bazil85
-
Posts
10,425 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
31 minutes ago, Toots said:
If we want to keep up the level of paying members , Stop using the members as a Cash Cow , its really that simple.
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.
-
21 minutes ago, Toots said:
Why would you use the phrase "underhanded" , Has it been said previously in this thread ?
Nope, more people having digs at my responses. Wonder what people would say if I voted yes then cancelled my monthly payment...
-
5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Whose fault will that be? When the support was asked to stand up, they did so in numbers. Now as you can see by the overwhelming majority of posts on here those same people who stood up feel they've been betrayed. You have your opinion, but costantly banging on about why you feel this, and you feel that isnt addressing the issue of broken trust that so many are highlighting.
this is a time more than ever where leadership is required to be honest, transparent, admit mistakes and seek to unite, maintain and grow the membership. Not take snidy shots about not liking democracy.... which is the right to chose without fear of intimidation. You might if you really want smisa to have a future want to consider that.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:
Here's the quotes from you that were missing... you don't see anything contradictory? Gawd help us!
The additional asks for the £2 funds are always a benefit that allows the club to concentrate money elsewhere so we wouldn’t just dip in all the time. Any future time we went in we’d have to vote accordingly.
The repayment of the £50k is from future £2 pots so in no way would it be us over budgeting
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.
-
24 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
Your attitude earlier in this thread towards anyone cancelling was along the lines of ‘hell mend them’ etc. For clarity, I am paraphrasing. I genuinely could not be bothered trawling through the posts where you were dismissive at best, but more like insulting towards, anyone who chooses to cancel.
More U turns than a lorry doing U turns for fun.
Incidentally, on the subject of my golf clubs.... I thought about Callaways, I thought about Taylor Made, maybe Mizuno or Cobra..... then I realised my money is Ping-Fenced.
Nearly as funny as Dundee’s top comic - Willo Flood, but not quite.
How is it a u turn are you actually serious? I said in earlier posts it would be cutting their nose off to spite their face. Because I’ve said it a bit nicer in using the epression ‘shortterm’ that’s a U turn?
Never mind the golf clubs, sounds like you’ve had a morning in the 19th.
-
31 minutes ago, Toots said:
We did vote "No" , I don't agree with the fact that this even got called to a vote , this should have been a straight "Can't happen this money is to buy the club and not astro turf".So i don't need to wait and see just not going to go down this road every time the club needs money from this pot.
Bet no one will find this ‘underhanded’ making a democratic vote in something you’re both choosing to not support going forward...
-
30 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Yet another cheap petty democracy dig.
You do your argument no favours with that snide approach.
The vote is yes or no to astroturf.
Where was the vote on whether it should be funded from ring-fenced money?
That was democracy denied and as you have rightly pointed out this morning, is a legitimate grievance.Can spin my words all you want, it doesn’t change facts. Anyone with half a brain will know voting to use the funds from the ring fence means... using the money from the ring fence. see previous point on valid arguments and slandering the club.
-
31 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
The short term thinking was in proposing to use ring-fenced cash in the first place.
There were options. Options that could have united the support.What option would be better than letting the members decide with a straight up vote? Could put in a whole bunch of steps before it, this is the ultimate decision. Yes or no.
-
1 hour ago, Toots said:
So how does it hurt the team , the subscriptions are not for the team or in that matter for the club they are intended to ultimately achieve fan ownership so your statement is a bit confusing.
If fan ownership falls apart because we don’t have enough paying members to complete the BTB you don’t think that’ll have any impact on the club? Strange
-
Just now, Toots said:
Unfortunately i don't need to wait if this is the way that Simsa intend to work i will just keep my money.
Yeah course you don’t. Democracy isn’t for everyone. Just hope the vast majority don’t think the same. That’ll only hurt the team we all support.
-
5 minutes ago, Toots said:
Me and my mate cancelled our subs after reading through this , i thought that BtB was a great thing but now see it as a cash pot for the club . Ring fenced cash should be exactly that and not something that can be tapped into willy nilly , shame the gloss is getting taken away from this excellent season.
everyone has that choice. Wee bit of a shame though you haven’t waited to see if this is the appetite of the majority. Pretty short term thinking IMO, oh well.
-
1 minute ago, rea said:
Yeah i know what risk acceptance is...it is very little to do with risk to the Funds, but the appropriateness of using money in a different way than what the money was raised for, and as to the rules as to if and how the members can change the uses.
I don't see it as having very little to do.
You've identified a risk that if St Mirren shareholders are shown to make a profit then we're (potentially) breaching regulations. Breaking down the risk, even if they did make a profit the overwhelming likeliness is that the FCA would consider it nominal and not fine or impose any sort of sanction. Therefore (if it's even being discussed which I doubt) the decision of any sensible company would be to accept that risk. I know it would be my recommendation that's for sure.
You also make several assumptions
1. This is the way the company will be paid
2. Funds will sit with St Mirren long enough to influence the share price (Don't even think we're quoted)
3. Members will sell based on this share increase or we're paying dividence which I'm not even sure we do
4. Even if we did pay dividence, it could be proved this £50k positively influenced it.
-
10 minutes ago, rea said:
Members profit because the value of their shares bump due to the benefit to the balance sheet of the company.
Just as you have a Discretionary fund you also have a Restricted Fund, you should not lend from a Restricted Fund one and fund the lending from the other
Well that's not necessarily true. The details on the balance sheet will show a credit and a debit. The funds don't require to sit for any length of time. We also have no set information that's the way they'll do it. SMISA could pay the money to the company direct.
