bazil85
-
Posts
10,429 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
11 minutes ago, smcc said:
You are right. Some may stop. If I am still here I would expect to continue paying.
Good stuff, I hope the vast majority have this attitude. People stopping won't hurt anyone more than it'll hurt SMFC.
-
10 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
All smisa money (assets) with clear and specific exception of the £2 discretionary vote pot are protected by an asset lock. Please keep up, despite what you may hope, smisa is a Community Benefit Society and is governed by law as such. Reserves, surplus etc are assets.
hi, ho silver lining.., lol
edit: re your last line, does that mean its an even clearer breach of the BTB ring fenced funds and asset lock if the Smisa committee are now buying one third shares in big green carpets??? You keep setting them up, and I'll keep hammering them into the onion sack son.... we're on our way, we're on our way... to the premier league.
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 wrong
-
9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Oh well... here goes.
a Community Benefit Society CANNOT transfer money out of its asset lock to a plc.
the wafer thin thing about perhaps being some community benefit in it wont wash. The pitch is primarily for the use of SMFC, and the academy. Members of the academy pay to be in it, for youth, or are SMFC employees and come from near and far. Every st mirren fan knows that.
smisa state the main benefit of transferring the £50 k for smisa members is the sponsorship of the facility... again Community Benefit Society's cannot transfer assets to a plc. Smisa cannot pay out of this fund to sponsor a plc.
smisa has no real influence, or is consulted on the operations at SMFC (yes we all knew and accepted that). So it has no influence on what, if any community benefit is derived from transferring assets to a plc. You think we will be anle to get the money back if we dont think its open to the community? Ha, ha, ha.....
and just to wrap this up for you, i note with some amusement your continual stance that "its a one off, in isolation, one time thing. And members can say yes or no"
Soz mate by Smisa have already (and this they know) broken the asset lock by transferring £15k to the club to fix the USH, again without any consultation. And again as has been pointed out by other posters all they needed to do was put it up for two £2 pot votes as it wasnt fixed for months after the £15k was transferred.
in addition they have, or will break the asset lock again by opening up an additional £50k lending facility (with no payback term) to SMFC..!
that £115k of the money promised to smisa members to be ring fenced, asset locked for one purpose only... to BTB
yeah its just in isolation.... ffs not wasting my time trying to convince you! But all Smisa members need to sit up and pay attention or we will all be guilty of sleepwalking into a crisis. No one on the board are putting money into SMFC, is any coming out?
Yul.... no like them apples... ho, ho silver.
Oh my days, okay you're right! SMISA are wrong, the club are wrong, those that give legal advice all wrong. This is illegal. We're breaking the law and putting BTB in jeopardy over how much Messi makes in a day
Come on mate, have a think.
As for the USH, yet again you've humped yourself. That money did NOT come from the asset lock, it came from cash reserves.
'We would reassure members we have cash reserves which can comfortably cover the sum in question, and as the money will be paid back in full, our long-term financial planning is not affected.'
Don't know how much clearer it can be made to you that a community benefit argument can very easily be made. If you don't agree contact FCA. We'll just wait here for their response
Another note, the money isn't being transferred to a PLC, it's going on a purchase of a new surface.
-
25 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Wont waste my typing with Basil et al... but the simple legal fact is that money is in an asset lock and cannot be transferred to a Private Limited Company. The FCA will see through, like several posters on here (who are saints fans through & through) the wafer thin promise of a Community Benefit angle. Its so pathetic you can read in the vote proposal how unsure smisa are of it.
having personally signed up several saints fans to BTB, i can from real time experience tell you to a man & lady the main question they wanted assurance on as i walked them through an online application was "is this money ring fenced, is it just going to buy the club"...
as a Smisa committee member, with decades of experience in the type of organisation smisa is i was able to say "apart from your £2 discretionary pot, yes.. the other £10 or £23 is going into an asset lock in our community benefit society, and is ring fenced for one purpose only... to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC"
presumably i can also be called to answer why i mislead those smisa members as to the intentions of Smisa & SMFC to use their money for purposes other than they were assured it would be used for..?
