bazil85

I'd personally rather kick them out of Scottish football completely.

LPM once again inaccurately thinking he speaks for the majority of SMISA members when he is likely still in the extreme minority. I feel like correcting him and pointing out his ignorance is become even more regular and even easier. To break it down (again) - This isn’t a majority vote on a one off option, it’s on a fundamental change to the discretionary fund with a free standing option being proposed (that evidence suggests will fail anyway). Completely reasonable like any other fundamental change it would require a solid consensus to pass. - You have once again showed yourself as nothing more than a hypocrite. On one hand saying ‘it should only take a majority of voting members regardless of how low the turnout is’ and on the other having a go at a voting member majority on using £50k for the pitch and then saying it should need two thirds. (let us just ignore the fact the ring fence as confirmed will be completely unaffected given the repayment vehicle is clear, costed and way ahead of schedule) - I’ll reiterate, a majority of voting SMISA members wanted the funds to be used in this way, until such time as you can evidence a majority that agree with your view, your call to action will fall on deaf ears and you’ll have to continue to painfully watch a plan that obviously irritates you creep ever closer. I for one could not be more happy about this. Still think you can stop BTB from completing or it’s doomed to fail?

Sadly, evidence and recent history proves you correct. (But Baz will still try and Spin it)! There's no spin, in an ideal world we wouldn't have them in two stands and I would much rather we didn't. It's a necessary evil because of the financial benefit it brings. The reality as I have said though is this literally has close to no real impact on any St Mirren fans life.

As previous seasons has proven, we have ended up with these idiots in stands with St Mirren fans, IMO it’s lessor of two evils, keep them away from St Mirren fans. It also benefits the club financially yes, no downside.

And that will never happen unless the club puts its own fans first and encourages them to attend. We only started putting Celtic/ Rangers fans in the family stand this season so that’s incorrect. Why were the stands not full the last three seasons? The reality is a club at our level need to explore all avenues to increase our revenue and try to compete at the highest level. The money this decision has generated won’t be a small part in us being able to financially back the last two managers. Again like I say, it has next to zero impact on people’s lives, some people just like to moan.

Like I say, please show evidence that numbers of families buying season tickets are down. You will of course need to fully account for people that have chosen to buy tickets in the other two stands. Still waiting.

If St Mirren fans don’t want to give more seats to away fans then we need to increase crowd numbers. The day we fill the family stand with St Mirren fans is the day we stop giving it to rangers and celtic ones. It has minimum impact on people’s lives people like you just like to moan

I’ll just take this as further evidence to my point being right and you being wrong.

Do you think that is a fair representative of the schemes success?

Feel free to provide the plans you’d accept as revenue increasing streams then? Your conditions clearly show your bias to SMISA. Glad you now agree though that SMISA has spent money that potentially could increase SMFC revenue. Look forward to your guaranteed income increasing schemes and why you haven't used them to become a multi-millionaire yet...

Rotten, McLeish has to be removed from his position before Sunday to make a statement. He was the wrong choice and practically everyone thought so. If we keep going for cheap options, this will continue to happen.

Yes or no, if sponsorship/ entertainment for children generates more fans through the door that increases our income stream? Feel free to define what you mean by additional revenue scheme... Some would say 'a scheme that generates more revenue' but clearly you disagree on that very clear definition.

Which part exactly isn’t true? The evidence is all there for people to see. You went off your nut at the thought of SMISA going above and beyond to try and help the most vulnerable in our society proving your aim is nothing to do with the community, it’s to undermine SMISA at every possible point.

Ah so it’s not that you disagree, you simply misunderstand fully. I can’t make it much clearer so I’ll just type again in the hope it sinks in a second time (I have tried to highlight the important bit in bold). Do you know how much the average season ticket holding St Mirren fan pays to the club over a lifetime? 

Well said, I think it's clear LPM isn't overly concerned with the making money part though or indeed benefiting the community. His vendetta is against all things SMISA. I'm sure many remember his shameful behaviour before Christmas when he threw morality and ‘goodwill to all men’ under the bus regarding SMISA going above and beyond to help the most vulnerable in our society get a hot meal on Christmas day. His view on funding that project went full 180 as soon as SMISA campaigned to help anyway they could.