Also even if the money was transferred in and sat for any length of time, realistically what profit would our shareholders make off £50k. It would be absolutely minimal. What do you think the FCA would say if someone complained that St Mirren Shareholders made enough to buy a mars bar out of this deal?
Weakest argument yet, do you know what a risk acceptance is?
-
Just now, rea said:
Really...do you know what a balance sheet is?
So you agree that SMISA is loaning the money directly to the Club?
I know what a balance sheet is.
You're really struggling with your point here. The money is to buy an asset, the money is from future discretionary pot payments, the money has a direct and indirect benefit to the community, community benefits do not have to be completely detached of club benefits. Still waiting on you showing me where the members profit?
-
3 minutes ago, rea said:
Eh, the money will be going to the Club....
The Club will buy the asset.
do you agree?
So where's the profit? Asset £150k club funding £100k, we're giving £50k, the full £150k payable to the company.
-
45 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
You are a piece of work!
the people i signed up came to open Smisa meetings at SMP, just ordinary buddies wanting to do their bit, complete strangers trusting me to help fill in their personal and financial details because they trusted Smisa and the clubs assurances that their money was ring fenced for one purpose. Where is the respect they are due? Are you going to explain they were to a man and woman lied too?
i get you dont care, just want to wave the flag, but promises matter, people dont forget, and Smisa & Scott have shown their true colours and will be judged on them.
Where is the respect other members are due that might be in favor of doing this? It's almost like we should have a vote or something...
-
40 minutes ago, rea said:
Finally you admit that the private company benefits......
Thing is the shareholders of that private company are also members of SMISA...
I refer you to clause 3 of the constitution which defines the Community Benefit Purpose...
3. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PURPOSE The Society’s purpose is to be the vehicle through which a healthy, balanced and constructive relationship between the Club and its supporters and the communities it serves is encouraged and developed. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members.
you see where the problem is now?
Now i admit the profit is minor but these clauses are there to stop more blatant use and development of conflicts of interest
What members are making profit? The money is going directly for the purchase of an asset (Not to St Mirren) that has a community benefit as previously stated.
-
38 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Don't you know...
They have a vote so that makes everything ok!
Silly man!
You're right, they shouldn't be allowed to vote on any proposal, that's much fairer. SMISA should have rejected the request with zero stakeholder engagement.
-
33 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
And you expect us to believe that you actually work in 'Risk Management' ffs.... what you just gave us were aspirations, try pitching to manage risk on someones behalf purely on aspirations and see how many new clients you can sign up!
and your last line.... which regulator would this be that will approve the proposal..? You just making shit up now?
edit: re the regulator approval! Is it the Ministry Of Silly Proposals..?
Risk Management is no different from anything else when dealing with people like you. You refuse to see what's right in front of your face. Off you pop to the FCA and they'll confirm no wrong doing.
-
40 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:
Not with that 50k they won't, or with any other sum handed over before the official hand-over takes place.
Where would the additional shares come from they could buy?
-
5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
No where in the proposal does it state the key deliverables, measures, sustainability and how the use of our Society's assets will benefit the community. Now you may not understand it, but as a process to ensure public or community based funding is not misappropriated, these kep performance indicators have to be met before funding is approved.
you perfectly highlight there is nothing approaching even a sincere desire they are met, let alone any type of measure, or predicted outcomes at benefit the community. Your position seems to be 'i love smfc, they want it, it must be good then if they say it is'...... how would you rate your, Smisa and the clubs chances would be pitching that airy fairy nonsense to Dragon's Den..? Let alone the FCA!
Dragon: 'tell us Basil, how will this propsal make the Community more resilient, and how can we measure that.'
Basil: '????'
Easy
Direct community benefit - Youngsters from community use the facility, St Mirren in the community use Ralston, this would give them a better surface to utilise
Indirect community benefit - St Mirren do a lot for the local community, the stronger the team is, in theory the better work they can do for the community.
Worth pointing out it doesn't need to be both, it can be either of these for using the funds.
You're getting way ahead of yourself as well. This is a vote on the proposal which is costed and detailed enough for members to make a decision in principle. If members vote yes to it. The proposal will be fully drafted and sent for approval by the regulator.
-
5 minutes ago, rea said:
So as you have said above. SMISA money is being used for the benefit of a private organisation.
SMISA spend money of a Club Asset, Clubs balance sheet sees the benefit, Club gets to spend more money on paying players, no one extra gets to use the 3G pitch.
I hope you are not providing risk analysis for any org i have a relationship with!
So you think providing a benefit to a private organisation and to a community can't be mutual? That's the beauty of the proposal. Benefits our team benefits our community.
You know who would be okay with that assurance? the FCA
-
3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Rubbish.
Your one man mission to decry anyone who tries to articulate a valid concern knows no reason whatsoever.
You are like a dog with a bone.
A yappy one at that.
Respect and reason are most certainly NOT something I associate with any of your posts on this matter.
From people talking nonsense to having a valid concern overnight says it all really.
Does it aye?
-
1 minute ago, rea said:
Except that all of those things are already happening....so what is the "benefit" from the additional money. The Club have already said they will fund it if SMISA do not.
They’ll have a better facility to use. That’s the whole point.
Again yes they will but that ultimately will be money out our budget for our return to the top flight. If that happens fine, I think the risk is very low of it not being repayed so I’m happy to vote yes.
The 3 Monthly Spend
in SMiSA
Posted
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.