Jump to content

bazil85

Saints
  • Posts

    10,388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by bazil85

  1. Still going with the committee punch line eh? Even though it shows you haven’t done as much research as you claim if you really believe all I’ve said has to be insider knowledge. Interesting. As I said before, although we obviously can’t know for sure, the evidence massively backs up that you’re in a minority here. As usual.
  2. Oh sorry... the majority of us. Notice where this thread is like.
  3. Haha you’re very funny. Was Garzo the one still posting about the defunct FSA and saying that the ‘£50k was to be spent at the boards discretion’ if you look at the response on social media and general messages from most St Mirren fans, I think you’ll find my view is a lot more evidence backed than yours... not unlike 88% of voting members agreeing with the recent £50k spend... cough.
  4. Can you do us all a favour along with not renewing your season ticket? Can you not renew your broadband contract and give us all peace from your self righteous nonsense on here. Yet again a post where you assume your view masks the majority of St Mirren fans when evidence suggests it clearly doesn’t. Most fans realise this is a necessary evil to give us the best chance to survive in the top flight. I’d also wager that would be the outcome of any ‘SMISA consultation’ as well. By consultation, you’ve heard membership vote. Who’s to say the SMISA committee have not been consulted?
  5. Apart from the option to vote no to it... which never came close to winning. Club benefits always get more votes than anything else. Just the way the voting demographic is i’m afraid Stuart. You base your argument on one vote where using the money for the club wasn’t a top priority, yet ignore all subsequent votes that shows they have been.
  6. Will see how it pans out. I haven’t heard he isn’t leaving before 10 years but if so, so be it. That’s what I signed up for. Id even say it was a positive. After the money is saved up give fans the option to keep paying with all the money going to st Mirren/ community in some way following members votes. Let’s hope it works out for the best, all signs right now with member numbers seem positive. Happy to pick this up down the line.
  7. The spend on wages was still passed on a vote by a fair majority. Just because people vote one way at a point of time, does that mean they must be held to that? Why bother with general elections? People clearly never change their position. Oh stuart, you’re confusing your pessimism with my faith that the FCA will do their job.
  8. Every bank on the planet will have monthly breach reporting, an exceptions log and functions in place to manage risk and compliance. Yep some banks have rightfully got a bad name for themselves over the last 10/11 years through poor governance (different think from breach reporting) but there isn’t one that’s 100% complaint all the times. They’re businesses and it’s simply not financially viable. That full paragraph doesn’t just go for banks though, goes for all businesses.
  9. Yep happy with that. Maybe even six though given how far ahead of plan we curreny are.
  10. The matter of fact is what you think SMISA should do in creating these facilities differs from the majority. All votes have been passed with significant majorities. You then only see the negative because people don’t agree with you to the point where you feel ‘misled’ And are beyond stubborn to consider other people’s interpretation of community benefits. Very high level negativity about fan ownership because of your short-term mindset over a poxy £2 which is less than 15% of the what BTB funding is all about. You compound this negativity with claims of illegal aciticity, breaking promises, constitutional failings and a refusal to accept that any community benefit that remotely helps the club you claim to support is justified. When faced with evidence that contradicts you such as: No FCA action, testimony from people that actually work in this field as their profession, legislative information, exception guidelines and overwhelming evidence that the outcome would be the same regardless of changing the approach, you still refuse to see even a shred of positivity in BTB or St Mirren football club as a whole. Has it not crossed your mind it might be your negative attitude more than it’s everyone else is wrong? given that BTB is one in a long, long, long line of St Mirren associated activities you’ve been profoundly negative about and been debated against by literally 100s of people on here for the best part of two decades? You still insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong which is always your way stuart. Have you ever once put your hands up and admitted you were wrong about anything? In life! You might come back and say similar about me. Everything I’ve said is backed up by the majority of active voting members, the club, SMISA, my professional experience and most importantly the regulator.
