Tam M

Whilst I don't agree with putting the money towards the playing budget I am happy to accept what the majority vote for. However, my concern is that the members are not getting all the options available put to them. For example getting the shelters for the remaining disabled people for the corners, especially at this time of the year would be a priority for me.
I'm pretty sure on the USH thread it was mentioned several times that all the options would be put forward and then they could be voted on. That's all I want and thought I was getting... But instead I'm left disappointed that we either have a Yes or No poll for what the committee deem as being priority.

According to a St Mirren director who engaged on a Tweet of mine last night stating the club need to live within its means, if we lived within our means Alex Rae would still be the manager.... Bit concerning he's implying we're not living within our means - who is picking up the loss then?

My view would be that reducing expenditure elsewhere to pay off a contract is living within means, but SMISA topping up a wage budget isn't...

With regards to the loan, again, don't have an issue with loaning the club money and don't necessarily feel a need to vote on this as the money would be returned. But to state that they wanted to consult the membership but couldn't because of time restrictions is lame. It takes five minutes to send out an email to the members.

Whilst I don't agree with putting the money towards the playing budget I am happy to accept what the majority vote for. However, my concern is that the members are not getting all the options available put to them. For example getting the shelters for the remaining disabled people for the corners, especially at this time of the year would be a priority for me.
I'm pretty sure on the USH thread it was mentioned several times that all the options would be put forward and then they could be voted on. That's all I want and thought I was getting... But instead I'm left disappointed that we either have a Yes or No poll for what the committee deem as being priority.

According to a St Mirren director who engaged on a Tweet of mine last night stating the club need to live within its means, if we lived within our means Alex Rae would still be the manager.... Bit concerning he's implying we're not living within our means - who is picking up the loss then?

My view would be that reducing expenditure elsewhere to pay off a contract is living within means, but SMISA topping up a wage budget isn't...

With regards to the loan, again, don't have an issue with loaning the club money and don't necessarily feel a need to vote on this as the money would be returned. But to state that they wanted to consult the membership but couldn't because of time restrictions is lame. It takes five minutes to send out an email to the members.

Total over-reaction by people as usual, the whole point in democracy is that everyones opinion and vote counts. So if you don't think the money should be spent on players.. vote no.
Although I do agree that more alternative options should have been given rather than a simple yes/no.

So what happens to this months pot if the members vote against giving the money to the playing side?There's not another option as what to do with the cash.

Just received the latest SMISA mailing regarding the next £2 pot to be spent.

"There are other types of project we want to and will put before you in future – but we feel if there was ever a time to prioritise investment in the playing budget, it is now."

If the majority of members want to vote for that then fine. But it shouldn't be an option between investing in the playing squad or keeping the money. It seems that the SMISA committee are making a decision then giving us a yes/no vote on it. Instead of letting us vote on all available options.

It's been mentioned on here several times that the various spending options would be put forward to be voted for. Why are SMISA preventing us on voting for some of these projects just now? The £8k pot could allow us to purchase the disabled shelters for the corners at the time of year the weather is at its worse, something I would rather we paid for now instead of the playing squad budget or keeping the money.

If the majority still voted for the playing squad then that's fine, that's where the money should be spent, but the alternative options should be available to be voted on. It seems like SMISA are deciding what options to give us, instead of giving us all the options.

We have also loaned the club 15k to fix the USH, I have no issue with this. But it should be a decision for the members to decide. I appreciate it was a matter of urgency but could the club not have waited 24 hours? In this day and age where Mailchimp takes 5 minutes to issue a quick mailing, and most people emails are linked to their phone, we could easily have carried out a flash vote.

This doesn't sit well with me. It's not the committees place to decide what takes priority it's for the members to decide.

You didn't and it doesn't.

For me, SMISA investment should be in things that guarantee a return on our investment.

Otherwise, we could have turns each month on Bet365 to see if we could help the club.

Absolutely delighted I cancelled my Direct Debit to SMISA.
Feel totally vindicated now.
Farcical and disgraceful that, what should be " rainy day money " is getting gambled on players.
It's bad enough over the years that generally our Admission Money is given willy nilly to undeserving overpaid shite players.
IF THE CLUB HAS NO MONEY PRESENTLY THEN NOT A FECKING PENNY SHOULD BE SPENT ON PLAYERS IN JANUARY.
This is fecking lunancy which we will regret.
NO GAMBLING PLEASE.

It's nothing to do with how our club is run. This is about a supporters organisation who as yet don't own/run the club. If people want to support the playing budget I have no objections to that as long as all options are on the table for everyone to vote on.