You don't need to, you're argument has been defeated by your own doing just fine. As for the community benefit being wafer thin, it's really not. Feel free to contact the FCA, as I said earlier on this thread, you'll get the same response as our friend Mr D.
As for the rest of your waffle, for the millionth time there is no miss-leading and nothing underhanded. It's a proposal paying members are being asked to vote on. And a very low risk one from that matter.
-
52 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:2 hours ago, bazil85 said:Did someone not share something earlier in this topic about other youth teams and youngsters using it?
No.
http://www.saintmirren.net/pages/?p=55846
Getting mixed up with this one, some community stuff seems to happen in Ralston. I guess no one on here knows for sure but I would be very surprised if they didn't use an AstroTurf pitch going forward over the grass.
-
2 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
8.1.1
I believe I quoted that days ago.
I'm sure LPM will amend his false statement regarding the illegality he actually provide the legal proof for the use.haha yeah, I just went in and bumped it from your previous post instead of snipping it from his. I'm surprised he went full self-defeatist there.
-
30 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Worth noting that the deception of the portion of your subscription going into the ring fenced fund is still the line being used by Smisa to recruit new members! Its here on this link in black & white (&red)... this is not simply misleading, but breaks the rules set out by the FCA, in addition to breaking tne asset lock in the Smisa constitution..!
its beyond what you, or me see as being ok, or not. or are happy to go along with.. its an illegal proposal to access ring fenced funds, in a Community Benefit Society protected by an asset lock. The fact that the Smisa committee actually put this forward begs the question of stunning incompetence in not being able to take five minutes to check the legal implications before putting it forward, or, more worringly knowing the legal status, but hoping to 'Wing It' on good will, emotional ties, and the " aye but we're just doing this part time, we're saints fans, I'm jist a joiner" pally, pally approach.
And from the constitution:
-
4.5 operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
-
APPLICATION OF SURPLUS
7. The surpluses of the Society are not to be distributed either directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever among members of the Society but shall be applied:
-
7.1 to maintain prudent reserves;
-
7.2 on expenditure to achieve the Society’s objects;
-
7.3 in paying interest on or repaying issued share capital in accordance with the provisions of these Rules.
-
ASSET LOCK
8. Restriction on use: Pursuant to regulations made under section 1 of the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014:
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;
-
8.1.2 to pay a member of the society the value of his withdrawable share capital or interest on such capital;
-
8.1.3 to make a payment pursuant under section 36 (payments in respect of persons lacking capacity) 37 (nomination by members of entitlement to property in society on member’s death), 40 (death of a member: distribution of property not exceeding £5,000) of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014;
-
8.1.4 to make a payment in accordance with the Rules of the society to trustees of the property of bankrupt members or, in Scotland, members whose estate has been sequestrated;
-
8.1.5 where the society is to be dissolved or wound up, to pay its creditors; or
-
8.1.6 to transfer its assets to one or more of the following:
-
8.1.6.1 a prescribed community benefit society whose assets have been made subject to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred;
-
-
8.1.6.2 a community interest company;
-
8.1.6.3 a registered social landlord which has a restriction on the use of its assets which is equivalent to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred;
-
8.1.6.4 a charity (including a community benefit society that is a charity) ;or
-
8.1.6.5 a body, established in Northern Ireland or a State other than the United Kingdom, that is equivalent to any of those persons.
-
8.2 Any expression used in this Rule which is defined for the purposes of regulations made under section 1 of the 2003 Act shall have the meaning given by those regulations.]
-
-
-
-
When. BTB was launched everyone who signed up was made aware that £2 from your subscription was not going into the asset locked surplus, but was being made available at members discretion to spend on club/community based projects.
the remainder of your subscription was the deposited in an asset locked Community Benefit Society, as you can see it contravenes the Smisa constitution, and therefore the relevant legislation to transfer funds from an asset locked CBS to what SMFC is a PLC.
it is wholly and without doubt illegal, the members cannot, even if they chose vote on disapplying the asset lock! Smisa have waded into a puddle of shit here and they dont have big enough boots on to stop it all slopping in ove the top!
