bazil85

As much as you pointed it out, I would be very surprised if a wee club from Paisley was in a unique position in this world (or even UK) I think I also pointed out there will be other clubs our size with more expenses than us or that have higher debt levels, rent costs, older stadiums, other one off expense needs that dwarf our club. I don't think anyone can make the training ground situation St Mirren are in a negative. We will budget for costs as we have done our whole history. £50k is a drop in the ocean for a football club of our size, St Mirren are making the request because the facility is there not because it would financially cripple us if it wasn't. I fail to grasp if GLS has said 'we could fund it this time.' Why would we not or why should it be a fiancial disaster in 10-15 years? A quick Google of English clubs with similar attendance levels to us brings up Walsall FC 4,571 average attendance (second team I checked after Blackpool who are also close to opening a new state of the art training complex). Stadium roughly 15 years older than us and bigger, training grounds very similar to us opened in 2008. Over 15 acres two pitches (they also have an Astroturf pitch them maintain at their stadium) then all the bells and whistles we have. They don't appear to have a rich chairman, what happens if they have to replace the pitch? Going to imagine it would be very similar to when St Mirren have to do it.

Yeah and if that's your opinion on what we should be doing with the money, keeping it until we have the club, that's absolutely fine. I don't think your comparison is relevant given we are all fans of St Mirren football club and want what's absolutely best for the 11 players in the black and white every week but that opinion is fine. I'm allowed to disagree with it like you can disagree with me. My opinion is, when we do take over the club, I'd rather we had given St Mirren every opportunity possible to be in the best shape when we get the keys so to speak. A new AstroTurf pitch, £50k back in next years budget, paying a wee bit extra to wages to avoid a drop to L1, buying balls so that the money can be used by the club in other areas. All falls into that category for me. As for your 'buy a Jag' comment, I have faith any money the club save is being put back into the budget not lining GLS or anyone else's pocket but that is of course a matter of trust. Your last sentence has came up several times in several different forms over this thread and the answer is exceptionally simple. We'll fund it the same way as any other club of our rough size would. Out of our budget. Just because we have the added bonus of SMISA money now doesn't mean it'll be Armageddon if we have expenses in the future. Few clubs at our level have the benefit of a rich owner, they have to pay one off costs and repairs from their budget. Fan owned SMFC will be no different. These are just two different opinions. 1. Keep the money 2. Give the money to St Mirren. neither is right or wrong, just opinion. This is where conflict comes on this post, people refusing to accept others have different opinions. That and people being against a democratic vote and screaming 'law breakers' with zero facts or evidence.

The purchase price is set and confirmed in a signed contract. Us doing any work or funding any work will not change the terms of BTB.

Okay well answer this question then. In what way is this a poor business decision by SMISA? You're the one saying we need to think like a business, I think it's very business astute. Please tell me why it's not? I'll even happily turn it around for you. Please give me your reasoning's and benefits to why SMISA should keep a 'professional distance' in relation to an asset and football club they'll soon own?

Nope, I'm telling you if you believe all that you've just posted you should blow the whistle. You know there is ramifications for being 'aware' of a legislative breach and NOT blowing the whistle right? Fortunately the 'aware' part doesn't impact you because everything you're spouting isn't based on actual evidence, it's on interpretation of what the money is being spent on (You don't think an argument can be made for a community benefit) and a failure to grasp an extract from a document that has been shared with you now several times. But never the less go for it,

And in what way is it not a good business move by SMISA to lend this money that will not be used anyway for a number of years? I see two clear benefits to SMISA 1. The asset that'll still be getting used when BTB completes 2. The financial saving for St Mirren football club and their first year back in the top flight. (The stronger the team and the position they're in when the deal completes the better) Very good business move IMO given how well costed the repayment is and the fact the funds will be gaining very little interest.

Blow the whistle then, let us know how you get on.

Okay fair enough SMISA. I don't really like referring to them as separate entities as we're all St Mirren but that's neither here nor there. Everything you've said after that sounds fantastic and it comes back to my earlier 'tail wagging the dog' comment. Such a shame we've lost your £23 over your £2 concerns. As unhappy as you might be, the long-term goals is a fan owned and community club. Are the people you have issue with now realistically going to be in charge in eight years? 20 years? 50 years? Nope, for me it's all about the future of our great club and the future is brighter with increased commitments. Shame we have a few that can't see the wood for the trees.

I know you said you took independent advice on it and seem pretty set that the advice is correct and unhinging (contrary to SMISA, St Mirren and if they sign it off the FCA). Not sure how far you went back on this thread but in my professional life I have very regular contact with the FCA and provide Assurance to a large financial company. I would say there is a very clear community benefit both direct and indirect that can be presented. I would also have said protecting an asset and community benefit are not mutually exclusive.

Of course you are. There are people that are of the opinion the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old. They can also knock themselves out with whatever opinion they like.

Yeah, it's almost like they can't change what's legally and binding without a members vote or something eh?

Seems like you haven't even understood the first sentence then.

