bazil85
-
Posts
10,429 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Ha, ha, ha...ha ha..ha, ha... i like you. Even when you've got nothing... you still say it anyway. After we have wrapped up the title tomorrow night everyone's attention can focus on this!
How have I got nothing? Are you actually that fickle you can’t admit your argument has been beaten?
You even shared the point that beat your ‘it’s illegal’ argument haha Jesus wept.
-
5 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:
Why is it always spitting the dummy?
it's also NOT a well costed idea. It looks to use the ring fenced funds, slashes the £2 pot dramatically and sees SMISA take on free sponsorship slots that the club could otherwise have gained funding through. If it's so great and meets SMISA's objectives, it shouldn't need associated trinkets.
The smisa sponsorship is an additional benefit to SMISA. it’s a good deal for all. Just shows can’t please everyone. Some fans crying out for a big ticket spend, some come on and say ‘aw now we’ll have less money to spend a quarter’ can’t win.
-
3 minutes ago, civilsaint said:
Borrow? Who said anything about the club having to borrow money? I thought there was enough money available in the budget?
Your position seems to be rather confused to say the least.
Ffs there is! I was using it as a comparison between borrow big money and the proposal. I thought that was clear.
My position is unchanged, there is money in the budget. That money would be better served on helping out case next season s gains Romany teams with much bigger budgets than us.
-
7 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
That’s exactly what you’ve been saying. Many times, in many posts. You’ve regularly said you cannot understand people having concerns about this because there’s a vote you can simply say ‘no’ to.
To humour me, can you tell me what you think my concern has been, and if you do indeed think it is valid?
As for your particular concerns I can’t remeber. I’ve been at this for a few days now, it’s brain damage. Give me a reminder and i’ll Tell you if they’re actual concerns or just nonsense
-
4 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
That’s exactly what you’ve been saying. Many times, in many posts. You’ve regularly said you cannot understand people having concerns about this because there’s a vote you can simply say ‘no’ to.
To humour me, can you tell me what you think my concern has been, and if you do indeed think it is valid?
No not at all. I’ve said I can’t undersand concerns like ‘we’re over spending’ or ‘we should have it in the budget after a great season’ or ‘we need two votes because fans won’t understand asking to spend the ring fence is spending the ring fence.’
I’m simplifying the quotes for dramatic effect of course but that’s what some of the points have been. They’re not concerns, they’re just nonsense. People have genuine concerns, I don’t share them but it doesn’t mean they’re not valid.
-
Can I ask everyone a question on the SMISA money given to St Mirren for various things over last couple years?
Say we had one of those crystal balls, just for a bit of fun...
So I think we’ve had seven quarters of SMISA £2 votes so far roughly £56k. I don’t know the maths but say directly or indirectly we’ve given about £45k of that to St Mirren. If we had all said no to every vote, and had those funds plus this quarter to fund the new surface in cash... but St Mirren had funded all the requested proposals themselves out of the budget. What if that missing £45k was Gavin Reilly? Or Cammy Smith? Or we sold Morgan in the summer to cover the shortfall? Or Jack Ross new contract?
For me that’s the exact position we’re potentially putting ourselves in next season £50k is a player for a club like St Mirren.
I feel that the idea is well costed, low risk and beneficial to our team. That last one is my number one priority in BTB.
-
Just now, civilsaint said:
With all due respect, that really is quite a pathetic and counter productive attitude.
I seriously hope your views do not reflect the views of those involved in the management of SMISA, the second that kind of attitude is adopted the game is up.
In what way? If a bunch of members spit the dummy are we suppost to go ‘oh gosh this is the yes voters fault. Imagine supporting a well costed idea that helps our football team.’
I know in the modern day world people have to be precious about all the feelings but if the outcome is people cutting their noses off to spite their face. More fool them.
-
5 minutes ago, civilsaint said:
NO,NO, NO. That is not what I'm saying. In fact it is the complete opposite. HELP!
Sorry to burst your bubble but it is just like any old business. If the business fails there is no football club. Business should be at the centre of every decision taken, the emotional side needs to be separated or things will go wrong - think Fergus McCann. He didn't make them successful by doing what the fans wanted.
