bazil85
-
Posts
10,613 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
45 minutes ago, faraway saint said:
Aye, there are many similarities between the two.
Whither you agree or not both present reasonably constructed post but repeating till people's eyes are bleeding tends to lead to their points being dismissed.
I've always been from a point of opinion. Only time that changes is when people argue a point that an organisation I'm a member of or a club I support are breaking the law with zero evidence. Would you defend a company you had vested interest in? Apparently not.
Oh and people winging about a democratic vote, that's also pretty frustrating.
-
47 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
I read your first paragraph, laughed and stopped reading.
Look back at over 100 pages of evidence then look in the mirror.
I stopped contributing to this thread long ago when I had nothing new to contribute.
You still are regurgitating to prove yourself right yet accuse Stuart of the very same thing!
Laughable.All I was saying was my opinion on what Stuart had responded with. Pointing out that my opinion is different does not say his is wrong.
Why do I get a funny feeling you only read the start of a lot of informative text?
-
4 minutes ago, StuD said:
Come on Bazil, there's no dubiety about what these quotes have promised. One of them is supposed to have come directly from Gordon Scott. These are still on SMISA current Web page.
Take your insistence about the popularity of spending money on players wages. During the first ballot - which is still available online at Survey Monkey - six options were presented to the members to vote on. Guess where players wages came in that poll? Using the "weighted scoring system" that SMISA used it was fifth in the six horse race and more members deemed it an inappropriate way to spend the discretionary money than anything else. Guess what the choice was at the next ballot? Yep - spend all the money on players wages yes or no?
I had a wee hunt around the Web last night looking for the societies rules which Kenny claimed he asked for but never saw. I was right SMISA did just adopt SDs model rules - eventually getting round to changing a few lines and the graphic in the header. The Society rules are also known as the constitution which is available on the SMiSA website which lays out the procedure for a rule change - like spending ring fenced money - where a Special Resolution and and AGM need to be called before it can happen. It also lays out the terms of the asset lock on all of the societies assets - something that has been flagrantly breached on a number of occasions now.
You're right when you say we don't need to argue about this - we really don't. What is there in black and white is clear for anyone who isn't trying to spin the story. In fairness to you, you accepted process breaches earlier in the thread where you said I should report it then cause the FCA wouldn't be interested in issuing a small fine. You are probably right about that too....however where a board can't be trusted to follow its own pledges, promises, printed statements, direct quotes and it's own constitution then clearly the question has to be asked about the fitness for purpose of the Society and those who are running it. Those who vote with the committee out of apathy and a sense of trust should really be a bit more careful with about who they want to represent them within football.
You seem like a decent guy Scott, so do most St Mirren fans I've met face to face. I know you care about the club. I just wish you didn't see yourself as the SMISA spin doctor.
I fear this is why people get frustrated with you Stuart, you're very much 'I'm right and everyone that disagrees is wrong.'
Your first point about not spending on player wages, it doesn't mean the club can't request it. As much as it might not be everyone's cup of tea (the voting was at a point in time as all are), given the situation we were in last year it was likely seen by a number of members as a good way to help our club out of a hole. That was apparent in the vote result.
In regards to your next bit on legality. I think you touched on it before and even if not I'm sure you'll be somewhat aware. The FCA need to sign-off on this request. They'll certainly let us know if there's any aspect of the proposal that they deem has breached. If it has breached they'll say no and the money won't be moved over for the purchase. If they green light it then that's an end to the matter. It's also worth pointing out, we wouldn't be fined at this point unless we have already completed the deal.
I think what a lot of people on here don't realise about legislative compliance is it's very in-depth. It involves exceptions and it's by no means black and white. If SMISA and St Mirren can present the case to the satisfaction of the FCA then that's fine.
No company in the world is at any time 100% compliant with every rule, regulation and legislation going (Can see examples of this in big companies recently in GDPR). It would be absolutely impossible to function given how fluid such things are.
