bazil85

1& 2. No it's not, the role of SMISA is to move St Mirren to fan ownership, anything over and above that has a level of subjectivity. SMISA paying wages isn't living outwith our means, if they ever said no, we'd simply adjust the budget possibly at the expense of a couple of players. Living without our means would be putting the club at risk. 3. the fund is called discretionary and is at the discretion of the members vote. I'm sorry but could it get anymore clearer that the fund will be... Discretionary? Next point - You can submit fully costed plans to SMISA which has been done and has made it onto the vote before. If they think it's realistic, costly and beneficial, it would go on. There's a caveat hear though. Not all options will go the vote, there has to be a level of common sense when several options are submitted to avoid diluting votes. It would be what ones fans are most likely to be in favor of. That's why there have been pulse surveys and the likes in the past. This is where we'll always have fans taking issue. It's been shown in votes that St Mirren benefit proposals are most popular than fan comforts, you'll get the people in the minority bugged that not everyone is interested in some of the improvements you mentioned.

Are you actually kidding? Did you miss the memo about what league we're playing in next season? All the money will be going into next seasons budget to give us the best possible chance to stay in a league with a lot of much bigger teams than us. It's been very well documented on the proposal, on social media and on here that this IS COMPLETELY within the clubs means but it would come out of the budget we're wanting to use next season in the SP. St Mirren like the majority of other clubs our size don't get the luxury of just sitting on money in the bank to pay stuff like this.

I am indeed, signed-up the first week.

God you're right, I'm forgetting how delicate people have to be nowadays to protect the feelings.

It's a fair breakdown. 1 and 2 are the No/ Yes (more or less) and 3 isn't on the table. I'm just saying my opinion differs from you in that the only investment for me as far as St Mirren is concerned is the product on the park. Personally speaking and from my take on the situation, 2 maximises that. I also think it's important to note that the club wouldn't be paying outside it's means, it's simply saving £50k from the already existing budget. Financially we're in a great position based on this year but we're going into a very tough league with a majority of teams that can outspend us regardless of how well we do. We need all the help we can get.

I said about this point earlier, the Yes/ no question for me opens up a can of worms about future spending. I think it's a very different ask for this costed pitch and future use of the £10 pot. I'm happy for it to be decided in a vote. I just hope other members recognise the gravity of a mass drop in membership numbers.

The money is for GS (to buy his shares), GS is the one making the request, the money is sitting doing nothing right now, the money will be replaced. I think I understand it perfectly well. What's your suggestion? We demand a financial gain from our football club (Forgetting clearly that we'll own in a few years) that will need to come out the budget? So all 1,300 members get maybe £20 in shares and our club take a financial hit. Aye good one. With some of these comments I can actually see a few fans cancelling their subscription. Cutting their nose off to spite their face.

Mate come on seriously? Do people really give their fellow buddies this little credit that they want two votes? 'Can we use ring fenced funds - Yes Are you sure - Oh wait no' Putting barriers up that are really not required.

If that happened the fans that pulled out would only have themselves to blame for screwing up a massive chance for the club to be brought into fan ownership. Would have to be exceptionally shortsighted and dimwitted. I have faith (majority of) paying members will see that though and therfore a smaller risk than you say.

There's a POV that we are acting like it by one, safeguarding property we'll soon own and two, financially benefitting a player budget for what will be a very difficult league next season. Risk and reward is what all business is about. I think most people that have looked at the proposal would agree on is this risk is very small compared to the reqward we can potentially get.

Can you elaborate on how offering to spend ring-fenced money on something other than the purpose for which it is ring-fenced for respects those who signed up with assurances that the money was ring-fenced for one purpose? Yes, easy, business models and purchase buyouts change and evolve. No one is saying THIS IS HAPPENING END OF. The assurances are still 100% there, we are simply being given the right to ALLOW SMISA and GS to change that assurance. They haven't got the power to change it, it needs to be the people that pay their money every month. I'm sorry you don't want to give the paying members that right.

I would say, yes very clear and very simple, if it was a business transaction and a company asking. But you've said it yourself we're fans of the team, it's our football club asking to use funds that we've already committed to give away anyway to benefit the team and community. To exploit that and think like shareholders isn't really for me. I can fully see your point though but for the gain that would have little to no impact on my life... Na Not exactly right in what you're saying. We are using the discretionary £2 fund for the £50k. Money that was always over and above and always going to be used as a wee bonus to the buyout. Because it'll take some time though for the £2 fund to reach £50k the proposal is to use cash in the bank already saved up from the £10 fund and then gradually replace from future £2 spends. For me it ticks a boxes The £50k will be getting next to no income in the bank, now a real benefit to the club - Tick Big ticket item some fans have been crying out for - Tick Well costed to replace the funds over a set period of time - Tick Investment for SMISA when we invest in the club as they'll want to inherit the best possible facilities - Tick An extra £50k (potentially a player) for the SP budget next season - Tick

Yes it could, the club have already answered that if the vote is no the club will fund it but it'll come out of next seasons budget. Of which that money will contribute to.

