bazil85
-
Posts
10,613 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
1 minute ago, melmac said:
Aye, but i do know what ultra vires is; i do know what directors not telling the truth to their solicitor and falsifying returns to the fca means.
Good for you.
-
4 minutes ago, garzo said:
So random, you thought it worthy of a response.
I respect that; you gave a good answer.
The correct answer. Right fenced funds should remain as such.
Cheers.
That wasn’t your question, oh my days! Hahaha
fortunately 88% of voting members had a different opinion from you and we have a very well sounded out proposal that’ll benefit SMFC, the community and the fans when they take over the club
-
13 minutes ago, StuD said:
I remember that.
After I'd resigned my membership and complained to Andrew Jenkins they added some small sections to the constitution to suggest that SMISA's role was now to "benefit the community by playing a role to create a successful St Mirren". Come to think of it though I don't remember seeing a Special Resolution or a Special General Meeting. They just attempted to do it at the AGM didn't they - which I guess would be a breach of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Society Act 2014.
Well spotted melmac.
You all love to talk about a breach don’t you? Haha.
I’m starting to wonder if everyone knows what a ‘breach’ actually is and how serious an accusation it is...
-
24 minutes ago, garzo said:
Didn’t try to catch you out. Asked a simple question. You answered. I’m not going to worry about it.
Your head is in the sand.
This is of course your choice.
You asked a question, I answered it, you then said I was sending conflicting messages on the forum because of it...
i’ll take your word you weren’t trying to catch me out though because let’s be honest it was a very random question with no basis in the debate.
-
20 minutes ago, StuD said:
No. I'm saying if it is confidential neither you or anyone at SMISA would be able to say with any confidence that the FCA have thrown out any whistle blower complaint.
I'm not sure the FCA would need to review it without a complaint btw. SMISA don't appear to have made any change to their constitution. Therefore they won't have had to inform the FCA - unless you know different.
I do know different and as would anyone that knows how the process works, you don’t need to be on a committee to be familiar with an FCA process believe it or not.
The FCA WILL require this transfer of funds request to be submitted in writing from SMISA. It will then be reviewed and agreed based on the use. If they deem it is breaking legislation regarding the associated Act they’ll say no.
Won’t likely encounter a fine at that point unless the purchase has been processed before they review.
Regardless, whistleblowing is not needed to uncover illegal activity. In fact it’s in the extreme minority that illegal activity is uncovered this way.
-
8 minutes ago, melmac said:
hookers n white lightning - Baz could prob say, both would be benefitting the wider Renfrewshire (corner shop n whoring) community, thus justifiable.
If you asked me a week ago then of course. With the minimal alcohol pricing legislation though the white lightning probably isn’t a prudent spend option... Let’s put it to the vote
-
6 minutes ago, garzo said:
Haha
its funny now :-)
I think it’s fair to say, you tried to catch me out by quoting something (not related in the slightest to the £50k) you assumed I’d say yes to. I didn’t, it backfired, let’s just move passed it.
Welcome any questions from you that actually relate to the subject though of course.
-
3 minutes ago, garzo said:
Ring fenced funds are being spent for other purposes
Whether it’s discretion or otherwise is moot.
How is it moot when you used that actual word? The funds are NOT being used at the boards discretion, and they shouldn’t be. Hence my NO answer.
-
5 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:
I'll look forward to SMISA Buying the Buds "waaaayyyyy ahead of schedule" then.
I sincerely hope you are right and our concerns turn out to be a storm in a tea cup.
Time will tell, all signs right now suggest that though.
-
3 minutes ago, garzo said:
I’m not confused at all Sir.
Point of principle. Ring fenced should have remained just that. No debate. No emotions attached.
So do you agree the funds aren’t being spent at boards discretion?
I’m of the opinion that your second point should be the decision of paying members... like it was. Democracy > individuals principles.
-
4 minutes ago, garzo said:
It’s a narrow question deliberately to understand from you in principle whether you would approve use of ring fenced (singular intention for use) funds by the board.
You answered NO.
No other question was required as supplementary. You said NO.
“Unless it’s for an Astro pitch & might hurt the players budget “
thats conflicted & confused.
No the question was 'to be used at the board discretion' is the £50k being used at the board discretion or is it being used for a stated and voted on asset that's well costed and presented?
Good effort trying to trip me up though, better luck next time.
If you had asked, 'should the ring fence be used for a very well costed and stated purchase, subject to a SMISA democratic vote' (what's actually happened) guess what my Yes/ No would have been?
Does that still 'confuse' you?
-
3 minutes ago, garzo said:
You say one thing & do another. It’s really that simple. Unless I’m picking you up wrong that on principle you would not approve use of ring fenced fund.
Can you give me an actual example when I've done that? I'm guessing no because you've clearly not understood your own question.
You asked a very narrow question on funds being diverted and used at the boards discretion. That's not what's happened with the £50k vote and it shouldn't happen at all.
-
13 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
In fairness, words are wasted on you Baz.
You already have a stock list of party line answers.
You are like a one man cell centre, unable to think for yourself or deviate from the mainframe!
By party line, do you mean appropriate, factual and sensible responses to people saying the club has broken the law or moaning that they’re in a minority? Haha
-
6 minutes ago, garzo said:
Your opinion seems to be conflicting & confused.
Confused you may be... Conflicting, would welcome your explanation to what you find 'conflicting' about it.