-
Agree with most of the above. We need a better keeper to challenge Sammy (I'd even go as far to say as we need a new number 1 for the SP)
Eckersley seems like a very strange one. He has a year left and been fantastic. 100% keep.
Reilly deserves a new deal, I think he must feel hard done by with Mullen playing so much. I think they'll both do a job but rate Reilly higher.
Hippolyte isn't match fit and had a bad injury, seeing hints of what he can do when back to his best. Punt would be extremely harsh and costly.
Flannigan apparently hasn't been doing great on this loan or the last one but he might be worth an extra year to see. Given what will likely be low wages, I might be tempted to give him a new contract.
-
58 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
What is frustrating to a growing number of members is the fact that despite the initial facade, and promises the £2 pot was "for the members to decide what to spend it on" we have seen the club basically take the piss, whilst taking the money (matchballs ffs) and now they have tied the bulk of it up for two and half years in advance, as well as getting the 30-50 (cant remember how many) Community group season tickets out of this votes balance.
if a member suggests something like installing TV screens around the kiosks they get told it needs to be costed and certified by the club first ( no offer whatsoever despite having a committee member on the club board to help). Wheras the club simply passes an invoice to the Smisa rep on the board, then smisa tell us... "its your choice where the vote goes".... its like a fecking Russian Election campaign where everyone knows its already decided, but we still have to dance around all the houses in an effort to make it look real..!
what is also frustrating to members is the promise their subs were/are ring fenced for the reason they signed up! But have been rifled three times.
all of this is documented by Smisa and the club. None of it is opinion! Its all happened on OUR watch.,
But like I say, it's matter of opinion if a person thinks all of the above is wrong.
We've went over it before but if history is anything to go buy, feckin TV screens at the pie stall is never going to beat money going to the club we all support. It's just popular opinion.
-
9 hours ago, StuD said:
Yeah. I think you've pretty much summed up my position quite well. It's not irrational though. Take a look at these quotes off the SMISA page.
If ever there was a misleading website promoting a product or service the SMISA website is it and that's after all the changes that were made to the website to erase all the promises of community spending.
Not wanting to get massively into the debate again but like I said it's difference of opinions. I think most people can argue there is a level of subjectivity in those quotes. Could argue if we said no to the player wages for example, then we just wouldn't of signed some of the players so it's not technically a bill. Voted no to the last one, St Mirren would have covered the bill out of the budget. So I'm not saying you're right or wrong because I don't think it's a matter of that.
-
15 minutes ago, northstbuddie said:
How about a 10ft high fence/netting fitted at the front edge of the 4 stand roofs.
It won't help the atmosphere, but it might help stop the balls being regularly booted out of the stadium.
I counted 4 out of bounds last night - while Shull was counting his planes.
We get most of the balls back right enough and even if we did start to struggle... SMISA?
-
23 minutes ago, st jock said:
Fair enough Stu. As I've said, I think some of your grievances are valid. Just don't know why you don't move on as you don't seem to have any emotional or financial attachment to the club. Seems that you are only here for attention and to do some shit stirring.
For me a lot of it is a matter of opinion which Stuart is of course fully entitled to as we all are. Okay it can be infuriating the way he sometimes comes across but I'm sure people say the same about me
Stuart seems to have a more set opinion about what X was, in regards to the BTB £2 fund, with little wiggle room. He wanted much more focus on community benefit, didn't agree with us funding the St Mirren player budget and other votes that he felt weren't community beneficial (I'm simplifying this slightly given the amount of posts this covers)
I took it as a fund that can be used to the benefit of our football club and/or community. Led by members suggestions, club requirements and SMISA decision makers. I took it as the final decision will be made by members in the way of a vote and that options on any ballot paper would be down to the popular demand of our members. It came as zero surprise to me that the majority of members would find St Mirren benefits more appealing than other options (I'm frankly very surprised anyone signing up would)
They're different interpretations and I'm not sure anyone can say which is right and which is wrong. I looked over a lot about SMISA when the deal came up but I don't remember anything that confirmed or denied money could go directly to the club or about community benefit. An argument can also be made about a strong St Mirren being good for the community.
