bazil85
-
Posts
10,613 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
1 minute ago, StuD said:
Bazil, I think what you fail to grasp is that regardless of how the majority of members vote - each individual has the option of deciding enough is enough and cancelling their membership. There is no obligation on anyone to keep throwing money at SMISA if they don't agree with the way it's being run or how it's being governed.
Guarantees, promises, constitutions, and more have been smashed by the current SMISA board - something you justify. Personally I can't blame anyone for taking the action I did and cancelling their membership. In the same way I wouldn't donate money to a charity that was caught breaching it's constitution and which showed poor governance, I'm not going to continue to pour money into an organisation that fails to respect it's constitution and which loses focus of it's goal.
First paragraph I already said, your money your choice.
Second one is where it comes to matter of opinion on what SMISA are doing. If you think they're showing poor governance and breaching it's constitution that is 100% your opinion. The opinion on breaching will be shown to be be incorrect if the deal gets signed off (which it will/ has) and the fact no wrongdoing has been discovered despite at least two people following the whistle-blowing process.
The poor governance is completely a matter of opinion. Again disappointed it made you cancel but the only reason you have for cancelling as far as I can see is the majority of paying members have a different view from you.
-
1 hour ago, StuD said:
If repeat posting is punishable with a spell in the SIn Bin, and there's no other agenda, why is LPM supposedly in there, yet Bazil still is presumably roaming free? No-one should be in the Sin Bin.
here half my posts are direct response to you and LPM going on about how our club and SMISA are breaking the law. Maybe we should just have our own forum?
Also I thought the StuD nickname was for one topic and one topic alone?
-
4 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:
St. Sid was thrown off the forum for gloating about the demise of the 10,000hours bid - which clearly upset div.
StuD & now LPM have been marginalized for posting the correct (if unpopular) fact that the original statements about how the Discretionary Fund would be used are not being adhered to and that SMiSA seems to be representing GLSs views. Anyone who didn't want to read this endless argument just had to avoid the SMiSA Forum which was effectively a WankTank in itself.
Once GLSs shares have been bought (I presume that's still the plan) the victory of The Sausage Roll Brigade will be complete.
Not correct sorry
-
9 minutes ago, StuD said:
No, I was definitely taken for a mug. I was promised that SMISA wouldn't revert to the t-shirt and towel nonsense. That it was focused on club ownership and strengthening links with the local community. And that it was all about stronger supporter and community representation on the football club board. It cost me around £150 before I realised I'd been mugged. Still, I thought, most of that was ringfenced for the purchase of the club. Yep, taken for a complete mug. Having my name on that board is no sort of honour.
What is a focus on club ownership? Open to interpretation - Your opinion
What strengthens the local community? Open to interpretation - Your opinion
Stronger supporter and community representation on the football club board - Open to interpretation - Your opinion
Ring-fence situation - Democratic decision (landslide) by members
For example my opinion is everything is very focused on fan ownership which will be achieved within the timescale (very likely earlier than people thought, how great is that?), everything happening right now is very short-term and relates to a very small portion of committed funds.
I believe a strong St Mirren is good for the community, I believe that season tickets given to different charities supports the community (the fact that also benefits St Mirren isn't taboo) I believe that the proposal never at anytime said 100% of funds would go to the community and that could not be changed under any circumstances (even at the voting will of members) I believe disabled platforms and improved Panda club experiences, benefit the local community, again why should something that also benefits the football club we all support be negative?
My understanding is everyone on the St Mirren board right now and SMISA council is a St Mirren fan, I also understand very few if any are in this to personally profit (doubt many could) they all IMO have what's best for the club at heart and I'm delighted about that. Also not having a chairman in it for profit is a big plus, could of seen a Livi, Dundee or Rangers situation in Paisley.
I know you disagree with a number of those points but you can't dismiss them, they're all personal opinion that can be backed up with valid points, as can yours. The disappointing thing for me in regards to members that cancelled in similar situations to yourself is, the failure to grasp other people can have a different opinion and that opinion is not therefore automatically wrong. Cancelling memberships because of different interpretations of community benefit and fan ownership focus ring true for SMISA and other members is for me disappointing. Cancelling memberships because of a democratic backed change in the use of the funds is also disappointing. But hey your money, your choice like everyone else.
-
7 minutes ago, StuD said:
I wish they hadn't put my name on the board. It just gives my kids something to laugh at me for now I know I was taken for a mug.
In your opinion
-
6 hours ago, northendsaint said:
The magical figure i was told when joining up was 700 .I also feel this is the time for another recruitment drive while we are riding the crest of the wave starting with the club dinner on Saturday.What an opportunity with over 500 people and business owners in abundance.Buy the Buds leaflets should be on every table.
Completely agree, a good idea I was thinking of was offering to expand the boards outside the stadium.