  11. This is different to your previous posts that I quoted.
  12. Are you in the industry Stuart? I think it’s very curious you still question this having such little professional knowledge of the finance sector. Trust me, you won’t be able to stay clear of the organisations I’m involved in unless you start getting paid in cash and hiding it under the mattress. Exceptions and breaches are part of everyday finance. Comes back to your idealistic view that big organisations can be 100% compliant all of the time. I suggest you do a wee bit of reading on items like GDPR and PSD2 if you want good insight to have an actual beneficial debate about legislative and regulatory compliance You’re still not grasping exception processes at all are you? Again we’ll wait for the FCA to sign off the deal. Unless you’re in the school of thought that regulators don’t care about being able to issue fines? Another strange thing is you said you got legal advice on this, you believed that person because they seemed to mirror your views but don’t believe the FCA will uncover the same wrongdoing... Also it’s even more curious that the ‘professional’ that gave you legal advice has not reported the illegal activity to the regulator. That’s what we would call in the industry gross misconduct.
  13. 1. Not my 88% the information is in the email communication, to which I’m aware many of you aren’t in. 2. It’s an interesting point in itself, not being SMISA members, your viewpoints are welcome but ultimately I’m more concerned with how actual members that support long-term fan ownership feel (note the irony in your short-term comment given that not supporting BTB because you don’t like some of the decisions from people running it here and now (especially for the £2 pot which is a tiny aspect of the grand plan) is massively short-term given the plan is to secure SMFC future as a fan owned community club for GENERATIONS to come, not in this 10 year period) 3. Regardless of your thoughts on saving funds, carrying funds and anything else, the majority of paying members favour short-term club benefits. Even in that one vote where they changed the options for members they thought didn’t have the intelligence to understand a no vote meant the money would carry. That vote still favoured short-term spending (considerably), which tells me exactly what I was saying along. The kind of paying fan that doesn’t understand what yes and no means doesn’t exist. Now you might not agree with spending the money short-term but that’s matter of opinion many like myself look at it, that the money is a tiny fraction of our funds, that’s a wee bonus, so why not use it? Like I say, opinions 4. Personally i’ll Be happy to keep paying after the deal completes. I might change from £25 to £12 but I won’t miss it. I imagine many will feel the same but if they don’t, it won’t be a big deal. Fears about ‘what we do after’ IMO are misguided. ‘After’ we’ll have a fan owned club where the people running it do it, not for profit. How great is that? How many clubs in Scottish football don’t have a chairman and shareholders that ultimately want to earn income? We’ll be in a great position, we’ll budget as we always have done and as any club should do. Will we have one off big expenses out of the blue that take us by surprise? The question is, does any club on the planet never experience such things? We’ll be fine, I’m sure. Some people just need to see only the negative in the future. In fact I don’t think I’ve seen a positive comment about the future on here from a single one of the minority that don’t support the £50k, not one!
  14. We really are going round in circles here Stuart in regards to legality, exceptions and interpretations of the Act. As I’ve said several times, we’ll let the FCA decide if there is any wrong doing. I am very confident they’ll be fine with this. As for people that say ‘they won’t care’ it’s just not a real thing when it comes to a regulatory body. In regards to reading the Act and my awareness of the constitution, again giving my profession I feel my understanding is above most. I’m directly involved with a number of submissions to the FCA, exception processes and breach reporting. If I was providing assurance on The actions of SMISA I would have no real concerns of wrongdoing or worry of regulatory action.
