Jump to content

bazil85

Saints
  • Posts

    10,388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Posts posted by bazil85

  1. 16 minutes ago, Sonny said:

    For me the £2 monthly pot was to improve the experience for supporters and to help the Community. I was happy last season to use the money towards a player budget as we were in dire straits and regarded that as exceptional circumstances. However I am reluctant to keep using the money to fund projects which I see are the responsibility of the Club. The problem there lies when SMiSA eventually takes over - where do they go to get money? Spending money on Club responsibilities seems to me like we are living beyond our means. I know we are all in this together but I would prefer the money to be used to install more murals around the stadium; a few TV sets for the vormitories for fans to maybe catch a live game before our kick off; a segregation gate in the North Stand to allow Home supporters there if required: and rubbish bins (!), to name a few examples. I also support buying seats and letting groups use them or other community suggestions that may attract more fans or give us publicity.

    However funding a pitch doesn't fit my view. I have supported almost all the proposals so far but probably not this one.

    I think these have all been fair points in the past however SMISA/ St Mirren have more than adequately answered them IMO. From the comms issued last night, it felt a bit like they were doing too much to re-address some of these points given some fans just don't seem to want to accept they've been answered. Such as below

    The £2 pot was never put over as a way to only benefit the community and supporters, the plan always included feedback from the club and to meet appropriate costs based on a member vote. Members/ supporters might have interpreted the £2 in different ways but there has never been anything underhanded about the actual use. Besides in this specific example, the pitch has a lot of kids using it at a lot of different times so there's a community benefit and the fan benefit is if we improve the quality of our produced players. 

    Funding the training ground improvements is 100% the clubs responsibility, no question. This is a suggestion to how we can spend funds available to support our club and allow £50k to remain in the budget for other needs. Brings me onto the 'spend within our needs' St Mirren are not asking to do something outwith their funding ability. They could fully fund this from available funds if required but like the vast majority of other clubs operating at our level, the money would come from budget. Realistically how many clubs in Scotland do you think have substantial cash in the bank to fund such things? Very few I assure you. 

    The point of 'what happens when SMISA takeover where do they get the money?' Same again as other clubs, income and outgoings. Very few clubs have a sugar daddy at this level that meets costs like this and the money will come out of budgeting or potential borrowing. Same as more or less any other time in our history. 

    Your points about where else you'd rather see the money are all valid ones but as nice as some of these things would be, realistically would you choose them over something the club wants that seems like it'll have much more of a real benefit to the players? Don't know about you but as a St Mirren fan my priorities will always sit with the team on the park over a wee matchday perk. 

    I'd also ask fans as well, when you think about £50k for St Mirren how much do you think that represents? For me it's substantial, if that's coming out of next seasons player budget would you be comfortable if that was the difference between one or two extra players in the team next season in the SP? I certainly wouldn't. 

     

  2. 15 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

    I was at a meeting with a braw PowerPoint presentation in which I was assured that if I signed up then £10 of my monthly donation would be ring-fenced to purchase the shares.
    Were you there too?
    Did you interperate the assurance differently?

    SMISA board members are elected to represent the membership working withib an agreed framework.

    I have no interest in micro-management and in general have been willing to support their proposals.

    This has crossed a line which if supported, cannot be uncrossed.

    That is a very dangerous principle indeed.

    Still not sure what you have against a democratic vote to ask members if they would be happy to change this. If the majority want it changed why shouldn't it happen? 

  3. 2 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

    So why is this money from SMISA needed then?

    Again, I'm seriously not trying to get into this mud slinging, genuinely interested that we have had a considerable influx from transfers yet still need to be asking for money from a source that, at least,is causing some serious questions to be asked. 

    It's not needed, the club can fund it themselves (they've said that). The logic in it is if we use £50k sitting in an account earning next to no interest then that's £50k the club don't use, in other words £50k in our budget for next season which will include transfer income and extra crowd income (for a club like St Mirren that can be a player) St Mirren haven't overspent this year by close to £1 million. 

    Och we're all St Mirren fans, we all have different opinions. I just like to see SMISA utilising funds for our club. 

  4. 1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

    Simply proposing this breaks an agreement by which people signed up.

    It really is NOT hard to understand if you are willing.

    This is undemocratic.

    Democracy would be getting a majority agreement to give a mandate for change

    You really are unwilling to lusten, aren't you.

    Is that not the same people that get to vote on if it's changed? :huh:

  5. 20 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

    You choose not to be willing to even consider trying to possibly comprehend logic so really no point in trying to have a debate.

     

    We are talking SMISA, not Abbey National. "Crazy" seems to be your speciality subject.

     

    The money is "ring-fenced" by mutual agreement!

     

    Get an agreement to change that and THEN specific uses can be discussed.

     

    Not hard to understand for anyone willing to do so!

     

     

     

    Have a look at who the mutual agreement is between and the people that have made the proposal... Have a goooood look. 