‘Anyone signing up for BTB over the next three months that maintain their membership will be added to the boards at the end of BTB’ I’m sure some people must have seen how brilliant the boards look and want their name as part of our clubs history forever more... if only I was on the committee maybe I could recommend it...
in saying all that, I think people that stopped paying within the first year should never of been put on the board. Plan was to pay until it’s done, if you can’t manage even 1/10 of that then why should you be on the boards when others joining after aren’t?
-
19 hours ago, TsuMirren said:
Yeeeeeeeeeah, you've no contact with or involvement in the committee/club.
2024, mention that year in a committee meeting and you'd think you'd used the N word. Even that involves membership dropping below 1,000 at some point.
As I said above, you would have to of done very very little research not to know anything I’ve just posted (most of it was maths). None of that is insider knowledge hahaha
-
20 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:
Hi ho Silver..!
i think the man who insits he has no skin in the game doth protesth too much.
If you think that’s some kind of insider knowledge, it further highlights that you have done very little reading or investigation to come to some of your conclusions.
-
20 hours ago, StuD said:
Until SMISA own at least 50% of the shares the majority interest in the club could be sold to any other party. Now I know SMISA tell us that there are water tight agreements locking Gordon Scott into accepting a certain price for his shareholding and handing over the shares to SMISA, but SMISA also told us that money would be ring-fenced for the exclusive use of buying shares in the club and they've since saw fit to waive that without following the proper constituted process. You've defended them saying that's what exceptions are for. Personally I'd think that regardless of the quality of candidate on the St Mirren board, the sooner the 50% stake in the club is held in a protected asset lock the better.
Going a bit round in circles here but it looks like we can finally rest on our views being personal preference instead of actual law breaking so certainly progress. In regards to the water tight agreement, that is a thing however like any company in the world if a buyer came in the owner/ members would decide if it was the right move. So there isn't really any such thing as a water tight agreement that an entity won't be sold (in this sense). I fail to see how there could be.
-
20 hours ago, WeeBud said:
It's not, and never has been, the £2.00 fund that has ever bothered me....it's the fact that without prior consultation re "proposed changes to the constitution" with the membership they have had a vote on borrowing "ring-fenced" money against future quarterly spending proposals. I allowed my heart to over-rule my head.......with my heart I voted for the proposal but with my head I know that it was "poor governance" for it to happen the way it did.
In hindsight and on reflection I allowed the emotional attachment override my true feelings on the matter
Heart Vs brain is always a debate isn't it?
In the grand scheme I think it should not be forgotten that this was overwhelmingly approved by members and the result would very likely be the same if they waited any length of time. I'd ask yourself, did you want prior consultation just for the sake of having prior consultation? There's also a difference between 'poor governance' and 'exception governance' Many confuse the two.
-
6 minutes ago, northendsaint said:
I have no intention of going through all the posts as the infighting frankly bores me to tears but can someone explain to me why with double the numbers initially required to purchase the club we cant do it in half the time. ie 5 years instead of 10.Genuine question from a guy who got an o level in arithmetic and not much else.
Really good question.
First off we don't have double, we have roughly 1,250 or 25% above the target of 1,000. Those figures are actually slightly better as the 1,000 was based on members paying the standard £12 a month. I believe roughly 12% of members pay the higher £25 but I could be wrong.
The following figures are very rough but they highlight how healthy BTB really is right now ,(I think) because I have based them on a slightly worse case scenario with 1,250 members because we have a few more than that.
Doing some maths the plan was based on £10 (£2 discretionary fund) for 1,000 members for 10 years = £1.2 Million (the plan also factored for a level of drop off under 1,000 and taxation/ fees)
Doing some very rough maths based on 1,250 members 12% paying £25 with the same target of £1 Million, details below:
If members stay consistent and we went over the full 10 years (which we wouldn't have to if it stayed consistent) the plan would be worth £1,734,000
Again if it stayed consistent at current members (again rough numbers) the plan would complete in 57% of the stated 10 year deadline date or very roughly after five years and seven months.
All these figures don't take into account taxation (That bit gets somewhat confusing the way we're doing this) and fees so best guess I'd say we're currently on track to complete roughly after 6 and a half to seven years.
In summary BTB is ahead of schedule and in a very healthy position, There is no reason we won't finish ahead of schedule (maybe not quite five years but certainly looking less than 10) one of the main reasons for my Yes vote as I associate the risk to absolutely minimal, even if we see a drop-off.
More signed up members makes this even stronger. I sincerely wish people wouldn't let the £2 fund cloud their judgement of the big picture.
-
3 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:
You continue to miss the point bazil85
I accept that you mean well.... I have never doubted that.
From what I read there are mixed views on whether or not people approve of funds being used for this purpose. So be it.
But..... There seems to be almost complete unanimity from members and non members (like me) who are expressing entirely legitimate concerns that the constitution of the organization is so lightly set aside.
