rea

Except that all of those things are already happening....so what is the "benefit" from the additional money. The Club have already said they will fund it if SMISA do not.

Then i think you have misunderstood what "community benefit" means.

So you would not expect say SMISA members to be able to use the Facility only those groups currently using it? Would you have no expectation of an expansion of the use of the facility to even those other groups EG the Womens team that are supported by SMISA?

So as you believe that the new 3G pitch will be funded (if the vote goes through) as a result of the "Community" clause in the SMISA articles. can you confirm that it will be possible for members of the community to use it then?

Its not a PLC btw

So are the Community going to be able to play on the 3G pitch?

the £10per month is from any plain reading of the Constitution and member offer a "restricted" fund. you cannot borrow from it or move it around. Whoever the Auditor is should be asked to give final opinion of this. if the Auditor agrees that the Fund is Restricted then case closed if not then Vote cam go right ahead.

Poz is of course right. A better process would be to vote on the change of use of the money and then on its use. This separates the issues as i am sure many will vote on the use without consideration of the more fundamental point first.

You clearly have not had any dealings with the FCA regarding Football Clubs. I dont think i have suggested anything is illegal, you should know if you are in Financial Services that that is not how this world works, it is not "black and white" (sorry) It is clear that there are some issues, even if these are only perceptions, otherwise there would not be pages already on this issue. If this costs SMISA just 1 member leaving or not signing up than that would be a real shame if it could be prevented by just going through the full transparent process.

historically no set aside was made for depreciation and agms would alwaus report roughly break even excluding depreciation. something i was not happy with

Either the Club by generating its own funds (how it is supposed to work) or Shareholders have to fund the company. When SMISA is the majority shareholder it will be them who are the first port of call if the Club needs more funds than are available through trading or borrowing by the Club directly. Thing is SMISA are not currently the majority shareholder, and the Club can afford to do the work itself.

The FCA will have zero interest in this, and i have no interest in reporting it. My interest is in making sure for future issues that the transaction (which will almost certainly be approved, i would think ) is water tight, these things can come back and bit you hard in future if not done correctly. As for the issue proof, take me for example. I am not a SMISA member anymore, I am however a Shareholder in St Mirren. SMISA spending money on something i own a share of notionally supports/boosts the value of my shares, great for me.....thanks SMISA members

Except that the funds are being used to support the asset/balance sheet of what is still a private company, with many thousands of shareholders who are also members Funds are not allowed to be used for the profit of members As you work in financial risk etc etc...i invite you to join the legal dots between the above and the below, and you will see the issue that needs clarified...let me make it clear i do not think there is some grand conspiracy but just concerned every i and t is dotted and crossed to ensure any transaction is done properly. 3. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PURPOSE The Society’s purpose is to be the vehicle through which a healthy, balanced and constructive relationship between the Club and its supporters and the communities it serves is encouraged and developed. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members.

St Mirren are a ltd Company. There is no such legal thing as a "Community Club" it is a turn of phrase. I suggest you read SMISA mems and arts and then go and have a wee think.

You are missing the issue that SMISA is not a normal company. It is a Community Benefit Society. The members cannot simply decide to spend money on whatever the majority vote for, it has to be "competent" within the rules of a CBS..... ....from what i can see (i have not seen a copy of the actual documentation), this idea certainly has issues

It is but contracts are only as good as those willing to enforce their terms

Nope like Teale and Thompson

I suspect u care more than you say about extra players

Think of it as value v how many new signings do you want. JD deal was worth at least 2 players more...good players btw. Assume Joma deal is even better

Cannot do that if A. The sponsor is changing and B. You have to register your kits with spfl for the season

That you def got from your folks!

If this is true of Theists why is it not also true of Athiests? Social and Family influence surely play as important an influence on both world views?

I could if i wanted to but that is not my intention. My intention is to show that trying to use Science to rule out any possible truth of religion is a bit daft when science can only identify 4.9% of what the Universe even consists of....just like using a religious text to demonstrate a scientific point is a bit daft. Science and Religion are not aimed at doing the same thing...they are in different sphere with currently very little over lap. Both can and have and in many places still do exist side by side. See in Christianity case the number of believers in the Scientific community. "New Atheism" has done very little for both sides and has in fact turned that sort of Athiesm into a religion or sorts...see definitions of Secular Humanism as a religion. Glad i bumped this...was all a bit quiet...brain needed some summer excercise.

It is a funny poster...not a complete world view [emoji12]