bazil85

True, a lot of this isn't a matter of right or wrong though, it's a matter of opinion.

These views are my own, I'm not on any SMISA committee and it's not being in an alternative universe. 88% of voting members voted in favor of the proposal, that's fact. If some people can't accept they're in the minority then not sure where they can go from there

I thought it was a real panda

FFS not acting in members interests with an 88% Yes vote

The fantasy shattered!

yet again some word twisting there Stuart. Of course I believe fan ownership is best for SMFC, do I think doing it as quickly as possible is the best approach? It's a very loaded question. I'd pick done right over quick everyday for example. Your point is redundant though again giving the facts. 1. This vote won't slow down fan ownership 2. It won't impact supporter representation on the board 3. The BTB shareholdings are already all set, again won't be impacted by the £2 spend

Comes back to one of my previous posts. The worry over the £2 spend is very much the tail wagging the dog. £3k, £8k both are a bonus to have, they aren't earth shattering funds. Also if you remember a lot of members have been crying out for 'a big ticket' spend. We now have that for the £2 pot, shows you can't do anything that'll please everyone. The £10/ £23 is so much more important and it's such a shame some people can't see by a very small aspect of BTB for the greater good.

1. New members will also join (come of age) as existing members die, others canceling and falling out, more fool them. members dropping out because they can't afford £12 will be an extreme minority 2. The £50k has no impact on when the club will be bought as there is no way it'll be bought in 30 months without an extra couple thousand members 3. There is no £50k extra in the pot, the £50k used would be sitting gathering dust until the buyout happens and will be repaid long before then. 4. Only time there would be £50k left in the pot when we takeover is if the £2 discretionary funds were always voted to be carried over, which from experience we can see is not popular opinion.

What don't you get about this being wrong SMISA aren't doing anything of the sort. It's members are voting to agree what they request. You might not agree with the vote but it is what it is. You can't seem to grasp the majority of members would be more annoyed if SMISA said no to GLS requests without consulting us.

yes it will be absolutely pennies. I'd maybe say taking over a club in a stronger position with good facilities makes up for that wee bit lost money. Who knows the £50k back in the budget could be the difference between taking over an SP club or a Championship one.

How is that in the best interest of its members? We don't have a financial gain in it, what's best for the members = what's best for SMFC.

1. It's just not true, don't know what I'd get out of lying if you can enlighten me? Plus there are people on here that know me personally that I'm sure would call me out. Would also be interesting to know what you think I'd need to be 'in the room for' to comment on? 2. Funding the park will not mean SMISA deal is concluded later, the funds will be replaced way before it could ever hope to. The rest of your post seems to more or less cover personal opinion on what you would like to see and what SMISA can do better. They've always said they're learning as they go along and for fans to be patient with them given they run on a volunteer basis and have never done something like this before, so who knows what'll happen. With the member numbers, sports scientists, Panda club we'll see. Good thing is as always, if the last two are coming out of the £2 fund, we'll vote and agree as members.

Appreciate you taking my word on it because I assure you it’s correct.

This is a discussion website. Did I miss the part where you could only post if your POV was in the extreme minority of paying members?

I don’t think my posts will be seen my the majority and I doubt any will be impacted. If they value scorning me over their football club they have to have a word with themselves. In regards to misguided, I’ve simply applied my professional knowledge and risk experience to this and decided it’s worthwhile. You can say misguided, I’d say difference in opinion. But hey who’s the patronising one after all...

A direct response from a guy that’s very clearly said because of me he won’t join SMISA... or maybe I’ve gotten his take on it wrong, for some reason I think he thinks I’m some kind of spokesperson for them.

Well as you’ve already said recently it’s ‘low risk’ vast majority of paying members look happy/ indifferent to take that risk. Possibly because of the risk/ reward relationship in this. Done now, FCA will sign it off soon enough and it’s over. Somethings just don’t go the way you might want. Suggestion to you both, why not sign up for BTB then you can have a vote on such issues?

Well I don't hold any such position and never will, i have no affiliation with SMISA outside paying my monthly fee. You aren't punishing me with such claims, only the football team you claim to support. Congratulations. Rest of your comment is rich from the guy that called me stupid three posts ago.

No they're not how many times? If the FCA say no the deal simply doesn't happen, they need to sign-off on it. If the members lose interest then more fool them and it'll cause it's own problems. The vast majority of members seem to be cool with it and as stated by SMISA no real drop-off. Ever thought that the majority of paying members might just be happy with this? Why has it to be emotional blackmail? Because you and six other people don't like it?