Surely worth listening and learningfrom
Treating people with contempt is unlikely to persuade them to your cause.
This is where, I am suggesting, that you must exist in parallel universe if you think this approach to be of benefit to anyone.
There's like 10 people commenting on this post and at least three of them agree with the way things have went. How you get complete unanimity from that is beyond me
-
6 minutes ago, garzo said:
Just because the view is a minority one doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Lol.
True, a lot of this isn't a matter of right or wrong though, it's a matter of opinion.
-
6 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:
You really do seem to inhabit an alternative universe.
People posting have genuine concerns for the future of both SMISA and the club.
For some reason, which completely escapes me, you seem to be determined to alienate a number of them.
I have said before and say again that if I were on the committee then I would be likely to ask you to state clearly that these views are your own and do not represent the views of the committee.
These views are my own, I'm not on any SMISA committee and it's not being in an alternative universe.
88% of voting members voted in favor of the proposal, that's fact. If some people can't accept they're in the minority then not sure where they can go from there
-
2 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
Gulp. I better say the bloke, the lady, the trans-sexual or the one-legged Muslim in the panda suit. I simply said ‘bloke’. Showing my age.... these days, you just never know. Don’t want to upset anyone or be disrespectful to people’s rights. For all I know, inside that suit could be a dolly burd.
Phew, sorted!
I thought it was a real panda
-
2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
We need a new Smisa committee, one that not only is, but is seen to be acting in the members interests, not the board of SMFC's.
FFS not acting in members interests with an 88% Yes vote
-
5 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
I have no issue with Gordon Scott, any more than I have an issue with Tommy Docherty, the tea ladies or the bloke in the panda suit on a Saturday. The issue I have, is funds ring-fenced to buy shares, being dipped into to help pay for an astroturf pitch, and being replaced with member’s own monies.
Dissect it, talk about it, argue the toss, go around in a circle and come back again, and here’s where you’ll come back to - member’s monies, ring-fenced to buy shares, are being used to part-fund an astroturf pitch.
I happen to find that completely unpalatable. I personally find it very strange that anyone thinks doing something like that is even remotely acceptable, but hey, each to their own.
The fantasy shattered!
-
45 minutes ago, StuD said:
Bazil, SMISA are members of Supporters Direct. Supporters Direct state that their aim is to "help supporters gain influence and ownership of their club."
https://supporters-direct.org/about-supporters-direct
To deliver those aims SMISA should be looking to increase shareholding, increase supporter representation on the club board, and it should be moving as quickly as possible to ownership of the club. If you don't think those things are in the best interests of SMFC then can I suggest that you are putting your funds into completely the wrong vehicle.
yet again some word twisting there Stuart. Of course I believe fan ownership is best for SMFC, do I think doing it as quickly as possible is the best approach? It's a very loaded question. I'd pick done right over quick everyday for example. Your point is redundant though again giving the facts.
1. This vote won't slow down fan ownership
2. It won't impact supporter representation on the board
3. The BTB shareholdings are already all set, again won't be impacted by the £2 spend
-
1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:
2, I never said it would. Missed the point completely. They could have paid the entire 150K and still make the 10 years. A group of scouts could make the 10 year deadline at this point. Although they might not take well to being told to stop being so keen.
Problem with the Panda Club and sport scientist is they'll both meet to come from the same 3K or draw from a future spend. Then you'l have the "SMISA wish to have less spend polls in order to have a larger available pot" consultation. So everyone will have even less say. Though, maybe most have missed it, SMISA could just come out and say "this phase is primarily about buying the club" to get through limiting the level of engagement.
Comes back to one of my previous posts. The worry over the £2 spend is very much the tail wagging the dog. £3k, £8k both are a bonus to have, they aren't earth shattering funds. Also if you remember a lot of members have been crying out for 'a big ticket' spend. We now have that for the £2 pot, shows you can't do anything that'll please everyone.
The £10/ £23 is so much more important and it's such a shame some people can't see by a very small aspect of BTB for the greater good.
-
3 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
A number of members are only in this to get the club bought and will then chuck it. Others will stop paying in due to a need to spend the 12 quid a month elsewhere.
Some will pass away.
The financial gain is in buying the club quickly as possible with as many members paying in.
Another financial gain would be having an extra 50k in the pot when you take over running the club.1. New members will also join (come of age) as existing members die, others canceling and falling out, more fool them. members dropping out because they can't afford £12 will be an extreme minority
2. The £50k has no impact on when the club will be bought as there is no way it'll be bought in 30 months without an extra couple thousand members
3. There is no £50k extra in the pot, the £50k used would be sitting gathering dust until the buyout happens and will be repaid long before then.
4. Only time there would be £50k left in the pot when we takeover is if the £2 discretionary funds were always voted to be carried over, which from experience we can see is not popular opinion.