What way is this vote putting our club even remotely at risk? It’s certainly a lot safer and cheaper way to borrow than any loan on the planet.
-
17 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
In my opinion we'll only need the finance we can budget for. Anything else is the kind of short-sightedness that got us and others into financial trouble over the years.
Do you remember the first time Fitzy was manager?
I'd rather the main shareholder (in waiting) built up a slush fund to deal with short term unexpected cash demands that arise when they are in charge.
We wouldn’t overbudget we would just have that £50k still in the budget. The repayment of the £50k is from future £2 pots so in no way would it be us over budgeting
-
8 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:
So, the SMISA board are proposing that £50,000 of the ring-fenced funds members have been paying in to Buy The Buds be gifted to SMFC and are then going to use the same member's £2 spend to pay that money back into the ring-fence? GTF outta here!
There would need to be a vote at a GM to change the agreement first, to not have that stinks...
This ^^^^ plus our Quarterly spend will no longer be available for 2 1/2 years. What will the Club do now for their future 'requests'?
Dip into the 'ring-fenced' funds again and again until we cannot actually But The Buds when the time comes?
I voted NO.
All your points have been answered over this thread. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion and your vote but
no there wouldn’t need to be an additional vote, we’re all adults we know voting to use the ring fence means... using the ring fence.
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.
Theres not ‘plenty of money from transfers and league position’ we’re going into a league where likely 9-10 clubs will still have a bigger budget than us.
-
8 minutes ago, civilsaint said:
That's the problem. Right there. Acknowledging and recognising the concerns being raised and robustly disagreeing is one thing. Failing to even recognise the perceived issue, despite being spelled out by numerous independent posters does nothing for your position. Is it blindness or is it an unwillingness to open your eyes?
As for the reasoning for requiring additional funding, that in itself is quite concerning. Businesses, clubs, individuals can ALWAYS 'justify' that extra bit of cash for a new computer, or new car, or new office. But that doesn't make it right. Businesses which fold often do so because they made bad decisions in the good times, giving them no room for error in the bad times (New Look is probably the most recent example but there are many, many more).
I’m not saying peoples concerns aren’t valid I’m saying their comments about us not living within our means and over spending are simply incorrect. We’ll always be chasing other clubs spending ability regardless of what league we’re in and how well we perform. So you’re right, yes extra money will always help so why not give it when we can and it’s very low risk to pay it back? This isn’t any old business it’s our football club and i’ll Always be willing to support it any way I can including financially
You can say about bad decisions and concerns but the idea is very well costed. It would take a massive drop in member numbers to impact the club and if that happened we’d have more to worry about than £50k... the members that dropped out would also only have themselves to blame.
-
43 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Ah you see just there you are highlighting the faux pas Mr Dickson made!
you are quite correct, the FCA do not get involved with disputes between societies and their members, and good on you for checking out their website. But if you'll allow me to explain a little you might become educated a little more on the legislative reach, powers and practices of the FCA in cases like the one Smisa have brought on themselves. But first some back story for context.
Mr Dickson, who perhaps like others? You enjoy referencing how he was informed by the FCA to take his grievances to Supporters Direct, either didnt know, or decided to try a 'work round'. I was in the Smisa committee at the time his request, complaint and subsequent appeal, then referral to the FCA occurred.
for professional reasons, and commintments I undertook, and still uphold. I cant divulge the nature of his grievance, but it was between an individual member and the society, so he was corrected in what avenue to pursue to further his grievance.
no surprise there, and certainly being someone who re-drafted the Smisa constitution, absolutely what I knew would be the case. And it was whilst i was re-drafting the constitution i took an understandable interest in the governance role played by the FCA in relation to ComBens, and extended my research and information gathering process into other similar Com Bens, their constitutions and any action taken by the FCA into infringement of its governing legislation. Whilst you could never describe their number of actions as akin to The Sweeney, the interesting thing for me was how they treated One man and his dog societies (and there are some literally like that) the same as a society like ours dealing with Hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not over a million pounds worth of members asset locked funds.