  15. It definitely isn't a fact. That 88% of voting SMISA members voted yes to the proposal? Ah Now I understand why you think basic sense is ‘nonsense’
  16. 1. No it doesn’t, it’s a 10 year plan as you’ve stated so don’t see how you can possibly comment that new members won’t come in as they come of age. It’s extremely likely we will see new members over that time. 2. You’re kinda just proving my point that BTB won’t be slowed down by this proposal.if GLS isn’t going before 10 years fine, who cares? He will still get the same money and has done a pretty damn good job so far. 3&4. It’s not double the money we are giving the money to the club once and won’t get it back. The money will ultimately be given out the £2 fund. We pay it up front from the £10 pot then the £2 replenishes that pot which is going to the club anyway (not for this, for the separate purpose of actually buying the club). It’s not paying it twice, the money is part of BTB regardless and the £2 will be used for a big ticket item so many fans wanted. If people can’t work out that voting no means the money won’t be spent I’m surprised they had the ability to set-up the direct debit in the first place. Regardless votes before the last had changed to include carrying over funds on fan feedback. Also funding that helps st Mirren seems like it’ll always be the popular win given evidence from previous votes.
  17. Why do you continue with this disingenous shite? That’s actually a fact sunshine.
  18. Come on Stuart you can’t be serious. Where do you think the guidance and rules come from? It’s all legislative, there is legality behind what funds can and can’t be used for. Funds from the account have to be linked to a community benefit. Has that not been your argument throughout? that you don’t think the purpose has a community benefit? The USH was an interest free loan that was to be paid under the terms of a credit agreement (which it has been). It doesn’t fall into the community benefit terms because no funds are being used, only lending. This is all basic stuff that’s been covered so many times.
  19. What’s your point? It still quotes that the funds can be moved if there is a direct or indirect community benefit. You seem to be suggesting no community benefit can exist as long as the woman’s team don’t play on the park...
  20. Looks like that’s part of it. There’s more in regards to voluntary subscribing to changes in the legislation as well. As I’ve said, it’s a very complex and recently changed Act.
  21. Have a wee check when your page was last updated pal. FSA isn’t even a thing anymore. FCA and PRA (among others) has replaced them years ago.
  22. The section has been quoted on here several times, if you haven’t seen (not willing to scroll back) it others will confirm it’s been posted many times. To paraphrase ‘the funds can be taken if a direct OR indirect benefit to the community is deemed in the purchase.’ It doesn’t say ‘a community benefit direct or indirect is only when the ladies team use the facility’ strong st Mirren is indirect benefit, youth teams using the facility and St Mirren in the community likely using it in years to come is direct, simple fact, you can’t deny that. Even as hard as you may try. Rest of your post, again, Stuart seriously? Exception processes and Community/ St Mirren benefit not being mutually exclusive. We’ve been over that several times. It’s done.
  23. Oh right sorry... I wouldn’t say it was a lie though. Where those funds sit is still referred to as a ring fence. There’s simply been a vote to remove £50k of the money as a special resolution that’s been passed by the members, with a plan put in place to replenish from non-ringtenced funds Surely you’ve seen the section from the Act that’s been posted on here several times justifying removing the funds from the ring fence? Members agreeing to do that doesn’t change the name Stuart.
  24. Well that’s completely untrue, if they had that attitude my job would be a damn site easier (and completely pointless :P) Said it before a regulatory body that isn’t interested in an area where they can potentially issue a fine, isn’t a real thing.
  25. You say unjustifiable meaning? We can summarise and end it here if everyone would prefer? My summary is: 1. The vote was 88% yes 2. The act clearly states there is grounds to release the funds from the ring fence if there’s a direct/ indirect community benefit. This can undeniably be argued by SMISA AND SMFC 3. Any wrong-doing will be highlighted by the FCA as they’ll need to review the proposal 4. Regulators won’t shy away from issuing fines for rule breakers or not authorising transaction requests 5. Similar point to the 88% one but I’m sure shull was talking about you arguing your own wee battles against the masses. I have to stress, the vast majority of voting members have seen fit to agree with this proposal 6. Exception processes exist and there’s clear evidence on here that some members know more about them than others. 7. Same can be said for the concept of ‘poor governance’ Seems pretty justifiable to me I’d say.
×
×
  • Create New...