rea
-
Posts
771 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by rea
-
-
Just now, bazil85 said:
I would be open to it being discussed, it wouldn’t be a deal breaker if it wasn’t though. I also wouldn’t have it as a free for all because it would chew up the surface more. My priority is and always will be St Mirren. An additional community benefit is great as well and also ticks a box for releasing the funds.
Then i think you have misunderstood what "community benefit" means.
-
Just now, bazil85 said:
I'm not on the SMISA committee or a decision maker at St Mirren so I can't confirm anything like that (I'm sure deep down you wouldn't expect me to be able to). What I can say is the proposal clearly highlights there is a community benefit and youths use/ will continue to use the facility. For me that's enough, but additionally I've seen St Mirren in the community camps use Ralston so I imagine they'll also benefit from the new pitch.
I appreciate other people might want even more assurance than that from St Mirren FC and SMISA which if they do fine. Contact the club, contact SMISA, maybe they'll give you something in writing? Personally I think it's overkill and I'm happy to take their word because I trust them.
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?
-
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
Guessing you haven’t read the proposal. The pitch will do into our ownership of the club.
your point about what if XY&Z happens.
We’ll deal with it the same as almost any other club in the world deal with it. Or the same way we’d of dealt with it 10, 20, 50, pretty much any other time in our history. We’d pay out of our budget. This is a very rare situation we’re in right now, it doesn’t happen much in football so using it to our advantage isn’t naive and it’s certainly not alarm bells for ‘what about the future.’
What do you think happens when Falkirk, Morton, Dundee, Kilmarnock, ICT, etc have a cost? Do you think they all have multi-millionaire owners that pay out the goodness of their heart? No, they need to run at least at cost or they start to get in trouble. (Which all those clubs have been in the past) often due to short term greed of shareholders (we won’t have shareholders in it for profit, one of the benefits of fan ownership)
also the club was up for sale for about seven years. Another model doesn’t exist that doesn’t present us with significant risk of going like a Dundee, Livi or Clydebank with dodgy owners and decisions. This is the best hope we have of running the club like a business and our only low risk option when it comes to future costs. I’m sorry but it sounds like you’re the naive one. Unless of course you have another business model that’ll protect us from future big ticket costs that hasn’t been proposed?
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?
-
6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
The proposal highlights that young people from the local area use it plus other post and links have highlighted St Mirren in the community use Ralston so I don't see why they wouldn't use the pitch.
-
Just now, Lord Pityme said:
You miss out the fact the proposal is to transfer the assets to a plc, therfor breaking the asset lock, and that even today on the Smisa website there is a clear commitment outside the £2 pot all the rest of your subscription is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in smfc. And the fact Smisa have sold this as buying sponsorship in a plc.. its a big no, no...
you cant run a CBS and just decide to swap the rules to suit at any given time. They are in place to protect the MEMBERS assets. These assets do not belong to SMFC and that is a point that some people still haven't grasped.
none of this is my opinion, it is the rules each member, and the Smisa committee willingly signed up to.
they could stop this omnishambles today, cancel the vote, and set a new one asking if members agree, or not to setting aside £5k (if there is £8k total available from the next ten £2 votes to fund the astroturfing. That would be both legal and respectful of their members rights and wishes.
i have a question for you. Do you actually think this, as it stands will end well..? At a time when all we should be doing is revelling in our imminent glory, both club & smisa have conspired to breach the trust of smisa members. It just wasn't necessary, but follows a pattern of Scott getting what he wants, i.e, other peoples money!
Its not a PLC btw
-
16 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Okay that clears it up for us all. You just don't understand. See AGAIN the extract about moving restricted funds (£10 pot)
All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.
8.1 The society must not use or deal with its assets except-
8.1.1 where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for
the benefit of the community;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.
-
1 minute ago, pozbaird said:
No. Firstly Mrs Poz would be approached and asked if she would be happy for her monthly spend, which was ring-fenced to purchase a new TV, be used for anything else. There would be no assumption on my part that golf clubs, or an astroturf pitch for my back garden, could be a big ticket item that the TV fund money could be dipped into for.
I’m now finding this hard work - getting a simple point across. The argument seems to be met with denial, or just being ignored.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Possibly the difference between us I'd say. You seem to come from the angle of making sure it's right with concern it's wrong (and illegal). I come from the angle, of course make sure it's right but with faith that they've got it right and completely legal.