-
From that link:
Community benefit societies that have chosen not adopt the restrictions set out in the 2006 Regulations are free to amend their rules regarding the use of assets, subject to FCA approval. A community benefit society might prefer the flexibility of this form of asset lock, because it could in the future amend its rules and apply to become a charitable community benefit society, something which a society with the prescribed asset lock could not do.
-
-
22 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Worth noting that the deception of the portion of your subscription going into the ring fenced fund is still the line being used by Smisa to recruit new members! Its here on this link in black & white (&red)... this is not simply misleading, but breaks the rules set out by the FCA, in addition to breaking tne asset lock in the Smisa constitution..!
its beyond what you, or me see as being ok, or not. or are happy to go along with.. its an illegal proposal to access ring fenced funds, in a Community Benefit Society protected by an asset lock. The fact that the Smisa committee actually put this forward begs the question of stunning incompetence in not being able to take five minutes to check the legal implications before putting it forward, or, more worringly knowing the legal status, but hoping to 'Wing It' on good will, emotional ties, and the " aye but we're just doing this part time, we're saints fans, I'm jist a joiner" pally, pally approach.
And from the constitution:
-
4.5 operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;
-
APPLICATION OF SURPLUS
7. The surpluses of the Society are not to be distributed either directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever among members of the Society but shall be applied:
-
7.1 to maintain prudent reserves;
-
7.2 on expenditure to achieve the Society’s objects;
-
7.3 in paying interest on or repaying issued share capital in accordance with the provisions of these Rules.
-
ASSET LOCK
8. Restriction on use: Pursuant to regulations made under section 1 of the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014:
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;
-
8.1.2 to pay a member of the society the value of his withdrawable share capital or interest on such capital;
-
8.1.3 to make a payment pursuant under section 36 (payments in respect of persons lacking capacity) 37 (nomination by members of entitlement to property in society on member’s death), 40 (death of a member: distribution of property not exceeding £5,000) of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014;
-
8.1.4 to make a payment in accordance with the Rules of the society to trustees of the property of bankrupt members or, in Scotland, members whose estate has been sequestrated;
-
8.1.5 where the society is to be dissolved or wound up, to pay its creditors; or
-
8.1.6 to transfer its assets to one or more of the following:
-
8.1.6.1 a prescribed community benefit society whose assets have been made subject to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred;
-
-
8.1.6.2 a community interest company;
-
8.1.6.3 a registered social landlord which has a restriction on the use of its assets which is equivalent to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred;
-
8.1.6.4 a charity (including a community benefit society that is a charity) ;or
-
8.1.6.5 a body, established in Northern Ireland or a State other than the United Kingdom, that is equivalent to any of those persons.
-
8.2 Any expression used in this Rule which is defined for the purposes of regulations made under section 1 of the 2003 Act shall have the meaning given by those regulations.]
-
-
-
-
When. BTB was launched everyone who signed up was made aware that £2 from your subscription was not going into the asset locked surplus, but was being made available at members discretion to spend on club/community based projects.
the remainder of your subscription was the deposited in an asset locked Community Benefit Society, as you can see it contravenes the Smisa constitution, and therefore the relevant legislation to transfer funds from an asset locked CBS to what SMFC is a PLC.
it is wholly and without doubt illegal, the members cannot, even if they chose vote on disapplying the asset lock! Smisa have waded into a puddle of shit here and they dont have big enough boots on to stop it all slopping in ove the top!
-
Okay we get it, you're not a fan but there is nothing illegal happening here.
ASSET LOCK
8. Restriction on use: Pursuant to regulations made under section 1 of the Co-operatives and
Community Benefit Societies Act 2014:
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;https://communityshares.org.uk/resources/handbook/asset-lock-provisions Whole bunch of details on asset lock here.
There is both a direct and indirect community benefit therefore nothing illegal.
-
-
49 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:
There is every risk, the pot gathering dust gets dipped into again & again & again.