Can you elaborate on how a no to the vote will result in ring fenced funds being used?

Cool story bro. toys/ pram sounds like to me.

Just completely untrue. SMISA members are voting on this as we speak. They vote no, the ring fenced funds aren't touched and using them is not allowed.

I don't get how that is? Why should we get shares for giving £50k of money going to GS? Everyone will still commit the same amount a month for the same period of time regardless of this being a yes or no vote. The money that does come out of the £10 a month is replaced by the discretionary funds over the next couple years, funds that don't go towards the buyout. I'm not sure why people are so concerned with using money that is just sitting in an account, would be going to GS anyway and is very well costed to be replaced.

Eh? talk about making absolutely no sense. Fans should be asked if it's alright for them to be asked to use the ring fenced funds? Come on, play the game here. Very poor argument.

This 'better' process doesn't give St Mirren fans the credit they deserve. to think St Mirren fans don't know that voting yes to spend the £10 fund means... Spending the £10 fund is a very strange notion. It is also two very different things, giving SMISA the right to vote on future spends for the £10 fund and this one spend that is very clearly cost to replace the funds. Dare I say the outcome could be different.

There is no denial and you're not being ignored. You're just being disagreed with that it's 'arrogant' for the reasons I said. Plus you can change the wording all you want Mrs P still has to put a big tick in a yes or no box for a spend she knows is being proposed. Would you let members of the local community use your clubs? That's the real question...

Mrs Poz is of course asked to vote on the golf clubs though Nothing arrogant about this proposal, it's asking fans and giving fans the choice for something to benefit our club. The thing that baffles me about fans thinking this is so terrible is... The irony, that the £10 is going straight to GS anyway to pay-off the money he put up himself in order to us to become fan owned. He's done an amazing job as a St Mirren fan to hand the club to the fans using his own wealth (and at no profit from the deal). A thing that no other St Mirren fan could do. Yet it's 'arrogance' for him to position a selfless proposal that is using money owed to him anyway? Mental

I didn't say you did, my point was more if it's' one or the other' which is what it is right now and always will be. Regardless of this being extra money SMISA are still asking fans do you want small comforts or the money to go benefit the St Mirren budget. There will only ever be one winner for the majority of fans as the votes have shown. I personally would of been perfectly happy if the BTB scheme saw every penny of the £2 fund spent as our club sees fit. They are my priority in football and always will be, I also have full faith in the decision makers at our club to use the money wisely. But that's me. As you say it's a democracy, each to their own, you're entitled to your opinion and what you'd want the money spent on. A bit disappointed you'd be 'out' though if other fans didn't vote your way.

Possibly the difference between us I'd say. You seem to come from the angle of making sure it's right with concern it's wrong (and illegal). I come from the angle, of course make sure it's right but with faith that they've got it right and completely legal. Neither of us can fully know every single aspect because it wouldn't be prudent to have every St Mirren football fan involved in every step of what will be a complex transaction (Very few company's have full stakeholder transparency like this if any) but based on all the facts, information and the proposal we have there is nothing that suggests it's illegal. If you have any 'proof' or something highly suspect then feel free to present it. I'd go to the FCA for you because I guarantee they would be interested in it and it would jepordise my football club.

I would say if you have such concerns take them to the FCA, blow the whistle on your football club. You'll be told the same as the last person that did it. There is nothing illegal about what SMISA/ St Mirren are doing. You'd be hard pushed to show a direct profit between SMISA members and a new training pitch. You'll find it a lot simpler prove a community benefit in a pitch that's used by many youth teams in the local community. You can consider that me 'joining of dots' but if you still don't believe me, the FCA details are on their website to report illegal regulatory activity.

Is it aye? I think you should re-read your waffle. I think I did well to get through it without laughing. Would expect nothing else from Mr SMISA can do no right. Fortunately there are a vast majority of people that don't jump to wrong assumptions that St Mirren football club soon to be owners are likely doing something illegal. Why don't you go report it to the FCA? Mind how well that worked for Mr D?