bazil85

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.

Firstly, what hole is this? Do you think I’ve quoted anything that would HAVE to be insider knowledge of SMISA or mean I MUST be associated with someone on SMISA? If so what? All this says to me is people haven’t been doing the research they claim because I assure you everything I’ve said (about SMISA) is common knowledge or at best a bit of investigation. As for ‘blowing the whistle’ I thought that’s what you had done, given you thought we had broken the law. It’s actually unlawful not to do so if you have actual evidence of wrongdoing. I suppose giving that you don’t have evidence you have that as a defence. I am also sure a complaint has come up from another username on this thread who’s contacted the regulator. Could be wrong on that, not willing to scroll back but does anyone else remember seeing someone else had went for an investigation? Finally back to one of my previous points. If I assume you know the confidentiality behind whistleblowing, in what way, shape or form would someone on the SMISA committee get to know someone had done that without a massive DPA breach? Or unless a fine and sanctions were issued. The only people that would be aware would be those involved with SMISA asked to provide evidence (maybe, evidence gathering is done with every safeguard not to tip-off so it’s possible they weren’t aware) i fear the only hole digging here is yourself sir.

Also, sorry should of said in the last post. If you understand how whistleblowing works, surely the SMISA board would be the one group of individuals that would not be aware of it unless a full investigation happened...

Still not on the trust or close to anyone that is. Haha come on Stuart, How many times? Surely you don’t think what I’ve posted must be insider information?

Posts on here. You said you contacted them because you felt mislead and were referred to supporters direct. If they had thought there was illegal doing and not just a dispute by law they would have to investigate. They didn’t because there wasn’t I’m also sure someone else posted they had as well.

Well yeah they can and can also clearly read you have no point. All is good.

Care to elaborate? People have gotten their name up at the stadium forever more for paying a few months after committing to 10 years and actively don’t support BTB. Hardly seems fair. Why should they get such a nice touch when someone that signed up now and paid the rest of it won’t? Your definition of Wow is staggering... Again, there might be a few that it’s financial but they’ll be very minimum.

Yeah of course I know some people’s reasons will be say financial. But they’ll be extreme minority, I know £12 a month is a lot to some people but not to most. Great if they’re doing that, I really think incentivising it would be a great approach. Maybe I should be on the committee... no doubt a few innings here wouldn’t believe me though haha

Two different points. 1. If you haven’t fulfilled the commitment because you don’t like people having a different opinion from them. removed 2. Shame that people can’t see the bigger picture of fan ownership over their gripes about the £2 spend (small part of BTB)

Such a shame people have that opinion for something that ultimately will be good for our club for generations to come, long after all the people they may disagree with associate with SMISA and BTB are gone.

First paragraph I already said, your money your choice. Second one is where it comes to matter of opinion on what SMISA are doing. If you think they're showing poor governance and breaching it's constitution that is 100% your opinion. The opinion on breaching will be shown to be be incorrect if the deal gets signed off (which it will/ has) and the fact no wrongdoing has been discovered despite at least two people following the whistle-blowing process. The poor governance is completely a matter of opinion. Again disappointed it made you cancel but the only reason you have for cancelling as far as I can see is the majority of paying members have a different view from you.

here half my posts are direct response to you and LPM going on about how our club and SMISA are breaking the law. Maybe we should just have our own forum? Also I thought the StuD nickname was for one topic and one topic alone?