I gave the analogy a few days back of Mrs Poz's telly fund and Poz (the scoundrel) dipping into it for a new set of golf clubs. There are loads of clubs/committees throughout the land, who can site experiences of their funds being used for other things and it puts their whole purpose at risk.
Great, we are agreed.
However, that is what should have been proposed. As you quite rightly have pointed out, if the SMISA vote says no, he club will foot that £50K.
My alternative proposal, would, I believe, ensure greater support from the SMISA membership to support and over the next 10 quarters, guarantee St Mirren FC PLC income generation of £50000 that could be budgeted for the betterment of the club.
Whether that be playing budget, sports scientists, HoF Boards, Giant screens, TV screens in the vomitories or even upgrading the PA system.
Oi OI! there's a thought, how is the PA system these days? Is it sorted or is it still gash? SMISA £2 pot to upgrade that. get it on a vote.
Playing guessing games can be ill advised. In this instance, you are not correct but I am averse to selling something on a promise and then changing that promise and I am averse to f**king about with other peoples money when I made a promise to do one specific thing with it.
Give us a definite guarantee that the £10 pot won't be dipped into again or again & I'll go on my merry way. But this explains things pretty well and is just not a cry of "it's ring fenced"
1. The pot won't get dipped into again and again unless paying members vote it's the right thing. I also wouldn't say that's a valid reason to shoot down this proposal.
2. Answered in above point, we'd be voting on whatever happens. I think it's unfair to assume SMISA members would open the floodgates to more risky asks just because they've agreed something with such little risk. If I put £10 on St Mirren to win the league on Tuesday it doesn't mean I'll put £500 on us beating Livi on Saturday
3. There's a difference between saying something has merit and 'agreeing' on it. I think it has merit if I had a straight choice between it and the current proposal I would 'agree' with the current proposal being the best one going forward.
4. Your next suggestions makes assumptions that other fans (majority) paying their money would want them over the £50k given to the pitch. I'd be very skeptical on that. Big TVs at the ground Vs the opportunity to save St Mirren £50k for our first season back in the SP. Absolutely no contest what I'd vote on (and if previous votes are anything to go by, dare I say other fans feel the same)
5. Guessing games can be ill advised yes but your next point isn't valid. No one has changed any promise, they've simply asked fans to vote on a new proposal. Changing the promise would be saying 'it's happening end of.'
6. Why should there be a definite guarantee? That's taking away voting rights of the SMISA paying population. I'd say the opposite, give me a guarantee that'll never happen.
Out of interest, few people on here I've been going back and forward, are you all still paying the monthly Direct Debit? Obviously feel free not to answer.
-
4 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
The only other teams that use It are opponent's of St Mirren. Honest
I didn't know of it getting used for the camps, but glad as I'm sure all are that we use it for such a community scheme.Did someone not share something earlier in this topic about other youth teams and youngsters using it?
-
9 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:
He gives evidence of Soccer Camps, you're still going on about other teams. The use highlighted is kids, in isolation, applying for slots on the Camps and paying to be on them. Again, I've already stated that's fine and I'm just highlighting the level of community use.
I don't think I ever tried to highlight the level, just that there is a community use. My point all along was that the new pitch ticks that box. Simple as it is.
-
1 hour ago, garzo said:
"""would reduce the core budget available for the first team and the club's day-to-day operation
= if you don’t do it the playing budget will be affected.
So our share of the pitch upgrade at Ralston would – over time – be paid for entirely from £2 and discretionary money –
but we would use funds which would otherwise be sitting in the bank to let it happen sooner."""is emotional blackmail :-)
It's sitting in the bank for a reason!!!
How is it emotional blackmail?
That's the answer to the question and it would be question 1 on most peoples list. Would you rather they just didn't answer?
-
11 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:
Bazil85?
Easy to click yes on an online vote!
Willing to put money where your mouth is?
My overdraft is at the limit snd credit card not too healthy.
Not been abroad for a couple of years as can't afford it.
Despite that, I am willing to financially contribute to the purchase of astroturf if it means protecting ring-fenced money for the share purchase.
