bazil85
-
Posts
10,429 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:
Do you understand the terms "ring fenced" and "asset lock"..?
because everyone i spoke to, and helped during the sign up to BTB wanted to know if both these meant their £10 or £23 was only for ONE purpose. as it was enshrined in both our constitution and legally binding under the conditions set out by the FCA on how an organisation like Smisa must comply, I told them 'Yes'....
so far those two legally binding entities have been breached TWICE by the Smisa committee (£15k USH loan, and £50k lending facility) and now the aim to breach it a THIRD time in less than two years with another £50k raid on the ring fenced funds.... thats £115k in less than two years and counting...
Try selling that track record if you are trying to recruit new Smisa members now..!
do you understand what transparent, open and honest mean..? Are these three examples good, or bad reflections on them..?
Yes I understand them perfectly well. I work in a risk function providing assurance for a large financial organisation.
Mate they’ve not been breached, you’ve been shown they’ve not several times. I’m not going over it again.
Dont worry, all your pals you’ve signed up can vote no and if they’re in the majority we’re all good to go. If not they should respect the vote like the rest of us.
-
4 minutes ago, rea said:
Then i think you have misunderstood what "community benefit" means.
So you don’t think there’s a community benefit in youngsters from the surrounding areas using the park? (Regardless if they’re St Mirren affiliated or not)
or St Mirren in the community using it?
And you also don’t think there’s an argument for a strong St Mirren is good for the community?
I think I understand it just fine, if you think there’s only a community benefit if it’s a universal benefit with no strings then more power to you...
-
7 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
Yes, you found it. Some people are concerned about ring fenced funds designed for share purchase being dipped into for an astroturf pitch. A second concern is that before even asking members if they would sanction such use of their money, the club and SMiSA firstly held discussions about a specific big ticket item they wanted to spend 50k of those ring fenced funds on.
From what you say now, you recognise these as valid concerns. This is strange, as for page after page, when these very concerns were raised, you brushed them aside because you could vote ‘no’.
Fair enough. Everyone can change their mind. No-one is asking you to share their concerns, but it’s progress that you have now performed a big U-Turn and can now at least say it’s a valid concern for folk to have.
I’m possibly not making this clear. I appreciate them as valid concerns in the sense I think those that have the concerns are perfectly entitled to them and to see them as a valid reason why they might not go for the proposal. Personally I don’t share the concerns, I disagree with them. As I’ve said people are entitled to their opinion and there’s a lot of validity in having some of these other opinions.
However for the last maybe 12 hours now I’ve been trying to differentiate between valid concerns and made up garbage that slanders our club.
If that’s not been clear I apologise but my stance has been completely unchanged and I continue to respect other viewpoints (again within reason)
-
21 minutes ago, rea said:
So you would not expect say SMISA members to be able to use the Facility only those groups currently using it?
Would you have no expectation of an expansion of the use of the facility to even those other groups EG the Womens team that are supported by SMISA?
I would be open to it being discussed, it wouldn’t be a deal breaker if it wasn’t though. I also wouldn’t have it as a free for all because it would chew up the surface more. My priority is and always will be St Mirren. An additional community benefit is great as well and also ticks a box for releasing the funds.
-
21 minutes ago, rea said:
So as you believe that the new 3G pitch will be funded (if the vote goes through) as a result of the "Community" clause in the SMISA articles. can you confirm that it will be possible for members of the community to use it then?
I'm not on the SMISA committee or a decision maker at St Mirren so I can't confirm anything like that (I'm sure deep down you wouldn't expect me to be able to). What I can say is the proposal clearly highlights there is a community benefit and youths use/ will continue to use the facility. For me that's enough, but additionally I've seen St Mirren in the community camps use Ralston so I imagine they'll also benefit from the new pitch.
I appreciate other people might want even more assurance than that from St Mirren FC and SMISA which if they do fine. Contact the club, contact SMISA, maybe they'll give you something in writing? Personally I think it's overkill and I'm happy to take their word because I trust them.
-
2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
That's it, just keep sharing things that continue to highlight your failure to grasp simple concepts
-
7 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:
Why don't SMISA buy £50k worth of GLS shareholding? or havethe shares in trust as security on a loan to the company? that way, SMISA only spend their money on shares and the club gets some new turf.
SMISA are buying GLS shares anyway mate. When BTB is complete they'll all be transferred to SMISA
-
4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Basil quote: "Yeah valid point of course having concerns about the ring-fenced funds being used."
Pinned..! The membership speaking as one, Keep The Fence, Drop The Pretence....
Everyone is entitled to their opinion said it all along... Unless they have an opinion like yours which is claiming illegal activity. I'm sorry but I won't stand for that without even one shred of evidence.
-
18 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Hallefeckinlujah!
Last night it was nonsense, this morning it is valid.
At least your consistent with your inconsistencies!
So are you struggling to understand the difference between having a different viewpoint and pointing out certain things are nonsense? I'll try break it down a bit simpler for you.
Having concerns about spending the ring fence - perfectly valid point, I just don't agree with it and think there's lots of evidence it would actually be a benefit.
Saying our club and SMISA are crooks and that this proposal somehow means St Mirren are paying outside their means - Nonsense
Hope my very clear points are now that bit more clear to you.
-
On 4/8/2018 at 4:38 PM, pozbaird said:
Why can’t you understand these very simple points....
1. The £10s were ring-fenced money designed solely for share purchase.
2. Before even asking the people who’s money it is if they would allow it to be used for anything else, the club and the SMiSA committee clearly held private discussions about using member’s ring-fenced money to fund an astroturf pitch.
