my money is being managed toward a dream of fans owning the club.
Chapeau!
Never mind the inticrate details of some constitution, this post sums up in practical terms why it is essential that the scheme is managed in a way that makes it simple and clean.
The simpler it is the easier it is for fans to understand and the less likely for accusations to be levelled.
Once you start cutting and carving what is happening to the cash (even if it is completely legitimate) it opens the door for all sorts of accusations, suspicion or misunderstandings to manifest.
-
8 hours ago, bazil85 said:
We should have faith in our club and SMISA to be sensible with their requests in regards to what they are and the costing to repay. I don’t think votes like this would be very common but if they were I’d have faith in the paying members base to vote sensibly. For example in this instance, we have a very real benefit and a very sensible costed repayment.
Again you didn’t actually answer my questions and continue spouting whatabouttery.
Another question to add to the unanswered list: Do you consider putting out a proposal to spend the “ring fenced” cash (the cornerstone of the whole scheme) as being “sensible”?
So now that the rest of your arguments have failed to be persuasive you’re resorting to “faith”. Unlikely to be the most convincing position.
What’s your PIN number? You can trust me, I’m affiliated to SMISA! Nah, I didn’t think so.
-
27 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
I wouldn’t of cancelled my membership but I would have been severely pissed off if SMISA, said no to the request from our club without consulting fans. If fans are crying and cancelling their membership because of a democratic vote, do you not think it’s likely we’d have cancellations if SMISA had chosen NOT to have a vote and made the decision for paying members?
So every time the club ask for money, it should go to a fans vote? What about my request for £15k for a new Fiesta?
What if the club ask for £100k for a new board room table (complete with beer taps), should that go to a fans vote as well?
You continue to simply ignore the points raised and instead just keep spouting the phase "democratic vote" no matter the context of the question. That veneer rubbed off long ago.
-
12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Okay very last thing I’ll say... Maybe. If there’s a majority in favour of this, will the toys out the pram merchants accept they’re in a minority? Or will the majority still be expected to bow down and not go for something they see as a positive for the club?
Two way street pal. What if people start cancelling because it’s a no?
Wish people would just accept that members are getting the choice to keep things the same or change them. Simple as that.
I firmly believe the vast majority will though. This was always sold as a long term plan.
The “majority” issue is a complete irrelevance to the whole thing. This is not a political referendum that people must abide by. If people don’t like the outcome they don’t need to pay their cash.
It is therefore incumbent on the SMISA board that they present proposals that are palatable (I.e.not necessarily what they want, but at least understandable) to as many members as possible. Controversial proposals (and particularly those that are not nesessary) will always result in ill-will.
If SMISA loose members it is SMISA’s issue, no one else’s.
-
10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
St Mirren have proposed dipping into the funds, SMISA have said 'wait and we'll ask members if they think it's a good idea.' You cancel your membership.
I can only assume that when St Mirren asked SMISA, you would of expected SMISA to say 'No we aren't even going to ask our members this one. Funds are ring-fenced and even though regulation exists to take the funds we aren't going to give the members the right to exercise this'
Makes a massive assumption that paying members don't want this. I'd ask, why should SMISA have rejected this to suit you when there will be fans like me that think it's a good idea and want it to be yes?
Said it before but it's almost as if a vote would be a good idea under the circumstances...
If I wrote to SMISA asking for £15k for a new Fiesta ( it would benefit the community as I have lots of friends), would you expect the SMISA board to put that to a members vote?
After all, the members might want me to get a new car.
I’ll give you some credit and assume your answer is “NO”. That is because we all expect those in charge to exhibit a level of governance. It is of course subjective as to the level of governance required.
That is the point you keep missing. Simply saying “it is a democratic vote” does not get round the public perception of the governance Expected.
-
4 minutes ago, linwood buddie said:
That's the type of loan we all would want.Where do we get them?
SMISA apparently.
-
3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Big ask, do you think the proposal is illegal? Because that’s not a concern, it’s just factually wrong.
Factually, in your opinion, of course.
I'm not sure that your opinion, or even the opinion of a legal advisor makes something 'factual'.
For what it's worth, I have no idea if the proposal is constitutional and quite frankly don't care. But I do no it doesn't look very palatable from the outside.
-
6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Ffs there is! I was using it as a comparison between borrow big money and the proposal. I thought that was clear.
My position is unchanged, there is money in the budget. That money would be better served on helping out case next season s gains Romany teams with much bigger budgets than us.
Your obsession with the budgets of other teams is misguided. SMFC projected income is "X", therefore SMFC should budget to having outgoings not exceeding "X". End of discussion. That's how business works and SMFC is a business.