Are you in?If this vote fails and they suggest this then yes I'll match your money. Even if it passes I don't see why we can't do this anyway to quicker replace some of the ring-fence if fans have appetite to pay more in. A lot of fans might not though. Got to remember a lot of good people already pay in over and above with SMISA, 1877 club, magazine subscriptions etc.
-
11 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:
Here's a thought
We all agree, we want to help the club as best we can but quite a few/many of us do not think using the ring fenced money is appropriate or right.
Here's an alternative. As it has already been determined, the club will pay for the astro replacement if the SMISA vote is 'No' to using ring fenced money.
The Club pay for the astro replacement (it has got the money) and SMISA members vote yes or no for £5000 to be donated from each of the next 10 quarterly votes meaning SMISA will effectively contribute 33% of the cost but by instalment every 3 months. April 2018 being the first instalment of £5000.
Everyone could be happy then.
Ring fenced money stays ring fenced (as we were told). The Astro gets replaced (for the whole community to benefit from). SMISA pays1/3 of this big ticket item (as the club currently desires) by instalments when it has collected the money instead of dipping a pot it should be leaving well alone. The ring fenced money stays ring fenced for the sole purchase of shares and Jack Ross gets a brand spanking new 4G pitch to train on if he wishes.
I have no problem with SMISA paying the £50k but it has to be out of the £2 pot and not out of the ring fenced pot which then gets repaid over time from the £2 pot.
I f we're going to do that then can I ask why not just take the £50k from the account that's sitting there gathering dust and making next to no interest? 1. Money would be repayed same way as dripping it in would do 2. It would save saints £50k for next seasons budget 3. There is very very very little risk in giving the money up front given the current membership numbers.
What you're suggesting there is absolutely fine but I'm guessing as a person you're pretty risk averse? I think a few people need to take a wee step back, have another look and ask themselves 'Okay realistically, what's the risk here?' I think most will see it's very small. The only response I'm really getting from people is 'but ring-fencing.' It's not really an argument against this, let's be fair.
-
13 hours ago, garzo said:
Go on. Try selling Buy the buds to me again.
Whats the deal?
I think the main point in selling BTB now is that it's already happening. If it fell apart now with member numbers drop off the result would be at a big hinderance to St Mirren Football Club.The more paying members we now get the stronger it becomes which can only be a good thing.
A lot of people with issue on here but we need to firmly remember this is all short-term. In a few years we'll be fan owned and that's where the power will stay. No risk of a Rangers death nail through dodgy owners, Livi, Dundee, Clydebank etc etc etc. The people running the club in it for the team and not for short-term profits.
-
16 hours ago, pozbaird said:
I knew you would ask me about the vote, and I knew you would claim (again) that I don’t understand that members are indeed being asked to vote on the ring-fenced funds, designed solely for share purchase, instead be used towards an astroturf pitch, with the monies (if the vote is ‘yes’), being paid back from members own future monies.
I get it. Really, I do.
It’s a cnut of a way to ask people to vote on something like this. IMHO. Arthur Daley would be proud.
I would say, only if you think the majority of paying members are of a similar mindset to you. I'm not sure they are. I think a lot of them (not sure if it'll be a majority) will be more than happy that we can help the club in this way and will see the borrowing as pretty low risk. It'll possibly be different if it happens closer to the closure date.
-
16 hours ago, TsuMirren said:
David?
Who's David?
-
16 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:
So there we have it.
You think using ring-fenced money for a purpose other than that for which it is specifically set aside is a non event... a "non issue"!
There really is no debating with someone with such a low moral baseline.You can use what I'm saying and mess it about in word games all you like, it doesn't take away from facts that SMISA paying members are being asked to fund this in isolation from ring fenced funds (a proposal in isolation). It doesn't take away from the fact that the proposal is very well worded and anyone with half a brain would know in this instance SMISA would be borrowing from the ring fence.
Your definition of low moral baseline seems to be - give fans a vote on a very well details proposal
I assume you'd think high morale baseline would be either - Refuse to give them a vote and dismiss an idea from our club or Give them a misleading vote that would be on if ring fence funds could be used on proposals without that actual proposals being named or costed...