Again it's your opinion that we're doing something illegal. I have never said FCA wouldn't be interested, I said they certainly would be interested as they would fine the club (if previous votes were illegal, this one is different as it's not the £2 spend, trust me the FCA will have to sign-off on this). I think my exact point was 'A UK regulatory body not interest in issuing a fine? what a time to be alive.' In an attempt to stop going round in circles, I would ask you to simply contact the FCA and blow the whistle. I have full confidence in what the outcome will be. If the FCA dismiss your complaint as 'not interested' then they are breaching one of their purposes. I can't imagine why they would do that given they have the right to issue fines. It makes very little sense to me.

I've always been from a point of opinion. Only time that changes is when people argue a point that an organisation I'm a member of or a club I support are breaking the law with zero evidence. Would you defend a company you had vested interest in? Apparently not. Oh and people winging about a democratic vote, that's also pretty frustrating.

All I was saying was my opinion on what Stuart had responded with. Pointing out that my opinion is different does not say his is wrong. Why do I get a funny feeling you only read the start of a lot of informative text?

I fear this is why people get frustrated with you Stuart, you're very much 'I'm right and everyone that disagrees is wrong.' Your first point about not spending on player wages, it doesn't mean the club can't request it. As much as it might not be everyone's cup of tea (the voting was at a point in time as all are), given the situation we were in last year it was likely seen by a number of members as a good way to help our club out of a hole. That was apparent in the vote result. In regards to your next bit on legality. I think you touched on it before and even if not I'm sure you'll be somewhat aware. The FCA need to sign-off on this request. They'll certainly let us know if there's any aspect of the proposal that they deem has breached. If it has breached they'll say no and the money won't be moved over for the purchase. If they green light it then that's an end to the matter. It's also worth pointing out, we wouldn't be fined at this point unless we have already completed the deal. I think what a lot of people on here don't realise about legislative compliance is it's very in-depth. It involves exceptions and it's by no means black and white. If SMISA and St Mirren can present the case to the satisfaction of the FCA then that's fine. No company in the world is at any time 100% compliant with every rule, regulation and legislation going (Can see examples of this in big companies recently in GDPR). It would be absolutely impossible to function given how fluid such things are.

Agree with most of the above. We need a better keeper to challenge Sammy (I'd even go as far to say as we need a new number 1 for the SP) Eckersley seems like a very strange one. He has a year left and been fantastic. 100% keep. Reilly deserves a new deal, I think he must feel hard done by with Mullen playing so much. I think they'll both do a job but rate Reilly higher. Hippolyte isn't match fit and had a bad injury, seeing hints of what he can do when back to his best. Punt would be extremely harsh and costly. Flannigan apparently hasn't been doing great on this loan or the last one but he might be worth an extra year to see. Given what will likely be low wages, I might be tempted to give him a new contract.

But like I say, it's matter of opinion if a person thinks all of the above is wrong. We've went over it before but if history is anything to go buy, feckin TV screens at the pie stall is never going to beat money going to the club we all support. It's just popular opinion.

Not wanting to get massively into the debate again but like I said it's difference of opinions. I think most people can argue there is a level of subjectivity in those quotes. Could argue if we said no to the player wages for example, then we just wouldn't of signed some of the players so it's not technically a bill. Voted no to the last one, St Mirren would have covered the bill out of the budget. So I'm not saying you're right or wrong because I don't think it's a matter of that.

We get most of the balls back right enough and even if we did start to struggle... SMISA?

For me a lot of it is a matter of opinion which Stuart is of course fully entitled to as we all are. Okay it can be infuriating the way he sometimes comes across but I'm sure people say the same about me Stuart seems to have a more set opinion about what X was, in regards to the BTB £2 fund, with little wiggle room. He wanted much more focus on community benefit, didn't agree with us funding the St Mirren player budget and other votes that he felt weren't community beneficial (I'm simplifying this slightly given the amount of posts this covers) I took it as a fund that can be used to the benefit of our football club and/or community. Led by members suggestions, club requirements and SMISA decision makers. I took it as the final decision will be made by members in the way of a vote and that options on any ballot paper would be down to the popular demand of our members. It came as zero surprise to me that the majority of members would find St Mirren benefits more appealing than other options (I'm frankly very surprised anyone signing up would) They're different interpretations and I'm not sure anyone can say which is right and which is wrong. I looked over a lot about SMISA when the deal came up but I don't remember anything that confirmed or denied money could go directly to the club or about community benefit. An argument can also be made about a strong St Mirren being good for the community. The flip side of that is the name of the fund and background regulation that covers it, a person can have a viable concern about what the money has been used for (They can't about legality but I'm not getting into that again). Different strokes for different folks. What does frustrate me about the whole thing is I feel it's a bit 'tail wagging the dog' When it comes to the £10/ £23 Vs the £2 spend. Part of me thinks would it of been simpler just to put the full £25/ £12 to the buyout and have members committing to 10 years of payments. At the end of the 10 years all the excess funds transferred to the fan owned club for a vote on how it's spent over the community and club. We wouldn't be getting all the frustration from the minority and we also likely wouldn't be getting much drop off (bar financial reasoning)

Where was this said by the way? Is there a transcript or can anyone give us a bit of context?

The other profile still looks like it's there as well, retained all your comments and other activity. Just under 10k posts. Shull's hammering everyone though with his post count.

I'd say it was more 50/50 between Jack Baird and SMISA

2 ice cubes or a splash of water for me. Bovril with it is just minging Judas!!!!