-
4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
A thirty per cent shareholder in a company has a significant influence. Sadly Smisa are playing poodle to Gordon's every whim, including rifling our ringfenced share purchase funds.
who else is putting money into SMFC other than Smisa..? I have not heard of one penny being put up by a single board member, but hey... why should they when they can rifle our funds?
What don't you get about this being wrong
SMISA aren't doing anything of the sort. It's members are voting to agree what they request. You might not agree with the vote but it is what it is.
You can't seem to grasp the majority of members would be more annoyed if SMISA said no to GLS requests without consulting us.
-
1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:
Gordon has indeed put money up, but just to balance that out a bit he is getting that back and it's significantly less than the offer he made when the club was initially up for sale. That money, he wouldn't have gotten back. The 50K will have been restored, but what about the lost interest? Not a substantial amount, bit it is still lost. I think Gordon has done a great job, in comparison to other Chairman running a standard club. St Mirren have SMISA though and, frankly, he still has a bit to learn with regards working alongside them.
Tony's also right that it's in no plan, within the core group, to complete the deal early.
yes it will be absolutely pennies. I'd maybe say taking over a club in a stronger position with good facilities makes up for that wee bit lost money. Who knows the £50k back in the budget could be the difference between taking over an SP club or a Championship one.
-
2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:
Excellent point Kenny!
the wider membership may not be aware at the current rate of subscriptions they could acquire the majority shareholding in the club years before the ten year deadline (it would be even quicker with 1400 members).
However that isnt the club chairman's plan, he has made it known he wont be going before ten years, and the best way to facilitate that is to "divert" the smisa members ringfenced share purchase fund as frequently as possible (after all its just sitting there, isnt it?), thereby continually pushing back the date when the fans takeover. Indeed if enough members opt out along the way then smisa may never be in a financial position to complete the purchase, meaning the chairman can stay in control, leave it in his will, sell to whoever he likes etc.. etc...
You would think the organisation set up to represent the best interests of its members would be putting forward vote options on taking the majority shareholding on as soon as thebfunds are raised? Wonder why they have never put that option to the members?
Gord Knows why not....
How is that in the best interest of its members? We don't have a financial gain in it, what's best for the members = what's best for SMFC.
-
2 hours ago, TsuMirren said:
Oooooft, this has escalated hasn't it.
Two quick things:
One, I do indeed feel there is more to Bazil. Far too much feels like information where you either had to be in the room or you know someone who is.
Two, the results of the recent SMISA Survey really are being used to push some borderline questionable things whilst querying other legitimate community engagement. Had that survey included the question "should SMISA look to conclude the BTB deal sooner" it would have been very different and seen results that those in charge would not have liked. But, heaven forbid the members are allowed involvement to that degree. Not to mention, as said before, fundraising was an obvious option and so easy to facilitate if you are either not lazy or aren't functioning under influence from elsewhere. The SMISA survey also never asked a single question about opening up the £10 pot for other uses. Yet, because it's discussed at a joint SMISA/SMFC board meeting, where no doubt it was basically pre-decided anyway, SMISA bypass the actual part about asking if the principle is okay. "It's time bound", yes and it was manufactured very well to be so. I say very well, but really I mean as well as the Sport Scientist being hired pre-vote or the Panda Club option not being stand-alone or the club not going "oh, £7,150 or so, can we get circa £800 worth of footballs added". Possibly even as well as not being sure the women's team are official even though there was an official press release and photo shoot. Or as well as setting a target of 1,400 members and doing nothing, literally nothing, to drive it..."which pub this month?" I assume the Buddievision piece on SMISA is coming soon and that Gordon will mention them in interviews...
I can't wait to see how 3K will fund the sport scientist, the Panda Club and all manner of other things come the next vote. There's bound to be a schedule based on club priorities, it'd be madness to not have a pre-determined schedule for the next 2 years considering you've slashed 5K from each pot.
1. It's just not true, don't know what I'd get out of lying if you can enlighten me? Plus there are people on here that know me personally that I'm sure would call me out. Would also be interesting to know what you think I'd need to be 'in the room for' to comment on?
2. Funding the park will not mean SMISA deal is concluded later, the funds will be replaced way before it could ever hope to.
The rest of your post seems to more or less cover personal opinion on what you would like to see and what SMISA can do better. They've always said they're learning as they go along and for fans to be patient with them given they run on a volunteer basis and have never done something like this before, so who knows what'll happen. With the member numbers, sports scientists, Panda club we'll see. Good thing is as always, if the last two are coming out of the £2 fund, we'll vote and agree as members.
The 3 Monthly Spend
in SMiSA
Posted
Such a shame people have that opinion for something that ultimately will be good for our club for generations to come, long after all the people they may disagree with associate with SMISA and BTB are gone.