I said from day one that the additional monies shouldn't be used to prop up the playing budget. That my personal position (and only that).  There will always be periods when it  could be argued that a bail out is justified. Where would it end? However perilous our current situation, I don't think a precedent should be set.

As a point of principle, I can't vote in favour of this proposal.
I appreciate how critical things are just now, and I don't have an issue with trusting Jack Ross' judgement in terms of players, but this isn't for me. It isn't a sustainable arrangement, and we need to concentrate on what is sustainable.
I won't be cancelling my direct debit, though. That would be f**king silly!
 

Just received the latest SMISA mailing regarding the next £2 pot to be spent.
"There are other types of project we want to and will put before you in future – but we feel if there was ever a time to prioritise investment in the playing budget, it is now."
If the majority of members want to vote for that then fine. But it shouldn't be an option between investing in the playing squad or keeping the money. It seems that the SMISA committee are making a decision then giving us a yes/no vote on it. Instead of letting us vote on all available options.
It's been mentioned on here several times that the various spending options would be put forward to be voted for. Why are SMISA preventing us on voting for some of these projects just now? The £8k pot could allow us to purchase the disabled shelters for the corners at the time of year the weather is at its worse, something I would rather we paid for now instead of the playing squad budget or keeping the money.
If the majority still voted for the playing squad then that's fine, that's where the money should be spent, but the alternative options should be available to be voted on. It seems like SMISA are deciding what options to give us, instead of giving us all the options.
We have also loaned the club 15k to fix the USH, I have no issue with this. But it should be a decision for the members to decide. I appreciate it was a matter of urgency but could the club not have waited 24 hours? In this day and age where Mailchimp takes 5 minutes to issue a quick mailing, and most people emails are linked to their phone, we could easily have carried out a flash vote.
This doesn't sit well with me. It's not the committees place to decide what takes priority it's for the members to decide.

It's nothing to do with how our club is run. This is about a supporters organisation who as yet don't own/run the club. If people want to support the playing budget I have no objections to that as long as all options are on the table for everyone to decide.

It's nothing to do with how our club is run. This is about a supporters organisation who as yet don't own/run the club. If people want to support the playing budget I have no objections to that as long as all options are on the table for everyone to vote on.

Just received the latest SMISA mailing regarding the next £2 pot to be spent.

"There are other types of project we want to and will put before you in future – but we feel if there was ever a time to prioritise investment in the playing budget, it is now."

If the majority of members want to vote for that then fine. But it shouldn't be an option between investing in the playing squad or keeping the money. It seems that the SMISA committee are making a decision then giving us a yes/no vote on it. Instead of letting us vote on all available options.

It's been mentioned on here several times that the various spending options would be put forward to be voted for. Why are SMISA preventing us on voting for some of these projects just now? The £8k pot could allow us to purchase the disabled shelters for the corners at the time of year the weather is at its worse, something I would rather we paid for now instead of the playing squad budget or keeping the money.

If the majority still voted for the playing squad then that's fine, that's where the money should be spent, but the alternative options should be available to be voted on. It seems like SMISA are deciding what options to give us, instead of giving us all the options.

We have also loaned the club 15k to fix the USH, I have no issue with this. But it should be a decision for the members to decide. I appreciate it was a matter of urgency but could the club not have waited 24 hours? In this day and age where Mailchimp takes 5 minutes to issue a quick mailing, and most people emails are linked to their phone, we could easily have carried out a flash vote.

This doesn't sit well with me. It's not the committees place to decide what takes priority it's for the members to decide.

Just received the latest SMISA mailing regarding the next £2 pot to be spent.

"There are other types of project we want to and will put before you in future – but we feel if there was ever a time to prioritise investment in the playing budget, it is now."

If the majority of members want to vote for that then fine. But it shouldn't be an option between investing in the playing squad or keeping the money. It seems that the SMISA committee are making a decision then giving us a yes/no vote on it. Instead of letting us vote on all available options.

It's been mentioned on here several times that the various spending options would be put forward to be voted for. Why are SMISA preventing us on voting for some of these projects just now? The £8k pot could allow us to purchase the disabled shelters for the corners at the time of year the weather is at its worse, something I would rather we paid for now instead of the playing squad budget or keeping the money.

If the majority still voted for the playing squad then that's fine, that's where the money should be spent, but the alternative options should be available to be voted on. It seems like SMISA are deciding what options to give us, instead of giving us all the options.

We have also loaned the club 15k to fix the USH, I have no issue with this. But it should be a decision for the members to decide. I appreciate it was a matter of urgency but could the club not have waited 24 hours? In this day and age where Mailchimp takes 5 minutes to issue a quick mailing, and most people emails are linked to their phone, we could easily have carried out a flash vote.