The flip side of that is the name of the fund and background regulation that covers it, a person can have a viable concern about what the money has been used for (They can't about legality but I'm not getting into that again). Different strokes for different folks.
What does frustrate me about the whole thing is I feel it's a bit 'tail wagging the dog' When it comes to the £10/ £23 Vs the £2 spend. Part of me thinks would it of been simpler just to put the full £25/ £12 to the buyout and have members committing to 10 years of payments. At the end of the 10 years all the excess funds transferred to the fan owned club for a vote on how it's spent over the community and club. We wouldn't be getting all the frustration from the minority and we also likely wouldn't be getting much drop off (bar financial reasoning)
-
5 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:
Do we all post daft/idiotic stuff at times- aye. Should he be referring to sections of the support who hold him and the org we are members of (smisa) to account..? Naw..!
Where was this said by the way? Is there a transcript or can anyone give us a bit of context?
-
1 hour ago, StuD said:
Dunno - it's never mattered to me.
The other profile still looks like it's there as well, retained all your comments and other activity. Just under 10k posts. Shull's hammering everyone though with his post count.
-
1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:
In fairness, around 1,300 of them all say the same thing!
I'd say it was more 50/50 between Jack Baird and SMISA
-
14 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:18 hours ago, bazil85 said:You're so ahead of the curve Shull. I'm still a Scotch and Bovril kinda guy.
2 ice cubes or a splash of water for me. Bovril with it is just minging
Judas!!!!
-
17 hours ago, StuD said:
I asked Div to close the Stuart Dickson account after the Sin Bin nonsense. Bellside Bud was only ever meant to be temporary as I wanted to post to correct something that had been highlighted to me - Div closed that account. And this account was set up purely to post on this thread. I've no intention in taking part throughout the rest of the forum.
I'd be a bit gutted if someone closed my account and I've only racked up just over 1,400 posts. Was it not a bit of a shame for you, did you not hit over 30k?
-
44 minutes ago, StuD said:
Aye whatever. I directly answered questions that were being put to me. I've asked the question I wanted answered. What plans do SMISA have in place to cover the £150,000 cost of the replacement astrograss when it's next needed in 8 - 12 years time? What relevant contribution have you made to the discussion so far?
Out of interest, why the change in Usernames?
Forgotten/ locked passwords?
-
55 minutes ago, shull said:
My daughter favours a Curry Pie.
Steak Pie for me.
Diet Colas to wash them down.
Thanks
You're so ahead of the curve Shull. I'm still a Scotch and Bovril kinda guy.
-
42 minutes ago, shull said:
Never mind the pints. I am in W1.
Send up some pies, Bazzy buddie.
Pies plural?? You’re at it, haha
-
35 minutes ago, StuD said:
A DDI claim never crossed my mind Scott, to be honest, and no - no-one suggested it until now.
M3 for me usually when I go to matches, although we have been known to move to M4 on occasion. I would imagine I'd be quite easy to spot in a crowd though. I've met or been introduced to a few people on here over the years and never found it threatening. Bill Lees was going to hang me from the Blackpool Tower apparently and Cockles wanted to meet me so I could call him a Natsi to his face. Sadly neither of those two turned up. I don't often go to the pub on match days though - usually because I have to drive home, or to go on to work. More than happy to arrange something though if there is something specific you want to chat about.
Happy to discuss you through a DDI if you genuinely feel cheated, however the chat would likely be very short giving the simplicity of DDI.
I’d also air on the side of caution that if SMISA feel they have taken the money legally and can back-up such claim, they’ll request the account is recharged in full.
-
9 minutes ago, StuD said:
Aye - Stuart DIckson, StuD and Bellside Bud. I've never tried to hide my identity. What's your real name Bazil?
