bazil85

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The point I made was people saying we should of followed everything by the book and not used any type of exception process is pernickety given we can all pretty much agree the outcome would be completely unchanged yes. Maybe sour grapes would be a better expression? Believe it or not a process that hasn’t been followed to the letter isn’t automatically a breach.

Good for you.

That wasn’t your question, oh my days! Hahaha fortunately 88% of voting members had a different opinion from you and we have a very well sounded out proposal that’ll benefit SMFC, the community and the fans when they take over the club

You all love to talk about a breach don’t you? Haha. I’m starting to wonder if everyone knows what a ‘breach’ actually is and how serious an accusation it is...

You asked a question, I answered it, you then said I was sending conflicting messages on the forum because of it... i’ll take your word you weren’t trying to catch me out though because let’s be honest it was a very random question with no basis in the debate.

I do know different and as would anyone that knows how the process works, you don’t need to be on a committee to be familiar with an FCA process believe it or not. The FCA WILL require this transfer of funds request to be submitted in writing from SMISA. It will then be reviewed and agreed based on the use. If they deem it is breaking legislation regarding the associated Act they’ll say no. Won’t likely encounter a fine at that point unless the purchase has been processed before they review. Regardless, whistleblowing is not needed to uncover illegal activity. In fact it’s in the extreme minority that illegal activity is uncovered this way.

If you asked me a week ago then of course. With the minimal alcohol pricing legislation though the white lightning probably isn’t a prudent spend option... Let’s put it to the vote

I think it’s fair to say, you tried to catch me out by quoting something (not related in the slightest to the £50k) you assumed I’d say yes to. I didn’t, it backfired, let’s just move passed it. Welcome any questions from you that actually relate to the subject though of course.

How is it moot when you used that actual word? The funds are NOT being used at the boards discretion, and they shouldn’t be. Hence my NO answer.

Time will tell, all signs right now suggest that though.

So do you agree the funds aren’t being spent at boards discretion? I’m of the opinion that your second point should be the decision of paying members... like it was. Democracy > individuals principles.

No the question was 'to be used at the board discretion' is the £50k being used at the board discretion or is it being used for a stated and voted on asset that's well costed and presented? Good effort trying to trip me up though, better luck next time. If you had asked, 'should the ring fence be used for a very well costed and stated purchase, subject to a SMISA democratic vote' (what's actually happened) guess what my Yes/ No would have been? Does that still 'confuse' you?

Can you give me an actual example when I've done that? I'm guessing no because you've clearly not understood your own question. You asked a very narrow question on funds being diverted and used at the boards discretion. That's not what's happened with the £50k vote and it shouldn't happen at all.

By party line, do you mean appropriate, factual and sensible responses to people saying the club has broken the law or moaning that they’re in a minority? Haha

Confused you may be... Conflicting, would welcome your explanation to what you find 'conflicting' about it.

It's genuinely staggering you can't understand what I mean here. Not thinking something will happen but given an opinion on what it hypothetically would look like if it did To quote yourself wow just wow

Classic Pozbaird, after talking nonsense and being caught out, avoid responding with actual words