Can you understand why some people think this a pretty bad way to have went about it? In answering, please do not say ‘but people are being asked to vote on it, and if the vote is ‘no’, then democracy has taken place so it’s all good’. I accept that. I understand a vote is taking place.
Could you simply respond to my points 1 and 2, and if you can at least understand why some folk are uneasy about the order of events here?
Right found one. Yeah valid point of course having concerns about the ring-fenced funds being used. Can also appreciate that private discussions must have happened (although I'm not sure what other way they could of discussed the request from the club initially). Entitled to those opinions, it's not calling our club crooks or some of the other weird and wonderful things people are saying.
I obviously don't share the concerns for the reasons I've put across
-
7 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:
Are you really this naive or just spinning?
It's fifty grand that BtB won't have when they take over the club. What happens the next time the AstroTurf needs replaced as its likely to do prior to the fans taking over? What if the dome needs replaced in 2020?
What if the manager wants to spend 50k on a short term solutions in the January window to try and save us from relegation next season?Guessing you haven’t read the proposal. The pitch will do into our ownership of the club.
your point about what if XY&Z happens.
We’ll deal with it the same as almost any other club in the world deal with it. Or the same way we’d of dealt with it 10, 20, 50, pretty much any other time in our history. We’d pay out of our budget. This is a very rare situation we’re in right now, it doesn’t happen much in football so using it to our advantage isn’t naive and it’s certainly not alarm bells for ‘what about the future.’
What do you think happens when Falkirk, Morton, Dundee, Kilmarnock, ICT, etc have a cost? Do you think they all have multi-millionaire owners that pay out the goodness of their heart? No, they need to run at least at cost or they start to get in trouble. (Which all those clubs have been in the past) often due to short term greed of shareholders (we won’t have shareholders in it for profit, one of the benefits of fan ownership)
also the club was up for sale for about seven years. Another model doesn’t exist that doesn’t present us with significant risk of going like a Dundee, Livi or Clydebank with dodgy owners and decisions. This is the best hope we have of running the club like a business and our only low risk option when it comes to future costs. I’m sorry but it sounds like you’re the naive one. Unless of course you have another business model that’ll protect us from future big ticket costs that hasn’t been proposed?
-
5 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
Strike two.
Oh wait! It was that we weren’t buying you a new set of golf clubs cause the missus wouldn’t be happy?! Nailed it
-
3 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
Strike two.
Okay fair enough, i’ll check in the morning
-
7 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
No worries. No rush. Will have a look when you get round to it.
Were you the one that said about doing a justgiving page or something and all putting £50 in?
-
2 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:
If you read and quoted my post in full instead of selected bits, it makes perfect sense.
Reading the last two pages, clearly you are getting tired and confused and it's time YOU were in bed Bud.
I did read it all, it just doesn’t copy over when you respond. The comments seemingly implied I had posted contradicting things when they made perfect sense together. Strange.
-
11 minutes ago, civilsaint said:
Your obsession with the budgets of other teams is misguided. SMFC projected income is "X", therefore SMFC should budget to having outgoings not exceeding "X". End of discussion. That's how business works and SMFC is a business.
P.S. Forgot to say, if you genuinely think that 50K is the cost to employ of a decent first team SPFL player, then you are majorly misguided.
It’s really not. They released the stats not long ago. St Johnstone, Motherwell and Hamilton average first team player wages are all under £50k, Ross county and Kilmarnock a wee bit over. That would be the teams we’d be about.
I agree with your X comment. Just so happens we have a chance for X to be £50k higher. Pretty clear maths really
-
7 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:
It potentially takes money away from St Mirren, by giving those sponsorship items for free. Fans/members wanted new big ticket items from the £2 pot, not known operational whole life costings that then limit £2 spend due to paying the share money back.
Yeah it might take it away... however st Mirren won’t get a free £50k anywhere else. I think giving up a sponsorship is worth it. Plus if it generates new SMISA members, more money to the club in the end through the £2 fund.
-
6 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
Nope. It’s not that. I have never once claimed illegality.
Well that’s something, i’ll Maybe look back at your posts tomorrow. They must be about six pages back now. Too much for this time of night.
By the way I wasn’t saying you did say it was illegal, i was taking a stab in the dark.
-
12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
But the proposal is to overspend! It is supposed to be squared off by money smisa doesnt have, i.e. Spending money you havent got. The very issue everyone it seems bar you who joined smisa wanted to make sure we avoided.
this Is getting voted down, the members are talking!
We’ll see. I’ll respect the vote either way. Hope you do the same. Are you even in SMISA still...
Once again no it’s not, it’s being smart about using funds available to us (pending member approval)
-
7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
You don't get that asking fans to donate £50k to the running of the club could be living outwith our budget?
Really?Have a wee check back on what donate means there but anyway, that’s not what the proposal is. It’s asking for £50k from future £2 spends paid in advance from money sitting gathering dust, that will then be paid off over the next couple years or so.
No it’s not living out with our means, it’s a proposal to support the club allowing to save a bit of money. If it’s a no we’ll just adjust the budget accordingly. Everyone within their means, the Saints way for a long time now.
-
6 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:
Fascist!!
and
So Bazil, please explain how thw two highlighted statements tie up?
I think it puts Buy The Buds in jeapordy?
Eh? None of that makes any sense whatsoever. We’d be voting on using the future £2 pot for this repayment. It’s exactly what the whole debate has been about. Haha bed time for you I think pal.
The 3 Monthly Spend
in SMiSA
Posted
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.