bazil85
-
Posts
10,429 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
Just now, BuddieinEK said:
For the umpteenth time... Voting on the use of ring-fenced money bypasses a vote on ring-fenced money being used at all and is therefore NOT a democratic vote on whether ring-fenced money can be freed up and used gor sny other purpose.
You seem to have the same idea of democracy as America who think it is appropriate to impose democracy on other nations!For the umpteenth time, that is utter rubbish and you show no faith in your fellow St Mirren fans to know what a yes vote means. Do you genuinely think we have dribbling idiots voting yes to using the ring fenced funds that will turn round and go ‘oh does that mean we’re using the ring fenced money?’
Oh my days mate, someone have a word. Haha
-
1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:
The People's Front of SMISA?
I jest, of course.
You make a very valid point.
I still fear the vote will overwhelmingly be voted through simply because it is cloaked in "good for the team" and ultimately we all want what is good for the team.
Stealing candy! That easy.
That is a huge concern.In what way is it ‘cloaked’? It is good for the club, nothing cloaked about it.
As for a huge concern, if everyone continues to pay as they do now there’s no risk and no concern. If they stop, only have themselves to blame when the funds can’t be replaced.
-
56 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Before during and after the game yesterday everyone i spoke to were genuinely upset at the content, tone and complete betrayal in trust that this shambolic voting option has caused.
there is now a genuine lack of trust in smisa as it seeks to simply walk all over the core promise it made to 'ring fence' the funds for share purchase on its watch. Furthermore there was genuine disbelief at the proposal put forward of giving the club £50k of share purchase money, which... its then proposed the membership make good from their own pockets somewhere down the line.
this propsal breaks another promise that perhaps smisa wish to go unnoticed..? If its voted through, and £50k is given for the club to buy a new carpet it will in effect put Smisa into debt..! An internal debt of its own creation spending beyond its means as it relies on an un guaranteed continuous and future source of funding to pay off this debt.
its been clear to me for quite some time that the influence held over the Smisa committee will lead to a crash, we saw the same happen at Dundee a few years ago when again after a short period club influence was exerted to change the very essence of what the membership had set out to achieve.
we need as the membership to not only reject this ill conceived, bad option. But also call on the Smisa committee to withdraw this bad vote, consult with the membership and gauge if there is any appetite whatsoever to dis-apply the asset lock around the ring-fenced funds. If the committee decline this request then it wil be time to look towards other options including the removal of the committee, and installing a new board who will actually work within the guidelines the membership lay down.
Real Smisa...? Anyone..?
Bet you were a little ray of sunshine at the game yesterday. Haha
it’s actually laughable you think a democratic vote is a ‘betrayal in trust’
the rest of the waffle in that post will all be answered if this vote passes. It’ll show the paying members have faith in SMISA to continue as is and are happy in changing the ring fence terms.
If it’s voted down, it’ll simply show the system works. No one at SMISA has any power in this, it’s paying members. Overwhelmingly clear.
You just seem to like being negative about BTB and all doom and gloom about what might happen in the future. Wonder if you’ll be one of the toys out the pram if the vote doesn’t go your way...
-
8 hours ago, cockles1987 said:8 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:so, with the rental income from the 4g pitch, the club should be able to get the pitch repaired/renewed without asking to use SMISA' ring fenced pot.
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.
-
8 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:
so, with the rental income from the 4g pitch, the club should be able to get the pitch repaired/renewed without asking to use SMISA' ring fenced pot.
£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?
-
21 hours ago, faraway saint said:
He was the same on the recent Baird debate.
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.
-
21 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:
Just as well.
He believes nobody who dares take a differing viewpoint.
His tenacity is admirable even if it is weriesome rubbish spouted or created to support his point of view.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.
-
21 hours ago, cockles1987 said:
The Ralston kids who use the community scheme meet at the local primary school for the coaching not at the training ground.
It's part of the lease/conditions. If you don't believe me that's fine.I’m only quoting the proposal. They didn’t just pull the information from thin air, there is a community benefit.
-
46 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
As I wrote. The current local youths are St Mirren players, likewise the ones in the future referred to in the proposal will have to be St Mirren players or play for an opponent.
IE Glennifer couldn't organise a game with St Peter's to be played on said new pitch.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...
-
1 minute ago, cockles1987 said:
The only teams outside of St Mirren that use It, is opponent's of St Mirren.
The local youths in the proposal that use It currently are St Mirren players.
That's my understanding unless you can show me different.
I can but just read the proposal yourself. It says other youths, many from the local area.
-
2 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:16 minutes ago, bazil85 said: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.
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.
-
Just now, BuddieinEK said:
But by offering to spend it at all the decision has already been made to remove the ring-fencing!
Without consultation.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?
-
27 minutes ago, davidg said:
Just vote no then and no matter what the outcome we should all respect the results.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Graeme Aitken said:1 hour ago, bazil85 said: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 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.
-
1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:
There's no detriment of any great concern coming from SMISA not having my £25 a month. It's also been highlighted, by a vocal minority, that I'm not needed and SMISA is stronger without me. Fair enough, makes them happy I'd imagine.
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.
-
1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:
According to you there is a god given right to ask this time, so why not again in future?
FWIW I have never once commented on the merits of what the money will be spent on... Purely on how that money will be sourced.
Regardless of what you say, there can be NO guarantee that it will be repaid.
I say again... Ring-fenced should be just that.
As Tsu has rightly said, a bit of creative thought and Saints fans would willingly have come together to support this project without even discussing the use of ring-fenced cash.
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.
-
1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:
According to you there is a god given right to ask this time, so why not again in future?
FWIW I have never once commented on the merits of what the money will be spent on... Purely on how that money will be sourced.
Regardless of what you say, there can be NO guarantee that it will be repaid.
I say again... Ring-fenced should be just that.
As Tsu has rightly said, a bit of creative thought and Saints fans would willingly have come together to support this project without even discussing the use of ring-fenced cash.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:
I am one that advocates "big ticket items" and put the proposal to SMISA that an option to "Save the pot" was put on each & every ballot to give the members the opportunity to vote on saving the money.
I think i used the term "instead of spunking it on balls for the 1st team" or words to that effect.
Now we have a big ticket item, an item that I would support paying for from a saved up £2 pot but I cannot support it being paid for by money ring fenced to achieve the goal of purchasing shares and ultimately the club.
You can argue till you are blue in the face and come back with a load of bollocks about the money will getting repaid. That is not the point.
Like Poz's wifes telly fund, he was only dipping into it once, but then he done it again & again and before long, there wasn't enough money for the telly.
Bazil, as far as I can see, you are about the only forumster arguing it's a good thing to spend from the ringfenced pot.
That in itself speaks volumes.
Hopefully, the members vote to reject this ludicrous proposal.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
If the first team train on it too then the kids in the community you value so highly will get less time on it or it will wear out much more quickly from increased useage.
How to you propose saving up for the replacement?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.
-
6 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
You do know that the facilities at Ralston can't be rented out if I remember correctly.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, melmac said:
Paying a block booking for a team / teams from the area is benefiting the community, paying for the pitch is stretching it too far. Again, the club are not the community.
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
-
Just now, melmac said:
SMiSA's assets are protected by an asset lock, the club are not the community.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
I have. I can i did. You wont.
Okay then
-
On 05/04/2018 at 10:24 PM, cockles1987 said:
I was wondering if this covered it as well. Specifically 8.1.1
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;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.
£2 Pot SMISA vote for April ?????
in SMiSA
Posted
What point haven’t I answered?