the common theme with those societies who had contravened the governing legislation, and where Smisa now find themselves is that the contravention affects every society member! If the ring fenced funds are used for any purpose other than that for which every member agreed they would (to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC), and in addition the asset lock is broken as a consequence. Then it is way, way beyond Supporters Direct's remit.
if you go back to the FCA website you will see a section devoted to "Whistle Blowing", email address, confidential hotline to be used expressely in the instance that any society, its committee, members or third party have or are seeking to take an action that breaks the governing legislation. So not for an individual grievance, but definitely for something where multiple members are raising concerns that the action in question is breaking the constitution, the asset lock and subsequently the law as it pertains.
looks like there is a very real chance we will find out, if the constitution, the BTB ring fenced funds in the asset lock are all breached how the FCA operate in the flesh!
hope this helps?
What you say actually makes perfect sense. To shorten it for people though:
members knickers in the twist - Supporters Direct
breaking the law - FCA
Great information from you in that sense.
Although it doesn’t change facts the FCA will tell anyone claiming SMISA/ St Mirren are breaking the law to bugger off because they’re not. You’ve been shown that in black and white at least half a dozen times now.
-
54 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:
How would you know the club have made a donation unless you were pretty close to things? That's never been made public!
The conflict of interest was the money going elsewhere...simple as. They don't offer the same, don't offer free sessions and don't have a pathway for kids that age. The club spoke out against sessions for disadvantaged kids and I thought it was a disgrace. I almost resigned then and, indeed, probably should have.
I had a vague recollection of your username being mentioned during committee meetings, I just can't quite remember who you are.
My understanding is St Mirren have made a donation and also supported in other ways to the woman’s team. I imagine we will help them to an extent going forward as well, got to remember the idea is in its early stages and they’ve only just started their first season. They want to be self sustraning though.
It was not about money. He didn’t just come out saying ‘don’t give them money we want all the money.’ It was in regards to a conflict of interest. Read back on it if you wish.
i doubt it was, I’ve never went to a committe meeting and have no affiliation with SMISA outside of my monthly payments I do keep on top of all communications though including meeting details when provided
-
1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:
Au contraire.. Baz. If as popular opinion suggests this is getting voted down we need as a matter of urgency an investigation into why the Smisa committee have done twice and tried this third time to break the solemn promise to members that this money is ring fenced.
this isnt going away, promises made to every member are being broken left, right and centre. They are not living up to the responsibilities they willingly accepted.
It’s not popular opinion, it’s four or five people on a forum. Also they haven’t broken any promises, for the millionth time they’ve simply put it to a vote and the USH was not from the ring fenced funds.
-
1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:
So you'd rather spend 50k on extra wages for a season than keep it until its actually needed?
This is what clubs like Rangers, Dundee, Livi done.We’ll need all the finance we can muster for next season. Also it’s nothing like what they did, they borrowed outside their means and ran up millions in debt. We’re talking about £50k from an account already in the name of St Mirren fans that has been easily costed to be repayed.
-
34 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:
We've pushed the boat out on the playing budget, can't cover basics like balls, gym equipment and other equipment. The women's team have a justgiving page, £1,800 going elsewhere saw Gordon put a statement out to state SMISA were making things difficult and every SMISA poll sees cap in hand requests from the club. All this on the back of larger crowds, various transfer funds and having the kit sales in house. Maybe you see the SMISA funds as being within our means, but proof is there that we are pushing the limits if nothing else.
All expenses could have been and would have been covered by the club. Us covering expenses means those costs are recycled back into the club and ultimately to the player/ facilities/ staffing budget. We have not got the biggest budget in this league, Falkirk, United, ICT and Dunfermline can all outspend us on player wages. These wee bonuses have allowed us to strengthen a wee bit more than we would have and it seems to have paid off. Asking for these funds IS NOT BECAUSE WE’RE FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING
As for the statement from GLS with SMISA. It was because of a conflict of interest to the club not because money wasn’t going to St Mirren. Read the post again.
The club have also made a donation to the woman’s team.
I don’t know what people are finding so hard to get about this. Is it really difficult to understand, regardless of how much we bring in financially, you’ll get other clubs that have better spending power? If money wasn’t an issue Celtic would be worrying about 10 in a row next season.