Neither of us can fully know every single aspect because it wouldn't be prudent to have every St Mirren football fan involved in every step of what will be a complex transaction (Very few company's have full stakeholder transparency like this if any) but based on all the facts, information and the proposal we have there is nothing that suggests it's illegal. If you have any 'proof' or something highly suspect then feel free to present it. I'd go to the FCA for you because I guarantee they would be interested in it and it would jepordise my football club.
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 withI’m confused
surely when the club make a capital investment like the purchase of an all weather facility they factor in the depreciation cost and the cost to replace it ?
without knowing the details of how Ralston is funded or the associated cost for community groups - is there not a fund built into the finances of the organisation that already have covered this?
i can’t believe any business model would be short sighted to have not considered the long term implications of this
my gut feeling is although the replacement of a 4g pitch is important- it should not be at the cost to the fans ?
-
29 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:
I am the first to admit that i dont really understand fully the legal position on this ,nor indeed the moral or ethical side of what can and cant be done with the funds and this may well be a naive thing to say but isnt the whole point of buying the buds and our contributions to ensure our club thrives and prospers.
What would the posistion be when we do own the club outright ? Would we have to foot the bill for things like this in the future ? Ceratinly that is my understanding so i cant see it makes a whole lot of difference now. The surface needs replaced,surely the options are the club takes on debt which we will inherit or we let Ralston wither and see severly restricted training and youth facilites.
As i said, i dont understand it all and i say this not to cause argument but if we want to own a club , we better prepare for things like this as the stadium and ralston need repairs etc. Some people have called for a rainy day fund to prepare for bills like this and i agree, surely this is a bit of rain come early ?
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.
-
Just now, bazil85 said:
I would say if you have such concerns take them to the FCA, blow the whistle on your football club. You'll be told the same as the last person that did it. There is nothing illegal about what SMISA/ St Mirren are doing.
You'd be hard pushed to show a direct profit between SMISA members and a new training pitch. You'll find it a lot simpler prove a community benefit in a pitch that's used by many youth teams in the local community.
You can consider that me 'joining of dots' but if you still don't believe me, the FCA details are on their website to report illegal regulatory activity.
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
-
42 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
We are a community club (I'm not talking about our company status I'm talking about what St Mirren stand for) in that we serve the people of Paisley (our community) this proposal has a community benefit in it = Nothing illegal.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
It does adhere to the activities of a CBS. St Mirren are a community club and it benefits the communities of Paisley/ Renfrewhshire.
There's two different issues here. One 'is it legal?' other 'is it ethical?' the ethical one is up for debate and people have different opinions on this ask and canvasing members but the legal one is categorically without question.
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.
-
3 hours ago, bazil85 said:
Still not sure what you have against a democratic vote to ask members if they would be happy to change this. If the majority want it changed why shouldn't it happen?
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
-
Isn't it possible for St Mirren to have an adequate amount of players in the squad, and, at the same time, have signed a kit deal with a technical supplier who can successfully meet demand and have them manufactured to an acceptable standard?
I know, I know, it's crazy talk to expect this. Mental.
It is but contracts are only as good as those willing to enforce their terms -
Extra players like Gow, Carswell , Hutton , etc [emoji38]
The Children keep asking for their new St Mirren Strips before fecking Winter sets in.
Nope like Teale and Thompson -
The St Mirren Shop has no St Mirren Strips for sale.
Those that they did have, the badges fell off.
The children will be finishing their Summer Holidays shortly while wearing last season's Kit.
Who cares about 2 extra players who more than likely are shite.
FANS WANT THEIR REPLICA STRIPS
I suspect u care more than you say about extra players -
In the good old days the kit was always revealed at the club annual dinner then the kit would be available a week before the first game. Why can't we go back to doing something well. We only seem to be getting worse with the kits. The quality is always going to be poor as it's made to the cheapest cost because we do not sell enough to go for the quality kits. The value against profit argument profit is always going to win.
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 -
Aside from having kits out in April (I'd like the team to reveal and wear the following season's kit in the final home game of the preceeding season, followed by the public launch in early to mid May), then I cannot find anything to disagree with here.
Cannot do that if A. The sponsor is changing and B. You have to register your kits with spfl for the season -
There's only one religion..........St.Mirren.
That you def got from your folks! -
Atheists have just went, in the main, one god further than a theist.
Theists believe what they do, in the main, because their mummy and daddy told them so. You know, the same mummy and daddy that told them that Santa and the tooth fairy were real.
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? -
And your logical flaw here is equating the credibility of religion and science.
You cannot put religion in the same league as science.
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. -
Your logical flaw is that because science can't answer everything, it means your belief has validity.
It is a funny poster...not a complete world view [emoji12]
The 3 Monthly Spend
in SMiSA
Posted
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.