bazil85

My opinion on 'SMISA members approve ring fenced funds to be diverted and used at the boards discretion' Yes that's opinion. The questions relevance to what's being discussed? Hardly opinion...

You do realise there's a difference between thinking something will happen and having an opinion on what it'll look like if it happened? I don't think I'll win the lottery tonight but I certainly have a view on what I'd do if I did Your second part makes very little sense, I can only assume you're speaking and assuming my views on hypothetical circumstances. So no, it's not a fair comment and it's in no way shape or form the opinion I've given. Not sure how you've managed to spin my comment that 'I don't think there will be further requests' to it must be 'strictly one-off' another baffling attempt at putting words in my mouth by someone else on here...

That's your whole point? As far as irrelevant comments go, it's right up there haha

Are you saying whistelblowing isn't confidential sorry? No one needs to do that to confirm it's all legal and above board. This deal, FCA will need to review and agree. That's enough for me regarding the football team I support, possibly not enough for you? Strange to say the least... I also have to say, I don't really see SMISA board having a position in the democratic set-up we exist in.

The cold hard facts is things change, SMISA have democratically asked members if they would be happy to change for the proposal and given a very well costed repayment plan. If members want to spit the dummy because they don't like a democratic vote, fine. More power to them. As for targets on BTB, look back over the last few pages. Some good maths there that shows the deal is very much ahead of schedule. Some would say waaaayyyyy ahead of schedule.

We've been over exceptions long enough Stuart come on, seriously? Yes it's in my opinion and like I say if we don't get a fine/ deal knocked back, it'll look like that opinion comes down to fact.

No

You've said that several times, please god let it be true this time. Loss of support for the board? You mean the roughly five people on here that aren't even contributing? Again, I wonder what 'Loss of support' we would of seen if it leaked that SMISA had refused to tell members about the request... 88% in favour 12% against hmm surely a no brainer what would have 'lost' most support.

Your position is a matter of opinion as is mine. In regards to governance, there has been dozens of comments on here that this deal represents 'poor governance' It does not. I think a number have just heard the expression and would likely struggle to give a definition of governance but that's a different story haha I have pointed out several times that had everything been followed to the letter in regards to timescales the outcome would have been the same. With 88% Yes vote, few people could argue that. Because people seem like an absolute stickler for rules and have no time to listen to what an exception process is, they automatically say 'poor governance' It's not. You can't yell 'poor governance' because the process has been sped up yet not changed the outcome that's an unreal position to argue!

Yes I know the situation better than most (also not on their trust by the way ) I also know the situation at Hearts, Dunfermline, Motherwell, etc. It actually interests me greatly. So please again, how does their situation relate to St Mirren say more than Hearts (Who by the way BTB was modelled on, model is a wee bit different from Stirling Albion...)

In all honesty I don't think there will be another one more I think about it. If there is and it's similar to this one (well costed, community and club benfit) I really don't see the issue. BTB will conclude at same time and be uneffected, long-term plans will be unchanged.

Request - St Mirren football club would like to request that the SMISA paying fans of St Mirren football club be engaged in the ability to fund an important aspect of the training facility with £50k that would be funded through the £2 discretionary fund. We are aware these funds are not currently available. Would it be prudent to ask members if they would be willing to take the funds from the other account that's likely garnering under 1% credit interest to fund this on the pretence the £2 fund will replenish it. There is full legal and regulatory ability to do this as per the associated Act. SMISA 1 - We have historically seen the majority of our members are more than happy to help the football club we all support, we also acknowledge there is legal and regulatory ability to propose this funding and release those funds, we can also see the costing plan is minimal risk, well thought out and would represent both a community and club benefit for the football club we'll one day own... But no, because some fans will spit the dummy and go on about governance, legislation and whistelblowing when they have little knowledge of any of the above. SMISA 2 - We'll canvas members in the spirit of the organisation we are and let you know if it passes... Oh yeah passed by a landslide. Want to talk about governance further? I could talk about it all day

The reason I keep going on about it is because of continual childish, low ball comments like yours. 'Is it a distration' 'Has he something to hide' No matter how many underhanded comments you and others want to make my friend, the answer remains the same. The same way as I will defend the club against anyone saying SMFC and SMISA have broken the law I will defend myself against people hinting that I'm a liar with zero evidence, just their own lack of research and knowledge. SMISA learning from it is yet again your opinion they've done something wrong and yet again you're in the minority. Would you kindly like to enlighten us with the similarities between Stirling Albion and St Mirren and how that comment is in any way, shape or form relevant?