-
30 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Sorry you really made me laugh with "Furthermore the FCA have transferred their jurisdiction to the Supporters Trust" (i assume you mean supporters direct)
so you actually believe a legislative body, empowered under UK law has abdicated responsibility to a two man, operation that has absolutely no power or jurisdiction..? Thats is so funny! Here's a wee tip, go on the Financial Conduct Authority(FCA) website and look at the Community Benefit Society & Co-operatives they have and are taking legal action against. Some of them are basically allotment committee's... but they are brought to heel by the FCA not some bunch of do-gooders.
its on Smisa's website now "£2 of you subscription goes to the discretionary fund, the rest is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC " no ifs, no but, no opinion.
You’re like a dog with a bone but you’ve finally got something right. The FCA would be ultimately responsible for any investigation into wrong doing. Shame for you that there’s no wrong doing though.
As for the website, for the second time, no decision has been made so why would they change the website before the vote results are out? If we vote no, nothing changes.
-
1 hour ago, Maboza said:
As good and clear a summary as you will find amongst the extensive debate on this thread. Well done!
My own simple thoughts are that St. Mirren FC should always be run as a break even club. This should take into account player budgets and club running costs. Something like a 4G training pitch has a lifespan and cost associated with it and is therefore a planned spend. So are things like training balls. This is the clubs responsibility to budget for these.
Any additional revenue boosts (player sales, cup runs, higher league finish than budgeted, etc.) should primarily be banked into the club accounts to cover tougher times but may also allow for a very modest loosening of the playing budget to provide opportunity for improvement.
Here we have a situation where we have received the most transfer income in many years and cup revenue last season. None of which budgeted for. We're looking at winning the league now and coming out on top for revenue for the league this season alongside increased attendances.
Still, we're being told that finances aren't sufficiently rosy.
If that's the case then it's indicative that the spending on the player budget this season has been a gamble. It may have worked out but I don't like that precedent.
Already we have someone saying that this £50k is needed as it will indirectly support that playing budget next season. The figures for league placings were dropped in to show the huge financial disadvantage from 1st in Championship vs the SPL teams who will be our competitors next season. I'm sorry but the recent transfer revenues received more than make up that difference and could have been the springboard for providing a comparable playing budget for Year 1 in the SPL if we really want to get involved in that game.
If the money is needed for playing budget then ask the members to vote based on that. The whole approach to this from SMISA seems a bit of a mess.
I don't blame Gordon in asking for the cash and other proposals but I do question how wise it is to respond so favourably. The extent of this SMISA cash (cow) resource wasn't so readily available to the previous board. Had it been available previously it would have made their job as Chairman/Board considerably easier and easier to get a more expensive and higher quality product on the pitch.
We've got an ambitious chairman but I think the SMISA group need to tread very carefully.
As far as I understand I don't think SMISA has marketed itself (to date) as anything other than a vehicle for the takeover.
I think it's fully expected that members will drop off as others have also said. SMISA should be making an effort in my opinion to push the vision of the benefits to the club for continuing membership beyond the 10 year period. I think this should have been promoted from the outset.
Can I ask, when you’re talking about making more money this season and budgets and transfer income and 1st place prize money. Who does that put us in a better position than giving our competitors next season? Ross County? Hamilton? Maybe Motherwell?
This thread has clearly documented we aren’t spending out of our means and the club has said they could pay this if need be. Just very simply it’s an opportunity for them not to spend £50k and us to use that money for the budget. I don’t know how much people think we pay players but to St Mirren £50k could easily be a player.
Different opinions are all fine and dandy but I think some people are getting a bit confused when they think about our spending/ budget and where the transfer income/ prize money goes.
-
7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:2 hours ago, bazil85 said:See (again) 8.1.1
That big green carpet represents a community benefit. A strong St Mirren is good for the community... Indirect benefit. Youths from community playing on pitch... Direct benefit
Or maybe you are right and everyone else is wrongA strong St. Mirren is good for the community?
Yes of course it is. Means we can do more events where school kids go free, panda club that offers discounts, free tickets for vulnerable groups, community spirit, income, charity work. That's the indirect benefit.
