bazil85

The reality is not all paying members think like that. Voting generally shows there is an appetite from paying members to allow St Mirren requests to be granted. Some members might not agree, some might think it's 'fundamentally wrong' that's all matter of opinion. Same as your opinion that facilitating St Mirren isn't in the best interest of members, pure opinion. If a majority of fans continue to be happy that funding St Mirren projects is their priority there is no harm in that. Never at anytime was it stated that St Mirren would not be allowed to make requests so as much as I appreciate different opinions, that's simply all they are, opinions. This is also where members need to be careful about numbers falling. The bottom line is the will of the majority should not be negated for the will of the few just because they might phone the bank crying and cancelling their DD. As for your comment about all income streams being up, yep but again we'll still be one of the lowest budgets in SP next season. There is a clear benefit in maximising money in that budget.

Enlighten me to a situation where we can improve the finance and never need any additional financial support? Dundee United, Falkirk, ICT, Dunfermline all have larger budgets than us in this division this season. Next season we'll be comparable to Hamilton, Ross County, Motherwell and St Johnstone. We could take crowds like the Morton game every week this season and next and we'd still need all the financial help we can get for next season because there will always be teams with more spending power. It beggars belief that people still don't understand this point If finance wasn't an issue Celtic would be panicking about winning the league next season and we'd be budgeting for the 2019/20 Champions League. St Mirren's finances are perfectly fine, they're in very good shape but the money we have got is better spent on the team than on a new pitch. We vote no, the club will simply fund it, but at the cost of £50k from next seasons budget. This is an exceptionally easy concept to grasp.

In what way shape or form has it failed? We're top of the league, one point from the title. All income streams are up, we have a very strong young squad and a sought after manager. I've covered this several times if you look back but once again. SMISA funding these items mean St Mirren don't need to and they can invest more in the player budget. There is nothing SMISA have paid that St Mirren couldn't afford, but it would be at the cost of available budget funds. We haven't got the biggest budget in this league and will have one of the lowest in the SP next season regardless of how well we do. SMISA allowing St Mirren to save some money through funding helps the team, it doesn't indicate in the slightest any issues with funds or the accounts.

Only one way to sort this...

God don't say that to him! It'll snowball. Wait until this time tomorrow: Lord Pityme said: 'GLS has 100% hired a hit-man to come after me. There is no question on this, based on all my posts he categorically has been in contact with the Russians to bump me off... Also the moon landing was fake.'

Covered this a considerable number of times now in slightly different wording. All you seem to have done is seperating out the Yes/ No to two votes. Part 1 is a no vote, part 2 is a yes vote. That's the way I read it anyway.

In your opinion.

Yes I do, that's my answer. My reasoning is, paying it back is very well costed and it would take a big number of fans dropping out to put it at risk. If that happens which I very much doubt, fans that drop out will only have themselves to blame for any harm that follows to our football club. BTB was always a long-term proposal. None of my arguments have failed, they all stand up perfectly. I have faith in the majority of paying members to recognise BTB remains long-term. I have confidence that the plan is well costed based on evidence. They're two different things.

Or a draw under the circumstances

Only if we won. I had to vent on the way home.

We should have faith in our club and SMISA to be sensible with their requests in regards to what they are and the costing to repay. I don’t think votes like this would be very common but if they were I’d have faith in the paying members base to vote sensibly. For example in this instance, we have a very real benefit and a very sensible costed repayment.

It’s certainly part of what I meant as in it’s a bit lose lose. Ill considered... not so much.

I wouldn’t of cancelled my membership but I would have been severely pissed off if SMISA, said no to the request from our club without consulting fans. If fans are crying and cancelling their membership because of a democratic vote, do you not think it’s likely we’d have cancellations if SMISA had chosen NOT to have a vote and made the decision for paying members?

Yes I did, to rephrase. No collateral damage, just spit the dummy merchants.

Okay very last thing I’ll say... Maybe. If there’s a majority in favour of this, will the toys out the pram merchants accept they’re in a minority? Or will the majority still be expected to bow down and not go for something they see as a positive for the club? Two way street pal. What if people start cancelling because it’s a no? Wish people would just accept that members are getting the choice to keep things the same or change them. Simple as that. I firmly believe the vast majority will though. This was always sold as a long term plan.

Do you see losing members unnecessarily as acceptable collateral then? I see members dropping out (unless due to financial reasons) as being their issue, extremely shortsighted and counterproductive to St Mirren football club. Now that’s plenty, league business time

Right there's a lot of the same points coming up that I've answered over the last few days (some multiple times). We have a league to win so let's just leave this eh? I'm not backing down from my points and a few people on here won't be either. I've been very consistent with my message over the last few days and any of the more recent posts, I'm sure you'll find a more than satisfactory response if you go back over the last 20 pages. One thing that I have gotten incorrect was the Donation to the ladies team. From looking back at my posts and the information I was using, it looks like it was SMISA that donated, not the club. I'm big enough and ugly enough to admit I got the wrong information there... Not that St Mirren haven't donated, I just don't know if they have.

The club should and need to build in depreciation and renewals into the long term business plan and budget accordingly. Your post that I quoted showed that you hadn't considered any of this and we would just deal with it when it arose. I don't think the plan will depreciate by 200-300 members which we're currently over by. The plan was set for 1,000 £12 members with the assumption there would be drop off from this number. I've considered it I assure you.

It's exactly what you're saying though. St Mirren have proposed dipping into the funds, SMISA have said 'wait and we'll ask members if they think it's a good idea.' You cancel your membership. I can only assume that when St Mirren asked SMISA, you would of expected SMISA to say 'No we aren't even going to ask our members this one. Funds are ring-fenced and even though regulation exists to take the funds we aren't going to give the members the right to exercise this' Makes a massive assumption that paying members don't want this. I'd ask, why should SMISA have rejected this to suit you when there will be fans like me that think it's a good idea and want it to be yes? Said it before but it's almost as if a vote would be a good idea under the circumstances...

You've been triggered for almost a week over people being allowed to use their democratic right

I'm not on the SMISA committee or close to anyone that is. Please enlighten me to how a well costed borrowing plan is a lack of business acumen? Also I'd love to know how being in favor of saving the club £50k for next seasons budget is poor forward planning.

What I read is 'If you want to keep paying member levels steady, stop giving members a choice.' That's all this is, a no means nothing changes. A yes means there's appetite for change.

Nope, more people having digs at my responses. Wonder what people would say if I voted yes then cancelled my monthly payment...

I didn’t even read beyond the first sentence. It’ll be the people that cancel its fault. Smisa do everything as a democratic vote. If people throw their toys out the pram as we’ve seen at least two people do today, they’re to blame. Btb was always for the long term good of the club.

No, it’s in no way contradicting itself. You do realise if it’s a yes vote st Mirren will not need to take £50k out the budget and if it’s a no vote they will. No one is adding money to the budget. My days it’s hard going.