1. Neither it should, 88% members voted in favour, it should stand. 2. No, why would it? The costing to pay it back is already very clear and set out, it gives a number of paying members what they want (large ticket spend for the £2 fund) Also if we get money for John McGinn we still will have one of the lowest budgets in the league. Every penny we can spare/ make should be invested into keeping us in the league next season, that much is obvious to me.

As long as it's done correctly at the will of the members. I think we should show more faith in the people at SMISA and voting members having what's best for SMFC at heart. The £50k is very well costed to be repaid and I'm sure future asks will be as well.

Well ask someone on the committee. I thought it was strange you asked me direct and didn’t ask the collective...

Stifling members is your opinion. Way more members don’t think they are being and think the proposal is good for the club we all support, which is the ultimate aim.

A strong board wouldn’t of given their contributing members a vote? Very strange given there was an 88% agreement from voting members for this. Disappointing the vast majority doesn’t seem very ‘strong’ or sensible Do you know how a democratic organisation works?

What part of me not being on the SMISA committee do people struggle with? Still waiting for any of this insider knowledge I apparently have... How about the question. Would people cancel if St Mirren came with this proposal and SMISA flatly declined to even consider it without canvassing members? I wouldn't of cancelled my membership but if I found out the ask was rejected without being consulted I would of been very disappointed. Edit: Although in saying that, I believe at the last meeting someone had said there had been a few cancellations but more new interest with new potential member inquiries. I think that was shared on here as well... No doubt I'll be accused again of being on the committee though.

The compensation might not of been brilliant but for a player of his quality to command a 33% sell on clause (all be it of course it's risky) was a great item of business. If it was up to me and they said £125k + 33% or £300k and no sell on, I'd be taking the first every day for a player like McGinn. Those figures I'm not saying are spot on but wouldn't be a million miles away. Yep, clubs could of came in at any point however Hibs have rejected offers as have we and until now they've had the cushion of having a few transfer windows under their belt that he's under contract. Different situation this one, sell him or get zero/ risk him signing a pre-contract in January with someone. He's also improving all the time so will be high on teams radar, likely more so than ever before. I'll be surprised if he's a Hibs player come 31st August. In saying all that, I know £3 million has been quoted, more I think about it, less likely I think that'll be. Maybe closer to £2.5 million which still isn't to be sniffed at when you compare it to one more season and zero.

The one key difference between now and then is us letting his contract run down would still mean we'd get compensation because of his age, so we were in a better position to reject offers in his last year. Hibs don't have that luxury, it's accept the money or get £0. £2 million in the bank or one player for an extra season? Will be a no brainer for Hibs management, owners and fans I'd say.

That's strange, others seem to think my approach coincides with an in-depth knowledge that only a SMISA committee member could have

Again in your opinion and just because the opinion of the many contradicts yours, you've seen fit to abandon what will ultimately be good for SMFC long after the people you disagree with are gone. That's what's disappointing to me but that's only my view of people that have cancelled for similar reasons. As we have both said, your money, your choice.

You were one of the people I was referring to. I assumed you had followed the correct process for claims of illegal activity. Silly me. Regardless no wrong doing was established last time and if contacted this time, it’ll be (has been) the same outcome. It’s amazing that just having a profession that puts me in contact with the FCA can lead to allegations that I must be in SMISA I have to say.

If you’re beyond astonished you need to get out more. Haha again as I said before, don’t make the mistake that you’re in the majority view. 88% of votes cast agree with the proposal.