Well like I say Stuart, let's sit back and wait on what the FCA say about 'criminal prosecution' I do find it strange that you only believe information from people that back-up what you want to believe yourself (that this is illegal) I don't see any flouting. Again your post highlights dramatically, your limited knowledge of exceptions processes. I would say along with idealistic you are very pernickety if we are in agreement the vote result would not change regardless of how long they took to cast it. If you went for a mortgage with your bank, they cleared all your KYC, AML and Fraud checks to their satisfaction within say two days but their 'process' was not to release funds for a further seven days, would you be insistent they followed 'process' and would take your business elsewhere if they suggested an exception due to the low risk? Simplistic example of course, but it amounts to the same thing. We could get into the Principle Based approach Vs Rules Based approach in UK corporate governance but I fear my efforts would be futile here. As for blowing community benefit out the window, it's just not true. If you can point to the part of the Act that says 'you must let your woman's team use the pitch if you have one.' then yep blown. I can point to the part of the Act that highlights direct OR indirect community benefit. If you don't understand the concept of this that's fine but claiming not letting the women's team use it breaches the act is frankly a bit embarrassing. I'm not going to go into your last paragraph because I have now explained at least three times that community benefits and protecting assets do not have to be mutually exclusive. Again we can wait for the FCA outcome. I'd also say, it's done now, votes happened, it won't change. Probably best we all move on and for those that aren't happy to leave it to the regulator to handle.

Do you not think you're exaggerating slightly? (massively) The repayment plan is very well laid out, all evidence suggests the vote would have went the same way regardless of timescale, it retrospectively comes out of the £2 spend. Some people really just like a moan. Also this isn't my venture, it's nothing to do with me. Do you really think I'd want to take a risk with the club I've supported my whole life? What way would a fan benefit from that? I think that's what people don't factor in with this deal, why would a fan of SMFC knowingly risk their club? Baffling.

I'm sorry Stuart, your first paragraph really shows you have a massively idealistic view of this world, going on from that I've lost you a bit but will do my best. Exception processes are their for a reason, if you don't agree with them fine but it's a relatively naive mindset IMO. And they are not just for 'emergency' changes to normal process. An exception can be for a number of reason. For example if the normal process isn't deemed to add any additional value to a decision or mitigate any additional risks. This is subjective and based on individual circumstances. You might not like it, you might want to get the tinfoil hat out for a reason why but the simple fact of the matter is St Mirren and SMISA can overwhelmingly argue that waiting extra time to sort this out would not change the impact, 'so can we forgo the time requirements?' Exception process. That simple. We've covered the point several time, that benefit to SMISA/ Community/ St Mirren are not mutually exclusive. Something benefiting St Mirren Football Club does not mean automatically it CAN'T benefit the community. As has been quoted from the Act you have quoted many times the benefit can be direct or indirect. The aspects that make this water tight are An argument can easily be made that a strong St Mirren is good for the community (indirect) Youths from the local community use the facility St Mirren in the community use Ralston, this gives them a better potential surface to use As for the SMISA benefit outside of the community. The £50k is very well costed to be repaid back, way before deal concluded so the risk is absolutely minimal (also given the level of support/ indifference to the project) It's an asset we will inherit one day and that our youth players we might play/ sell on day will use. Clear benefits and low risk.

he also said that it would be helpful to have in a division next season where the majority, if not all the clubs will have a bigger budget than us. I also did not say it was 'just a way of getting more money into the wage budget for next season.' It's mutually beneficial to St Mirren and SMISA, as well as the community they both serve. Must be about the fifth or sixth time you've tried to put words in my mouth which is disappointing, I have to say. As for your last paragraph, maybe the exception was easier to put through than follow the process? Happens all the time. If it's easier, if it's accepted by the FCA, if the outcome would be the same, if exceptions are a perfectly agreeable part of legislation, then why not? Are you really suggesting it should of been followed to satisfy a dozen fans (some that aren't members) even though the outcome for them will be unchanged? I'm glad my director isn't like you Stuart, I'd still be working on 2014 submissions

because I don't understand that question in the slightest. Asked to leave what? How is being asked to leave something relevant to a vote on something that's clearly going to pass regardless if we were asked after one day 10 days or 100 days? Do you agree that the vote would very likely of had the same outcome if timescales were followed to the letter? If so, what is your actual issue with an exception being used?

At the risk of sounding 'patronising' an exception to a process being used/ agreed is not breaking rules or wrong doing. Exceptions are a massive part of 'good governance' as you put it.