Scott, nice to meet you (First person that's ever asked me directly what my name was, no hiding at all). I sit in W1 and I'm more than happy to have a chat face to face/ over a pint (Not a threat by the way, I've seen a number of people jump to that ridiculous conclusion on here in different circumstances when someone has suggested this) My username (Bazil) is what the majority of my close friends called me when I first joined here.
You'll excuse me not putting my second name on an internet forum of course, your choice to do so but I would never recommend it to anyone. Hindesight is a wonderful thing and as much as data protection wasn't as much on peoples radar when B&Warmy was launched, it's certainly not a great idea in 2018.
On your big long post about getting your money back. I have to say for someone that's hinted at being pretty switched on with regulation and legal issues, it's a bit surprising you didn't just follow a DDI claim. I'm also surprised if you followed all the steps you claim to have followed, not one person you spoke to suggested it.
-
16 hours ago, StuD said:
And presumably my sour grapes would be because I wanted SMISA to hold to their Buy The Buds promise of closer community involvement and SMISA decided not to bother.
It's sad that Bazil85, Gordon Scott, Tony Fitzpatrick and SMISA seem to think that anyone who wants things done correctly is somehow running some anti St MIrren conspiracy - rather than realising that it's actually about wanting to see a strengthening of the fan buy out, wider club appeal, growth of the club, and increased revenue from streams outwith tapping up the same supporters over and over again.
We know your thoughts, you've said it over several usernames.
-
16 hours ago, TsuMirren said:
Sour grapes? Beeeeeeeeeeeecause? I was on the SMISA board, I resigned. I actually stood up, offered my time, enabled some community engagement and received praise for it. Exactly why would I have sour grapes?
Nope not over any of that, over the results of a vote not going certain peoples way.
-
1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:
Yes, someone such as yourself who is so very obviously heavily involved in SMISA at a high level really should be familiar with it.
I must admit, I doubt SMISA have any rules as such. More a case of ensuring the accounts will look okay, so invoices for things. Aside from that, nah. I certainly never saw a rules document, though there was plenty of talk of having one.
Bar paying my monthly DD I have no further direct dealings with SMISA.
Have to say a lot of this does sound like sour grapes.
-
1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:
But, that will is only being actioned upon pre-determined options with very little prior input from the membership. So, it's not really as they see fit is it.
There has been previous votes with varied options and we continually see that options that benefit the club are generally the best supported. This vote was possibly the most one sided we’ve had so far based on casted votes.
-
35 minutes ago, spankin_panda said:
Keeping McGinn would be a great signing to start.
Like most of you, a bit more hight up front and one in the middle.
I have faith in jack though and what he will bring in.
Fingers crossed, I know he said previously he'd love to sign back up. I'd sign Mac for another season and bring in another center back in the summer.
Liam Smith will be tough to replace at RB and with at least Irvine going and possibly Stelios we need some new blood for sure.
-
2 minutes ago, StuD said:
Yeah, you haven't read the Act have you Bazil85? Maybe you should try it. It's not quite The Cat in the Hat but I'm sure you could manage it.
I would be surprised if you were more familiar with it than I am. If you are you must know it very very well, which makes an FCA complaint even more curious.
The 3 Monthly Spend
in SMiSA
Posted
Again it's your opinion that we're doing something illegal. I have never said FCA wouldn't be interested, I said they certainly would be interested as they would fine the club (if previous votes were illegal, this one is different as it's not the £2 spend, trust me the FCA will have to sign-off on this). I think my exact point was 'A UK regulatory body not interest in issuing a fine? what a time to be alive.'
In an attempt to stop going round in circles, I would ask you to simply contact the FCA and blow the whistle. I have full confidence in what the outcome will be.
If the FCA dismiss your complaint as 'not interested' then they are breaching one of their purposes. I can't imagine why they would do that given they have the right to issue fines. It makes very little sense to me.