This doesn't sit well with me. It's not the committees place to decide what takes priority it's for the members to decide.

Just received the latest SMISA mailing regarding the next £2 pot to be spent.

"There are other types of project we want to and will put before you in future – but we feel if there was ever a time to prioritise investment in the playing budget, it is now."

If the majority of members want to vote for that then fine. But it shouldn't be an option between investing in the playing squad or keeping the money. It seems that the SMISA committee are making a decision then giving us a yes/no vote on it. Instead of letting us vote on all available options.

It's been mentioned on here several times that the various spending options would be put forward to be voted for. Why are SMISA preventing us on voting for some of these projects just now? The £8k pot could allow us to purchase the disabled shelters for the corners at the time of year the weather is at its worse, something I would rather we paid for now instead of the playing squad budget or keeping the money.

If the majority still voted for the playing squad then that's fine, that's where the money should be spent, but the alternative options should be available to be voted on. It seems like SMISA are deciding what options to give us, instead of giving us all the options.

We have also loaned the club 15k to fix the USH, I have no issue with this. But it should be a decision for the members to decide. I appreciate it was a matter of urgency but could the club not have waited 24 hours? In this day and age where Mailchimp takes 5 minutes to issue a quick mailing, and most people emails are linked to their phone, we could easily have carried out a flash vote.

This doesn't sit well with me. It's not the committees place to decide what takes priority it's for the members to decide.

Just received the latest SMISA mailing regarding the next £2 pot to be spent.

"There are other types of project we want to and will put before you in future – but we feel if there was ever a time to prioritise investment in the playing budget, it is now."

If the majority of members want to vote for that then fine. But it shouldn't be an option between investing in the playing squad or keeping the money. It seems that the SMISA committee are making a decision then giving us a yes/no vote on it. Instead of letting us vote on all available options.

It's been mentioned on here several times that the various spending options would be put forward to be voted for. Why are SMISA preventing us on voting for some of these projects just now? The £8k pot could allow us to purchase the disabled shelters for the corners at the time of year the weather is at its worse, something I would rather we paid for now instead of the playing squad budget or keeping the money.

If the majority still voted for the playing squad then that's fine, that's where the money should be spent, but the alternative options should be available to be voted on. It seems like SMISA are deciding what options to give us, instead of giving us all the options.

We have also loaned the club 15k to fix the USH, I have no issue with this. But it should be a decision for the members to decide. I appreciate it was a matter of urgency but could the club not have waited 24 hours? In this day and age where Mailchimp takes 5 minutes to issue a quick mailing, and most people emails are linked to their phone, we could easily have carried out a flash vote.

This doesn't sit well with me. It's not the committees place to decide what takes priority it's for the members to decide.

Just received the latest SMISA mailing regarding the next £2 pot to be spent.

"There are other types of project we want to and will put before you in future – but we feel if there was ever a time to prioritise investment in the playing budget, it is now."

If the majority of members want to vote for that then fine. But it shouldn't be an option between investing in the playing squad or keeping the money. It seems that the SMISA committee are making a decision then giving us a yes/no vote on it. Instead of letting us vote on all available options.

It's been mentioned on here several times that the various spending options would be put forward to be voted for. Why are SMISA preventing us on voting for some of these projects just now? The £8k pot could allow us to purchase the disabled shelters for the corners at the time of year the weather is at its worse, something I would rather we paid for now instead of the playing squad budget or keeping the money.

If the majority still voted for the playing squad then that's fine, that's where the money should be spent, but the alternative options should be available to be voted on. It seems like SMISA are deciding what options to give us, instead of giving us all the options.

We have also loaned the club 15k to fix the USH, I have no issue with this. But it should be a decision for the members to decide. I appreciate it was a matter of urgency but could the club not have waited 24 hours? In this day and age where Mailchimp takes 5 minutes to issue a quick mailing, and most people emails are linked to their phone, we could easily have carried out a flash vote.

This doesn't sit well with me. It's not the committees place to decide what takes priority it's for the members to decide.

SMiSA have covered the cost of the repair to the Undersoil Heating without referring to the membership. The agreement with the board of directors is that it is in the form of an interest free loan. The committee it appears thought that "it was better to put this money to use for the benefit of the club when it would be sitting in the bank otherwise." Nice, huh. 
Then the vote this month for the £2 per month spend of cash is just spend it on the playing squad, with a subsequent question of whether the membership want to top up the £2 per month pot with money left over from last month. This is not taking the form of a loan. Nope. The members of SMiSA are expected to take a gamble with the accumulated cash pot, and presumably the next three monthly cash pot, on the judgement of Jack Ross, that the one single player that this might help purchase will save the club from relegation. Sadly there were no alternative options put forward by the committee - no mention yet again of investment in community projects to put the club at the heart of the community. 
I'm going to have to seriously consider whether SMiSA have misappropriated their intentions, and whether I am willing to continue to give over £25.00 per month to a group who clearly do not intend to fulfill their pledges in their pre buyout propaganda. 

