civilsaint

2&3. We own the training facilities with no debt. Sounds like you're talking about the lease on the land, which is not uncommon. My understanding is it's on very favorable terms. Just splitting hairs, St Mirren own our training facilities. 
5. Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. 

1.  Okay so we are in a fantastic situation of having the very best facilities in the world for a club our size. What a positive aspect for our club, there is zero negativity that even the St Moan loyal can take from that surely? Fortunately we have no rent or borrowing costs against the training facility so it must go a long-way to covering the running costs and maintenance. 
2. Yes we do http://www.stmirren.info/id393.html 
3. See above link
5. It's not Us Vs Them, we're all in this together and all for what's best for SMFC. It's curious that people have got issue with our football club benefiting from funds that would otherwise sit gathering dust for close to a decade. 

Agree with Poz. If the (new?) aim of SMiSA is to pay players' wages then be up front about it instead of contribute to the pitch so we have more in the wage kitty. I thought the £10 was to buy the Club and the £2 was to pay for things the Club could not afford nor were interested in funding. Seems like I was wrong. It all goes into the coffers so no wee £2 spends for the next 18 months while SMiSA pays itself for its donation.
I like GS and think he is doing a great job and hope he is around for a long time. But my faith in SMiSA has been eroded.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, not a good response.
Yes a landslide but surely you can see the proposal is weighted in favour of a yes vote?
It's been stated here many will vote yes without even considering the bigger picture? 
Ignoring the issues discussed on this thread is, IMO, a dangerous approach. 
I sincerely hope there is no damage done to the BTB eventual outcome.
I see trouble ahead. 

I need to declare I didn’t join buy the buds before I make any post, but there is something that is really confusing me just now. 
The statements that if this proposal isn’t funded by the £10 ring fenced money initially then the club budget for the year will be hit for £50k. If the proposal was for the £2 discretionary income to be used for several quarter then that would get over the ring fenced argument. 
The club are about to get a wad of ST money in to do it through the year, the players and staff will be payed weekly or monthly and bills will come in throughout the year so why is there a need to get the 50k in a lump sum?
Why isn’t the proposal for the next 4 and a bit quarterly funds to directly fund the pitch? If the club do really need this 50k lump sum now then I do really question the stewardship of the board. In addition if there is the need for this money should SMISA not be looking to further its community aims and squeeze a bit more of the community benefit out of the club. 
Please remember SMISA and the club are still two separate entities at the moment and it is incumbent on the office holders, including those that are also on the board to act within the rules, regulations, constitution etc of SMISA .
I reserved judgement on joining buy the buds waiting to see if it was going to become the bowling club committee that I feared, unfortunately I’m not seeing anything to allay my fears. 

If anyone does cancel because they don’t agree that their money should be used for anything other than what it was ring-fenced for, then that is entirely their perogative, and is far from ‘throwing toys’.... your post above clearly is a ‘funny’ attempt to once more display the contempt with which you regard anyone who cancels. As I said in a previous post, your initial attitude towards anyone who did cancel was ‘hell mend them’ etc. Then, you said that was a misunderstanding, now you are back to insinuating people would cancel if they didn’t like the colour of GLS’ socks. The ring-fenced issue is a tad more serious. In so many posts, in what has been a decent debate, your true colours keep surfacing, and anything you say gets pretty much discredited at every turn. 

The vote is skewed. Loaded. The fact they attached the astroturf to the vote was no accident. It is designed, in my opinion, to make a yes result more likely, and is a device to make a no vote seem like you are voting against something good happening that would benefit Jack Ross, and therefore, our team. 

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. 
 

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

SMISA apparently. 

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. 

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. 

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.