-
1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:
You miss out the fact the proposal is to transfer the assets to a plc, therfor breaking the asset lock, and that even today on the Smisa website there is a clear commitment outside the £2 pot all the rest of your subscription is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in smfc. And the fact Smisa have sold this as buying sponsorship in a plc.. its a big no, no...
you cant run a CBS and just decide to swap the rules to suit at any given time. They are in place to protect the MEMBERS assets. These assets do not belong to SMFC and that is a point that some people still haven't grasped.
none of this is my opinion, it is the rules each member, and the Smisa committee willingly signed up to.
they could stop this omnishambles today, cancel the vote, and set a new one asking if members agree, or not to setting aside £5k (if there is £8k total available from the next ten £2 votes to fund the astroturfing. That would be both legal and respectful of their members rights and wishes.
i have a question for you. Do you actually think this, as it stands will end well..? At a time when all we should be doing is revelling in our imminent glory, both club & smisa have conspired to breach the trust of smisa members. It just wasn't necessary, but follows a pattern of Scott getting what he wants, i.e, other peoples money!
1. Not going to a PLC, it's going to a third party company in exchange for goods. We're buying something that meets the criteria (direct/ indirect community benefit)
2. Nothing has been agreed, nothing has been decided, we're in the middle of the vote to see if paying members want to approve the proposal. Imagine website will be updated after
3. no one is changing rules, yet again 8.1 clearly states ALL assets fall under the exclusions where they can legally be used (community direct/ indirect benefit)
4. Yes I think it'll end perfectly well. I think the vast majority of fans won't take issue with it (because there isn't an issue outside the one you've created in your head) regardless of it being a yes or no.
5. Groundhog day again but not trust has been breached IT'S A DEMOCRATIC VOTE
-
Just now, rea said:
So are the Community going to be able to play on the 3G pitch?
The proposal highlights that young people from the local area use it plus other post and links have highlighted St Mirren in the community use Ralston so I don't see why they wouldn't use the pitch.
-
5 minutes ago, civilsaint said:
I was playing 5's down at Power League last week, some of the pitches are looking pretty terrible. Fancy using some of the cash in the bank to pay for new Power League pitches?
After all, a strong Power League is good for the community... Indirect benefit. Youths from community playing on pitch... Direct benefit.
You'd easily be able to make an argument for that I'm sure... Not sure what your point is however the great thing about this proposal is it benefits the community and the football club we all support.
-
14 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Smisa can only legally transfer funds out of the £2 pot. So its pretty much fair game for any indirect community benefit.
they cannot transfer from any other fund, its that simple. Its not an opinion, or a preference they are legally constrained to do otherwise.
Okay that clears it up for us all. You just don't understand. See AGAIN the extract about moving restricted funds (£10 pot)
All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.
8.1 The society must not use or deal with its assets except-
8.1.1 where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for
the benefit of the community; -
55 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Thats a good point! But given (and i really should know better) you are the only poster i am responding to, yet you! Are responding to mutiple posters.... which of us does the above best fit..?
you know the Smisa committee will take the jersey off you for conceeding so many OG's.
Tatty By Baz, Yul... get over it.
I don't see many screaming IT'S ILLEGAL! When I say everyone else is wrong, I'm referring to a significantly larger proportion than the four or five people against it on here. St Mirren reps, board, legal advice and the same for SMISA would all have to be wrong if what you were saying was true. It also is quite staggering you stand by it with the evidence it's not... Especially when it was you that posted said evidence
As Columbo would say 'Just one more thing.' Given your previous post, can you give me something that you'd consider an 'indirect' community benefit that would be a legal use for the money if not this proposal? Not something you'd be happy with, I just mean from a legal perspective.
I also assure you, I'm not on the SMISA committee... I do know that's your go to point right enough
Edit *I'm not saying the people on here against it are wrong, it's just their opinion. Anyone saying it's illegal though, is most definitely wrong. As the FCA will confirm if a complaint is raised.
The 3 Monthly Spend
in SMiSA
Posted
Big ask, do you think the proposal is illegal? Because that’s not a concern, it’s just factually wrong.