bazil85

I agreed with him regarding the conditions of the spend but somehow he just didn't get the fact that no local kid could just hire the pitch at Ralston or use it free for the community classes. I do get what you’re saying, if that isn’t the pitch that’s rented then I apologise. I was only stating in the proposal it says there’s a community benefit to local youths. Local youths doesn’t suggest they’re st Mirren youth players because they won’t all be local.

£150k? Aye nae bother haha. You still not grasping that even if this was possibly, any money the club spend on it is money out of the budget for next seasons return to the top flight?

The Baird date is a perfect example of where some fans don’t like other fans to have an opinion... worse, imagine saying anything remotely critical against Lord Bairdy.

Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. Some people might not think this is best for st Mirren, fans or the buyout all fine. What I do take issue with is people spouting nonsense that it’s illegal and fans shouldn’t have the right to vote on such issues.

I’m only quoting the proposal. They didn’t just pull the information from thin air, there is a community benefit.

Direct from the proposal. the pitch is used extensively by many, mainly-local, young people each week. This investment provides a degree of community benefit by improving their facilities; they are not just st Mirren youth players. many mainly local young people use it unless all our youth players are from Ralston...

I can but just read the proposal yourself. It says other youths, many from the local area.

Just out of interest, how do you see fan ownership working at StMirren? Similar to the way other ownership models work for clubs with the difference that the main decisions will be from fans and there won’t be a chairman/ majority stakeholders that are in it to turn a profit. Will mean all of the income st Mirren raised being invested back into our football club.

I really don’t know how I can put this any different. I’m seriously struggling. The consultation is happening right now, all members have the proposal to vote on. Voting yes is agreeing, voting no is not removing the ring fencing and continuing as plan. In what way shape or form has anyone made the decision to remove the ring fencing already? You know the difference between a proposal and a decision right?

Well said, I just hope everyone has their eyes on the end goal. In seven/ eight years this money will be repaid and it’ll be a distant memory. Bringing St Mirren into fan ownership is the big goal. Don’t lose sight. Coys.

I see it similarly regarding the sensible ones voting accordingly & voting no. I know you do, the difference is I don’t see it being backed up by anything apart from unnecessary worry over what is a relatively small small in the overall by out getting paid. A yes vote is backed up with sound finance and several benefits to our football club.

Everyone has a choice when it comes to signing up and staying committed. You’ve made yours and that’s fine I respect that. I also pay £25 and bar something happening that will mean btb will be bad for my club (looking right now at alternatives I don’t think that’s close to being the care) i’ll Continue to pay.

Also a right to ask and a right to get are two different things. I can go ask Gordon Scott for £10k right now as could you. I could ask Livi to role over today. Part of the job SMISA has given itself is to communicate with fans, if they ask and a majority of fans want this there is nothing wrong with that.

If you think ring fenced should remain ring fenced then vote that way. That’s an opinion, it’s not a legality. There is full assurance it’ll be repaid if membership numbers stay above the requirement of which we’re over 30% ahead of already. If membership numbers fall below it presents the same risk (btb fails) no additional risk.

Ifs and buts. If they come in again and but what if this happens. We vote in isolation. What harm is there in approving this one when it’s clearly costed to be paid back? Approving this one doesn’t mean there’s a god given right for them to ask and be approved again. Typical skeptics from a St Moan fan. As for me being the only one. There is a very vocal minority on here, maybe 4/5 people. Not all are even in SMISA because they’ve never signed up or they’ve already spat the dummy at the detriment of their football club and no one else. we have about 1,300 members. My hope is the silent (and dare I say it more sensible and less doom and gloom) majority will shine through.

I’m pretty sure the pitch isn’t used 24/7 I’m sure it would be fine. First team wouldn’t be training on it exclusively. St Mirren generally train during the day and I’m pretty sure most kids have other commitments during the day... Again as stated in the proposal the new pitch life will extend into fan ownership. When it’s time to replace it, we’ll replace it out of our budget like any other team would have to do and like how st Mirren will do this time if we vote no. Very simple.

It can. Other youth teams outside of St Mirren do use those pitches and local youths also use it to play. Says so on the proposal anyway.

It’s not stretching it too far at all. Like I said youngsters from the community use the pitch. Without it they could be deprived from playing on a decent surface. It also clearly says direct/ indirect. No one can argue st Mirren benefit the community. Really baffles me the objection some fans have to helping St Mirren

The asset lock on the funds can be unlocked if there’s a direct or indirect benefit to the community. Said it on another thread there’s a direct benefit in that young people from the area use it and indirect in that it benefits St Mirren and a strong st Mirren is good for the community. There’s nothing wrong/ illegal in what they’re proposing. The only agreement they need is a majority vote.

Okay then

This is exactly why they’re fully covered and a vote by members is sufficient to unlock ring fenced funds. There’s both a direct and indirect community benefit. Direct in that the pitch is used for a lot of Paisley youth players and indirect in that it benefits St Mirren and a strong St Mirren means a stronger community. Hope people banging on as if they know everything there is to know about ‘ring-fencing’ sees this and it settles their concerns that this idea isn’t legal.

Crazy post. Do we not ‘really need’ youth teams? Do we not ‘really need’ facilities to be rented out for income? Also the first team would train on it if it was fit for purpose.

You haven’t because you can’t. The £50k all gets replaced by £2 commitments over a set time period. No one is worse off, and st Mirren our team is better off. If membership numbers stay above target, we’re laughing with this proposal. Only risk is people cutting their nose off to spite their face. Very clear and no shafting whatsoever. The irony is a lot of the st moan fans on here are the ones that have been banging on about ‘the money should be used for larger items’ haha

Please tell us all how we’re being shafted when it’ll cost paying members £0 more, it’ll benefit our football club, it won’t hold up BTB and it will give the club an extra £50k for our premier league return next season? Your definition of shafted seems to be ‘something that benefits the football team i support that has absolutely no financial impact on me whatsoever.’ Strange.

And there are several that can’t ‘grasp’ that members are being ‘asked’ Right now in a democratic vote.