-
Just now, pozbaird said:
Yeah, I’ve been found out... asking those pesky questions like why one minute you are sure future asks will be as well costed as this firstcine, then two minutes later you don’t think there will be future asks, or maybe there will.
Do me a favour!
It's genuinely staggering you can't understand what I mean here. Not thinking something will happen but given an opinion on what it hypothetically would look like if it did
To quote yourself wow just wow
-
1 minute ago, pozbaird said:
FFS!
Classic Pozbaird, after talking nonsense and being caught out, avoid responding with actual words
-
20 minutes ago, garzo said:
in your opinion boss
My opinion on 'SMISA members approve ring fenced funds to be diverted and used at the boards discretion' Yes that's opinion.
The questions relevance to what's being discussed? Hardly opinion...
-
13 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
Hold on a minute. In one post you say future asks will be as well costed as this astroturf one, then five minutes later you don’t believe there will be any future asks.
So, one must assume that your position is that this astroturf request is strictly a one-off, and no further requests of the ring-fenced for shares money will be used for any further ‘astroturf style’ use.
Is that fair comment?
I believe it is what you are (now) saying. So, if you believe this was indeed a one-off request, it strikes me as being a weird one. Firstly, there is no urgency for it, and secondly, it could be funded by other means. Would you also agree with this? There’s no urgency and it could have been funded by other means?
You do realise there's a difference between thinking something will happen and having an opinion on what it'll look like if it happened? I don't think I'll win the lottery tonight but I certainly have a view on what I'd do if I did
Your second part makes very little sense, I can only assume you're speaking and assuming my views on hypothetical circumstances. So no, it's not a fair comment and it's in no way shape or form the opinion I've given.
Not sure how you've managed to spin my comment that 'I don't think there will be further requests' to it must be 'strictly one-off' another baffling attempt at putting words in my mouth by someone else on here...
-
10 minutes ago, garzo said:
Correct answer :-)
That's your whole point?
As far as irrelevant comments go, it's right up there haha
-
8 minutes ago, StuD said:
Or it might be that simply no-one blew the whistle - you won't know which it is with any confidence if the process you claim to be fact is reality.
It's my opinion that the SMISA board have abused their positions and as I've stated it's my opinion that the whole Buy The Buds process has been tainted and stinks as a result. I also think that there are huge issues over what looks like a clear conflict of interests where a number of recent spends, including the latest one, has been proposed by the same single SMISA member whom just so happens stands to make a potential financial gain as the major shareholder of the Ltd Company. That looks to me in clear breach of the Act.
Are you saying whistelblowing isn't confidential sorry?
No one needs to do that to confirm it's all legal and above board. This deal, FCA will need to review and agree. That's enough for me regarding the football team I support, possibly not enough for you? Strange to say the least...
I also have to say, I don't really see SMISA board having a position in the democratic set-up we exist in.
-
17 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:
I committed to pay £12 per month for 10 years with the sole aim of purchasing The Club.
Each time the ring fenced money gets dipped into in future, if the £2 pot is used to repay it, as you say, the purchase of St Mirren FC by SMISA will not be jeopardised.
However, as me & others are concerned, the "ring fenced" pot might never reach the required fill point to achieve its aim of buying the club.
That is not what I signed up to.
As we say, only time will tell.
Let's see what the next year brings SMISA' way.
Looking pretty interestingThe cold hard facts is things change, SMISA have democratically asked members if they would be happy to change for the proposal and given a very well costed repayment plan.
If members want to spit the dummy because they don't like a democratic vote, fine. More power to them.
As for targets on BTB, look back over the last few pages. Some good maths there that shows the deal is very much ahead of schedule. Some would say waaaayyyyy ahead of schedule.
-
15 minutes ago, StuD said:
In your opinion (since that seems to be the catchphrase of the day)
In actual fact the Act states that for a change to the constitution - as this undoubtedly is - a Special Resolution must be raised and submitted to the FCA. Then there must follow a Special General Meeting with not less than 21 days notice (or was it 28 - I can't remember) where no topic other than the Special Resolution should be discussed. If the membership then vote in favour of this the constitution change passes - so long as the FCA doesn't object and SMISA can spend ring-fenced funds to their hearts content for ever more.
The Special General Meeting didn't happen. I doubt a Special Resolution was raised with the FCA. There doesn't appear to be any change to the constitution. And currently SMISA are still claiming that those funds are ring fenced exclusively for share purchase!
We've been over exceptions long enough Stuart come on, seriously?
Yes it's in my opinion and like I say if we don't get a fine/ deal knocked back, it'll look like that opinion comes down to fact.
-
17 minutes ago, garzo said:
Rewind - Question and only 1 question in isolation,
Do you as SMISA members approve ring fenced funds to be diverted and used at the boards discretion?
YES/ NO
No
-
1 minute ago, St.Ricky said:
Loss of support for the board....
Worth noting.
No need to reply.
I am over and out on this thread.
You've said that several times, please god let it be true this time.
Loss of support for the board? You mean the roughly five people on here that aren't even contributing?
Again, I wonder what 'Loss of support' we would of seen if it leaked that SMISA had refused to tell members about the request... 88% in favour 12% against hmm surely a no brainer what would have 'lost' most support.
The 3 Monthly Spend
in SMiSA
Posted
The point I made was people saying we should of followed everything by the book and not used any type of exception process is pernickety given we can all pretty much agree the outcome would be completely unchanged yes. Maybe sour grapes would be a better expression?
Believe it or not a process that hasn’t been followed to the letter isn’t automatically a breach.