  6. 32 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

    The simple answer is 'Trust'

    that is what the smisa membership gave their committee to manage the society and specifically the proposal to become the majority shareholder in SMFC. To follow the legally binding process that all members signed up to, to ensure the funds to make the share purchase were ring-fenced SOLELY for that purpose.

    now that Trust is gone, thrown away because Scott has repeatedly stated 'well the smisa share purchase fund is just sitting there' and has set about getting his hands on as much of it as possible which jeopardises the entire BTB campaign. And the committee just roll over and give him access to funds he should be no where near..! This is exactly the type of stunt that sees well intentioned endeavours at football clubs slide into sleazy, turgid, bitter endings.

    the committee have no mandate to ask the membership to vote on spending the ring-fenced funds on anything other than the agreed purpose. Lets be clear.... its not the membership asking to spend the money they thought was earmarked solely to become majority shareholders.... its the majority shareholder trying to use the future owners money to fund something that he took on responsibility for.

    it is shameless!

    the Smisa committee have managed to eradicate the trust in them so readily.

    Trust is in no way gone. It would be gone if they came out and said 'we're doing this end of.' I'm not sure why you don't support about a democratic vote on changing something that will benefit the club.

    I'd also love to see your evidence that it 'jeopardises' BTB when the plan is very clear about re-paying the money to the £10 pot. 

    Also the committee has a full mandate to ask the members to spend the funds. No paying member has signed legal documents retracting this right.

  7. 7 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

    Because offering this vote in itself breaks the very agreement to which all members signed up.

    If they want to change that then put an amendment to the agreement on the table for a vote.


    If that is passed, then a vote on the use of the formerly ring fenced cash can take place as opposed to the misuse of it.

    Enough time has passed since this was first discussed that it could well have been talked about openly and discussed with the membership.

    No it doesn't, it's a proposal to change it to members, exactly as you've written :lol:.  By your logic Abbey National broke the agreement to its members when it voted to become a bank over a mutual. Given members of an organisation a vote on a change is not breaking agreements. Crazy comment.  

  8. 4 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

    I honestly don't care one iota who you are.
    Not sure the relevance of your self importance here!

    Nothing to do with that, more the people alluding to my identity which I'm pretty sure they've gotten wrong. 

  9. 11 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

    No you don't.
    You most certainly do not "have" to say.
    Sadly, you repeatedly "choose" to do so! emoji14.png

    I would be very interested to know who you think I am. I've never tried to hide who I am :lol:, in fact a lot of people on here know me outside of football... Come to think about it I've never been openly asked, not sure why anyone would. 

  10. 9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

    Great... so can you ascertain the facts as to where a million quid in transfer money has gone, and the logic of trying to break a legally binding agreement with 1200 odd smisa members..?

    club running costs and budget including budget for next season. It hasn't vanished, as very clearly stated in the proposal St Mirren would fund this out of the clubs budget if we say no. The budget includes the income for the year (including transfer income) Very simple stuff IMO. 

  11. 13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

    I agree with your sentiment, but surely others must now be concerned the only shareholders putting money into the club are Smisa members. How has the club burned through a million quid in transfer money..?

    They haven't

  12. 14 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

    You never disappoint.
    If only bet365 had offered odds on you being the first and this party line being your response.

    We get it.

    You are a true fan.

    We are knicker wetters and boo boys for daring to show concern about the legal complexities being brushed aside here!

    Well said number one fan.

    None of you have been able to highlight one thing wrong with giving members a vote on this proposal or the proposal itself. Bet365 wouldn't even give odds on that being the case though. 

  13. 7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

    Simple question? Do you not also wonder why a Championship club, we are told that lives within its means, and that has pulled in around £1million pounds in transfer fees in a year needs to syphon £50k of The memberships money from a pot that was GUARANTEED to be ring-fenced..?

    wheres the million quid gone..?

    Simple question with an even simpler answer. So simple in fact it was highlighted in the comms. The club could afford this and will fund it if we vote no but it will come out of the player budget/ club running cost... Exactly where the transfer funds (£1 million) have been going. GS doesn't run the club to make profit, the money is invested back into the club.

    Also people hear terms like 'external borrowing.' and 'loans' and assume they're bad things. In reality any business is wise to utilise external borrowing to a certain extent. If the chiefs at St Mirren think £50k external borrowing then 1/3 each SMISA/ Club is best way to do it, I have faith. 

    I've said earlier, plans change. As it stands right now that money is GUARANTEED to be ring-fenced. All we have right now is a proposal to change that approach. We have a right to vote on this as members and change the proposal. It would be more of a worry for me if they didn't give us this right, that wouldn't be a democracy. 

  14. 22 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

    Withdraw support??

    I'd prefer SMISA manage the funds like they presented. They gave assurrances of what the £10 would be used for.

    Could this be a misappropriation of funds? As they are not being used for what they are intended for.

    & £25000 a season to get the SMISA name on 1 (yes one) youth teams shirts. They are having a laugh

    Things change but only at the will of the members. SMISA have proposed a change to the way they hold the £10 fund to support a financial need of our club that will benefit the team, a proposal at this stage, nothing more. If we say no let's keep it the same fine, if we vote to say yes we're happy with that, also fine. You do realise that companies, trustees, etc have got the right to change yeah? 

    If you'd prefer they stay as presented vote no. It'll pass if you're in the majority. 