Very strange moral compass that.
-
15 hours ago, cockles1987 said:
Just seen this whilst trying to find evidence of the lease.
http://www.saintmirren.net/pages/?p=55846
I knew/believed other teams couldn't use it. But had never seen it getting used for community use.I'd say because other teams use it and they're youngsters in the community that's the link to a community use.
Suppose it depends on your definition of 'hire' if these youth teams are being charged any sort of fees then that's technically a hire. If they're not and St Mirren are letting them use it out of the goodness of their heart, that strengthens the community benefit even more. Win win.
-
1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:
As previously stated, I have never once commented on my thoughts on the actual proposal or the merits of it.
That is a completely separate issue... Or it should be. You already agreed with me on that point.I agreed it’s a separate issue like it’s a seperate issue about funding bibs for the youth teams through SMISA or what font the SMISA logo should be on the sponsorship.
I in no way gave the issue merit in deserving a vote because it doesn’t. I’d go as far as to say as far as issues go it’s very close to a non one.
-
1 minute ago, 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?
1. I understand what it was designed for, why don’t you understand members have the right to vote on changing that?
2. I’d expect nothing less than them discussing requests from st Mirren football club and canvass fans. I’ll ask you a question, what if st Mirren asked and SMISA dismissed it without letting members decide, or that St Mirren had approached? better or worse? What if this vote is a landslide yes, should they still not of canvassed members and rejected it?
As above I understand why people are uneasy of course. I think more people would be concerned if they made the decision without talking to members.
-
4 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
So you finally agree that it is a separate point!
Good.
We are getting somewhere at last!They’re separate points but you’re making one of the points up to be more than it is yourself. There is no need for a separate vote on being allowed to use ring fenced funds. That’s not what this is about. It’s about a situation in isolation we’re being asked to find from the discretionary pot that includes a borrowing facility from the £10 pot.
To say we must vote separately about the ring fence is a load of rubbish and it reaks of desperation because you don’t want this vote to win. For some reasons beyond my grasp.
-
1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:
At no point has anyone been asked IF they think ring-fenced money should be spent.
We HAVE been asked if a particular project is worth spending ring-fenced money on.
That assumes the first point has already been passed... Without consultation.
It is a completely separate issue.
(I typed that last bit as slowly as possible!)If you genuinely don’t think st Mirren fans can vote with their head on this and understand what the vote means Correlating BOTH these issues then that’s on you. I have a wee bit more faith than that.
I’d encourage you to read this next bit ‘slowly’ and several times try and get it in your head.
Why on earth would we put a vote saying ‘is it okay to spend ringfenced funds’ when it isn’t a prudent and beneficial idea for BTB to have it open ended? This is a vote in isolation for a particular use(just so happens we’re asking to borrow from the ring fence, separate point, but I’m not sure why people see this as more risky than a simple loan) and it’s how it should be treated. Just like for any other future proposals. And repeat.
-
3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Your wasting your time trying to get him to concede the very fact the vote is taking place is breaking the promise to ring fence OUR money until we are in a position to take the controlling interest. Anyway should be quiet tomorrow night when that particular cowboy is back at the ranch house meeting..?
Hi ho Silver...!
Yeah I know I’m wasting my time. It’s became very clear to me you can’t differentiate between a proposal that’s being voted on and a SMISA decision to tap into the ring fenced funds.
Hey I tried, probably pissing in the wind as well to ask if you’ll respect the outcome of the vote and give st Mirren fans a wee bit more credit they understand what they’re voting on?
The 3 Monthly Spend
in SMiSA
Posted
I think you're right in that it has become a lot like Groundhog day. Bottom line is there are always going to be different opinions and different takes on where money should be spent for a club like St Mirren that are never going to have the sugar daddy luxury we see at some other clubs.
It won't lesson my enjoyment of winning the league anymore if the vote is a no and it won't cancel my monthly direct debit. In football terms I'll always priorities what I think is best for St Mirren as I'm sure is the mindset of most if not all fans on here.
The view of what's best might be different but not the virtue. COYS