P.S. Forgot to say, if you genuinely think that 50K is the cost to employ of a decent first team SPFL player, then you are majorly misguided.
-
5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
What way is this vote putting our club even remotely at risk? It’s certainly a lot safer and cheaper way to borrow than any loan on the planet.
Borrow? Who said anything about the club having to borrow money? I thought there was enough money available in the budget?
Your position seems to be rather confused to say the least.
-
12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
You can say about bad decisions and concerns but the idea is very well costed. It would take a massive drop in member numbers to impact the club and if that happened we’d have more to worry about than £50k... the members that dropped out would also only have themselves to blame.
With all due respect, that really is quite a pathetic and counter productive attitude.
I seriously hope your views do not reflect the views of those involved in the management of SMISA, the second that kind of attitude is adopted the game is up.
-
9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
I’m not saying peoples concerns aren’t valid I’m saying their comments about us not living within our means and over spending are simply incorrect. We’ll always be chasing other clubs spending ability regardless of what league we’re in and how well we perform. So you’re right, yes extra money will always help so why not give it when we can and it’s very low risk to pay it back? This isn’t any old business it’s our football club and i’ll Always be willing to support it any way I can including financially
NO,NO, NO. That is not what I'm saying. In fact it is the complete opposite. HELP!
Sorry to burst your bubble but it is just like any old business. If the business fails there is no football club. Business should be at the centre of every decision taken, the emotional side needs to be separated or things will go wrong - think Fergus McCann. He didn't make them successful by doing what the fans wanted.
-
2 hours ago, bazil85 said:
All expenses could have been and would have been covered by the club. Us covering expenses means those costs are recycled back into the club and ultimately to the player/ facilities/ staffing budget. We have not got the biggest budget in this league, Falkirk, United, ICT and Dunfermline can all outspend us on player wages. These wee bonuses have allowed us to strengthen a wee bit more than we would have and it seems to have paid off. Asking for these funds IS NOT BECAUSE WE’RE FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING
As for the statement from GLS with SMISA. It was because of a conflict of interest to the club not because money wasn’t going to St Mirren. Read the post again.
The club have also made a donation to the woman’s team.
I don’t know what people are finding so hard to get about this. Is it really difficult to understand, regardless of how much we bring in financially, you’ll get other clubs that have better spending power? If money wasn’t an issue Celtic would be worrying about 10 in a row next season.
That's the problem. Right there. Acknowledging and recognising the concerns being raised and robustly disagreeing is one thing. Failing to even recognise the perceived issue, despite being spelled out by numerous independent posters does nothing for your position. Is it blindness or is it an unwillingness to open your eyes?
As for the reasoning for requiring additional funding, that in itself is quite concerning. Businesses, clubs, individuals can ALWAYS 'justify' that extra bit of cash for a new computer, or new car, or new office. But that doesn't make it right. Businesses which fold often do so because they made bad decisions in the good times, giving them no room for error in the bad times (New Look is probably the most recent example but there are many, many more).
-
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
See (again) 8.1.1
That big green carpet represents a community benefit. A strong St Mirren is good for the community... Indirect benefit. Youths from community playing on pitch... Direct benefit
Or maybe you are right and everyone else is wrong
I was playing 5's down at Power League last week, some of the pitches are looking pretty terrible. Fancy using some of the cash in the bank to pay for new Power League pitches?
After all, a strong Power League is good for the community... Indirect benefit. Youths from community playing on pitch... Direct benefit.
-
It is a pathetic state of affairs. At the very least the club could at least acknowledge the clusterfcuk that it is and provide an update on what it is doing to fix the issue.
It is without doubt loosing the club fans and money.
-
But I'd take it a few steps further.
Why bother employers with the burden of holiday pay?
Why bother employers with the burden of maternity/paternity?
Why bother employers with the burden of decent working conditions?
If folk don't have the requisite skills for a high paying job, let them feed on the scraps...
-
6 hours ago, oaksoft said:
Nearly 5 million self employed people in the UK are capable of the simple act of looking after their own pensions.
Is there something wrong with employees that they can't adopt some personal responsibility and do the same thing?
In 2017 there is absolutely no reason to burden an employer with employee pensions.
I agree.
-
Just now, faraway saint said:
Eh?
So, you don't know yet it's not enough?
Precisely.
-
Whatever it is, it isn't good enough.
-
On 19/08/2017 at 2:29 AM, FS said:
And in other news, the old Cotton Club, aka the Ferguslie Mills Half Timers School ruin looks set to be demolished in October for a new build flats development.
http://www.rhcontracts.com/projects/maxwellton-paisley/
Viennas
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
Agreed.
Wouldn't want others to suffer the same fate.
Celebrate in style.