Not correct sorry

What is a focus on club ownership? Open to interpretation - Your opinion What strengthens the local community? Open to interpretation - Your opinion Stronger supporter and community representation on the football club board - Open to interpretation - Your opinion Ring-fence situation - Democratic decision (landslide) by members For example my opinion is everything is very focused on fan ownership which will be achieved within the timescale (very likely earlier than people thought, how great is that?), everything happening right now is very short-term and relates to a very small portion of committed funds. I believe a strong St Mirren is good for the community, I believe that season tickets given to different charities supports the community (the fact that also benefits St Mirren isn't taboo) I believe that the proposal never at anytime said 100% of funds would go to the community and that could not be changed under any circumstances (even at the voting will of members) I believe disabled platforms and improved Panda club experiences, benefit the local community, again why should something that also benefits the football club we all support be negative? My understanding is everyone on the St Mirren board right now and SMISA council is a St Mirren fan, I also understand very few if any are in this to personally profit (doubt many could) they all IMO have what's best for the club at heart and I'm delighted about that. Also not having a chairman in it for profit is a big plus, could of seen a Livi, Dundee or Rangers situation in Paisley. I know you disagree with a number of those points but you can't dismiss them, they're all personal opinion that can be backed up with valid points, as can yours. The disappointing thing for me in regards to members that cancelled in similar situations to yourself is, the failure to grasp other people can have a different opinion and that opinion is not therefore automatically wrong. Cancelling memberships because of different interpretations of community benefit and fan ownership focus ring true for SMISA and other members is for me disappointing. Cancelling memberships because of a democratic backed change in the use of the funds is also disappointing. But hey your money, your choice like everyone else.

In your opinion

Completely agree, a good idea I was thinking of was offering to expand the boards outside the stadium. ‘Anyone signing up for BTB over the next three months that maintain their membership will be added to the boards at the end of BTB’ I’m sure some people must have seen how brilliant the boards look and want their name as part of our clubs history forever more... if only I was on the committee maybe I could recommend it... in saying all that, I think people that stopped paying within the first year should never of been put on the board. Plan was to pay until it’s done, if you can’t manage even 1/10 of that then why should you be on the boards when others joining after aren’t?

As I said above, you would have to of done very very little research not to know anything I’ve just posted (most of it was maths). None of that is insider knowledge hahaha

If you think that’s some kind of insider knowledge, it further highlights that you have done very little reading or investigation to come to some of your conclusions.

Going a bit round in circles here but it looks like we can finally rest on our views being personal preference instead of actual law breaking so certainly progress. In regards to the water tight agreement, that is a thing however like any company in the world if a buyer came in the owner/ members would decide if it was the right move. So there isn't really any such thing as a water tight agreement that an entity won't be sold (in this sense). I fail to see how there could be.

Heart Vs brain is always a debate isn't it? In the grand scheme I think it should not be forgotten that this was overwhelmingly approved by members and the result would very likely be the same if they waited any length of time. I'd ask yourself, did you want prior consultation just for the sake of having prior consultation? There's also a difference between 'poor governance' and 'exception governance' Many confuse the two.

Really good question. First off we don't have double, we have roughly 1,250 or 25% above the target of 1,000. Those figures are actually slightly better as the 1,000 was based on members paying the standard £12 a month. I believe roughly 12% of members pay the higher £25 but I could be wrong. The following figures are very rough but they highlight how healthy BTB really is right now ,(I think) because I have based them on a slightly worse case scenario with 1,250 members because we have a few more than that. Doing some maths the plan was based on £10 (£2 discretionary fund) for 1,000 members for 10 years = £1.2 Million (the plan also factored for a level of drop off under 1,000 and taxation/ fees) Doing some very rough maths based on 1,250 members 12% paying £25 with the same target of £1 Million, details below: If members stay consistent and we went over the full 10 years (which we wouldn't have to if it stayed consistent) the plan would be worth £1,734,000 Again if it stayed consistent at current members (again rough numbers) the plan would complete in 57% of the stated 10 year deadline date or very roughly after five years and seven months. All these figures don't take into account taxation (That bit gets somewhat confusing the way we're doing this) and fees so best guess I'd say we're currently on track to complete roughly after 6 and a half to seven years. In summary BTB is ahead of schedule and in a very healthy position, There is no reason we won't finish ahead of schedule (maybe not quite five years but certainly looking less than 10) one of the main reasons for my Yes vote as I associate the risk to absolutely minimal, even if we see a drop-off. More signed up members makes this even stronger. I sincerely wish people wouldn't let the £2 fund cloud their judgement of the big picture.

There's like 10 people commenting on this post and at least three of them agree with the way things have went. How you get complete unanimity from that is beyond me