Tam M

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.

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.

Would rather than SMISA money is spent on purchasing the two shelters for disabled supporters for the south east and south west corners.

Fair enough mate. Personally I think we should bank the discretionary spend for a while, save up a proper rainy day fund as it's clear the club ain't going to do that anytime soon!

Two ways to look at it Tam,first there's the opinion of yourself and mine that we shouldn't pay for the heating costs then there is the other way which could also make sense in that if we pay to get something fixed (other than the pitch heating) then when we do take ownership we benefit from having fixed it earlier and probably at lower cost at that time.Just depends what needs fixed i'd say.As far as the heating goes,i think the club should wait until it raises the cash itself to have it fixed.
But as ever it will be down to a members vote and i will accept the vote of the majority,i might not like it but will accept that is what most would want.

Like I said I would be happy for money to be loaned to the club, but for me after season tickets, merchandise, hospitality days out, paying towards buying the bloody club... This is just one step too far IMO.
From conversations I've had today with a few other members, I'm confident any request would be booted out in a vote anyway.

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.

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.

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.

I don't think the money should be used for a player, or to give the club a hand out to help fund the repair of the USH. I think that is exactly the wrong use of supporter association funds and it smells of towelgate but on a far larger scale. 
Here we are talking about a business with an annual turnover in excess of £2m. The board and the management of the club have had a recruitment strategy that has seen large sums of money frittered away buying out contracts to get rid of employees they no longer want. Right now some of the largest wage earners at the club are being deemed surplus to requirements. This business has also offered customers a god awful match day experience, and the board has chosen to charge some of the highest admission fees in the league to watch this low quality turgid shite. On top of that the Chairman promised free tickets for anyone who beat him in the Paisley 10k, and then failed to deliver and the CEO pledged a free event for season ticket holders decanted from the usual seats in the family stand for the Rangers match - a match which apparently boosted the state of the annual accounts of the same business to the point where a profit greater than the cost of repairs was reported.   
With this in mind you would think the board of directors would be far too embarrassed to turn cap in hand to the supporters association for a hand out. You'd think that someone with an astute business mind would realise that this would be one piss take too far. You'd hope that someone on that board would tell them that this could well be a PR disaster that would see SMiSA membership numbers fall off fairly significantly if a hand out was to be awarded. You'd hope that at least one of the people on the board - perhaps the SMiSA representative - would protect the members interests and suggest that if the board does want to go cap in hand looking for SMiSA funds for USH repairs that it must either be in return for an increased percentage shareholding in the club, or as an interest bearing soft loan to be repaid at the end of the season. 

Oh I think you are supposed to email him. Apparently he can't be expected to use social media or web forums. Maybe you should copy and paste it into an email and hand deliver a letter to the stadium just to make sure he sees it

I'm happy for the £10 a week to go towards buying shares, and for the £2 to go towards things that improve the fans experience or things that help bring the community and the club closer together.

However, I don't want to see the extra £2 a month being used as bail out money for repairs and the likes as the club should be self sufficient.

Surely we would have built a cash reserve up of at least a million with McAusland not on the wage bill anymore. Heard he was on a fair whack.

Surely we would have built a cash reserve up of at least a million with McAusland not on the wage bill anymore. Heard he was on a fair whack.

Surely we would have built a cash reserve up of at least a million with McAusland not on the wage bill anymore. Heard he was on a fair whack.

I know of David Nicol and Kenny Morrison, and have known of them for many years. I am also impressed with David Rilley's statement.

Whilst David deserves utmost credit for the work he has done for SMISA, the role HAS to be given to someone who will constantly challenge the BoD on decisions that affect the fans, and pressure them to make the right decisions for the fans and the community.

The fact that Tony has endorsed David, and Gordon Scott nominated him as well, does not sit well with me. It would appear that they favour him, and that concerns me. It gives me the impression that they have no worries about David's influence in the boardroom and aren't worried about being challenged.

We need someone who isn't afraid to talk out against the BoD, and will challenge decisions the fans disagree with. In my view, whilst David is clearly a knowledgeable and nice person, I don't see him standing up and telling Gordon and Tony to f'k off when they put forward decisions that won't be favourable by the fans.

True, but the role of the SMISA elected representative is to make sure the fans voices are heard.

I might be totally wrong about David's ability to do this, but that's what happens when the current BoD fail to remain impartial.

I know of David Nicol and Kenny Morrison, and have known of them for many years. I am also impressed with David Rilley's statement.

Whilst David deserves utmost credit for the work he has done for SMISA, the role HAS to be given to someone who will constantly challenge the BoD on decisions that affect the fans, and pressure them to make the right decisions for the fans and the community.

The fact that Tony has endorsed David, and Gordon Scott nominated him as well, does not sit well with me. It would appear that they favour him, and that concerns me. It gives me the impression that they have no worries about David's influence in the boardroom and aren't worried about being challenged.

We need someone who isn't afraid to talk out against the BoD, and will challenge decisions the fans disagree with. In my view, whilst David is clearly a knowledgeable and nice person, I don't see him standing up and telling Gordon and Tony to f'k off when they put forward decisions that won't be favourable by the fans.

I know of David Nicol and Kenny Morrison, and have known of them for many years. I am also impressed with David Rilley's statement.

Whilst David deserves utmost credit for the work he has done for SMISA, the role HAS to be given to someone who will constantly challenge the BoD on decisions that affect the fans, and pressure them to make the right decisions for the fans and the community.

The fact that Tony has endorsed David, and Gordon Scott nominated him as well, does not sit well with me. It would appear that they favour him, and that concerns me. It gives me the impression that they have no worries about David's influence in the boardroom and aren't worried about being challenged.

We need someone who isn't afraid to talk out against the BoD, and will challenge decisions the fans disagree with. In my view, whilst David is clearly a knowledgeable and nice person, I don't see him standing up and telling Gordon and Tony to f'k off when they put forward decisions that won't be favourable by the fans.

Kenny, if I may use his First Name as I don't know him, was never going to be your candidate, what you are attempting to do is convince as many others that he's not the right candidate for the role.
All three have been forthright and brave enough to stand and for that alone have my respect. I will read and listen to what each one has to say and base my decision on that and I hope that the majority take a similar view. I thought, when I saw this thread opening that it would be a good opportunity for people to ask questions and receive "honest" replies to their queries.........the last thing I was hoping for was to see a "potentially" positive thread being dragged into turgid, repetitive guff.
Occasionally you surprise me when you have something balanced and worthwhile to say ........... unfortunately I'm never surprised when you "spout" from on-high half truths, not even near truths and sometimes untruths to further whichever agenda you are peddling.
 

You've hit the nail on the head. By giving public backing to one candidate the board have made people sit up and and think is there an ulterior motive.

It stinks and as far as I am concerned the sooner a new face is on the board the better.

My fingers are trembling as I type this Stuart but I must agree with your opinion.
Furthermore the last thing we need is for our supporters' elected board member to be looked upon as the chairman's ally / patsy. IMO no members of our new board should have interfered in any way in this election regardless of their SMiSA membership.

Good question.

Maybe doesn't want to step on anyone's toes on the board.

Oh.....Isn't that the point of having a guy on the board from SMISA.