Just received the latest SMISA mailing regarding the next £2 pot to be spent.
"There are other types of project we want to and will put before you in future – but we feel if there was ever a time to prioritise investment in the playing budget, it is now."
If the majority of members want to vote for that then fine. But it shouldn't be an option between investing in the playing squad or keeping the money. It seems that the SMISA committee are making a decision then giving us a yes/no vote on it. Instead of letting us vote on all available options.
It's been mentioned on here several times that the various spending options would be put forward to be voted for. Why are SMISA preventing us on voting for some of these projects just now? The £8k pot could allow us to purchase the disabled shelters for the corners at the time of year the weather is at its worse, something I would rather we paid for now instead of the playing squad budget or keeping the money.
If the majority still voted for the playing squad then that's fine, that's where the money should be spent, but the alternative options should be available to be voted on. It seems like SMISA are deciding what options to give us, instead of giving us all the options.
We have also loaned the club 15k to fix the USH, I have no issue with this. But it should be a decision for the members to decide. I appreciate it was a matter of urgency but could the club not have waited 24 hours? In this day and age where Mailchimp takes 5 minutes to issue a quick mailing, and most people emails are linked to their phone, we could easily have carried out a flash vote.
This doesn't sit well with me. It's not the committees place to decide what takes priority it's for the members to decide.

I've waited til today before commenting, didn't want to criticise the young lad too much for what he did. 
Far more experienced players than Jack have let their team down in a similar fashion (violent conduct) and went on to learn from it. 
He shouldn't have hit out but after hearing his claims of getting bit and seeing the images it does look like he's telling the truth here. 
He's young, he's inexperienced and will learn from this. 
It's easy for us or even some of his fellow pros to say he shouldn't have hit him after this but who knows how any of us would have reacted to a bite like that. 
He may not be the best centre half in the word but he's our centre half and like it or not we will probably need his services before the season's out. 
I'm sure he regrets his actions, time to get behind the lad. 

Why don't we all just get our wages paid into SMFC?

Reasonable statement, and I agree that we shouldn't be putting it on if it's going to cost us money which we don't have to burn.

I do have an issue with asking the £2 pot to be spent on it. Repairs should form part of the club's expenditures and like every other business out there we should be budgeting to ensure these costs are factored in. Whilst I appreciate it appears to be an issue that has cropped up post sale, it's up to the club to take the hit and adjust accordingly. I don't see any other business asking customers to pay to fix their shops etc?

I'm more than happy for the £2 pot to go to the club for this purpose provided it is a loan or for the purchase of shares.

However, I would like to see the £2 pot being spent on things that enhance the match day experience like the disabled platform. If something that improves the match day experience brings in more money for the club then that's a bonus. Alternatively, I'd be happy to see it spent within the local community. This time of the year I'd be happy to put the £7k to a local food bank.

If we end up propping up the club for things like this... I think I'll ask if I can just pay £10 towards the purchase of the club and nothing more.

It's not a case of not liking the way votes go. It's just not what I signed up for.

I don't think SMISA members should be paying for business expenses. If it's something that benefits the fans or community then fine. When I signed up, I didn't think the options for the spend would be paying bills for the club. Effectively that means we're paying to buy the club, whilst paying to maintain the assets which contribute to the overall value of the club until we raise the funds to purchase GS' stake.

Like I said I would offer to continue to pay my £10 towards the purchase of the club, but I won't be spending my money on what should be business expenses.

Reasonable statement, and I agree that we shouldn't be putting it on if it's going to cost us money which we don't have to burn.

I do have an issue with asking the £2 pot to be spent on it. Repairs should form part of the club's expenditures and like every other business out there we should be budgeting to ensure these costs are factored in. Whilst I appreciate it appears to be an issue that has cropped up post sale, it's up to the club to take the hit and adjust accordingly. I don't see any other business asking customers to pay to fix their shops etc?

I'm more than happy for the £2 pot to go to the club for this purpose provided it is a loan or for the purchase of shares.

However, I would like to see the £2 pot being spent on things that enhance the match day experience like the disabled platform. If something that improves the match day experience brings in more money for the club then that's a bonus. Alternatively, I'd be happy to see it spent within the local community. This time of the year I'd be happy to put the £7k to a local food bank.

If we end up propping up the club for things like this... I think I'll ask if I can just pay £10 towards the purchase of the club and nothing more.