  15. 7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

     

     

     

     

    It ŵas obvious from the outset Scott saw Smisa as his personal Cash-Cow, interfered in elections, spat the dummy out on what members chose to spend THEIR money on and insisted that Smisa was no longer independent.

    this spending proposal comes as no surprise, after spending £65k of members money on loans/cash facilities for the club WITHOUT consulting with the membership.. this is just another blatant cash grab on funds that the membership got a written, legally binding assurance from the Smisa committee that this sort of thing would never happen.

    i am sure the campaign and written assurances we all signed up to were to 'Buy The Buds'... not to 'Buy Gordon's Furniture'..?

    the other, hidden and much more sinister issue here is the delay, or even attempt to stop Smisa members taking over the club when we have accumulated the funds to buy Scott's shares. We have the legal right to buy these shares as soon as we have the funds, soon after takeover Scott let it be known he didnt want to sell for ten years, regardless of if smisa members had ammassed the required amount earlier. (Which on current projections we are on track to do)

    if this proposal goes through it will delay and possibly end the written assurances the Smisa committee made to manage the purchase of the majority shareholding of SMFC  on the members behalf. It seems this committee have lost any perspective on even trying to appear independent, and are happy to do Scott's bidding, even if it means breaking the very promise made to the members that your money is Ring-Fenced to Buy The Buds.

    shameless....

    :lol::lol::lol:

    The usual Boo brigade doom and gloom without any substance crowd are back out already #usualsuspects. Hammering what is nothing but a very positive use of the SMISA money in a proposal that in no way jeopardises buy the buds (assuming membership numbers don't fall below target which if they did it would be in jeopardy anyway) 

    1. New pitch at Ralston would be a great benefit to OUR football club 

    2. The funds are to be taken from the £2 spend over a timescale that will very likely not see the buy the buds deal concluded barring a massive increase in members meaning there is very very very little risk in this impacting any aspect of the deal negatively. 

    3. In the short-term the £10 fund is just gathering dust and getting a very small interest rate, makes so much sense to use this for something that benefits OUR club and minimises external borrowing

    4. How does fixing a pitch benefit GS anymore than it would OUR football team? 

    5. We're still in a democracy, this proposal going through regardless of it changing any mandates previously agreed will be on the will of the members, plans change, we're on a learning curve

    6. The £65k fund was a very short-term decision that had to be made that based on all previous votes WOULD easily of passed. We have the money back now, no harm no foul and the money we'd of lost in revenue had the Morton game been moved more than justifies the decision (also it wasn't from the members £2 pot) 

    7. 'If the proposal goes through we're giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want' em do you mean anything like getting a new pitch at OUR training ground that benefits OUR football club? Also no they don't it's still a vote and to suggest members won't vote for what they think is best for OUR football club is a tiny bit patronising.

    Sorry I've highlighted OUR so often but there are a lot of people that clearly miss the point in supporting a club and funding a buyout. I'm certainly not in this for any personal game, I'm in it to give OUR club the best possible financial backing we possibly can.  

  16. I don't know an awful lot about it but could they not have it similar to the way it works now (in other words not having anymore of a financial impact than they currently have at that league level) and the only issue would surely be when/ if a team got promoted to League 2? I'd probably have that level regionalised as well tbh but failing that maybe given them a better financial cushion so teams aren't put off promotion? Like I say I don't know a great deal about this. 

    My main concern is that the SPFL use this as a backdoor for the Bigot brother Colt teams to get into the senior structure. 'Lets vote on putting the juniors in and part of that will be to allow Colts all the way up to League 1/ Championship level.' I might just be a bit paranoid but given how sneaky SPFL/ SFA are it wouldn't surprise me. 

  17. 13 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

    I have to say that I still don't understand :

    A The deal to buy the club.

    B The involvement  of fans in decision making now.

    C The involvement of fans in decision making post purchase.

    D Future sources of Capital for development of the ground etc.

    For these reasons,  I have still not signed up. Now some may well think that all has been made clear. However myself and my two sons each run separate businesses and have done for many years.  

    I do buy a season ticket, I have joined the 1877 Club and I like the work that has gone into St Mirren TV and Buddievision. I also like the facilities for disabled fans in the main stand and of course love the performance of the management and players right now. 

    How about an information and recruitment drive to bring on board the yet to be convinced among us?

    A - Pay our money every month at X point in time we buy out a proportion of the club at Y point we buy out Gordon Scott. All will happen within the 10 year period providing monthly commitments stay above the required level (ahead of plan currently) Not sure of exact dates but that's down to us paying ahead of plan. 

    B - None, however we currently have a SMISA representative on the board and various other people to give input. Ultimately decision making currently sits with majority shareholder, as it should do. 

    C - Post purchase I'd imagine it will be elections to the BOD sitting for set periods of time like any other multiple ownership models.  

    D - Same as every other club in the world should be doing. We spend within our means and profit gained. If any borrowing is required/ potentially beneficial to the development of the football club it would be a BOD decision and depending on the amount fans may be canvased. Most clubs these days don't have a 'sugar daddy' that can throw money at ground development/ repairs the income needs to be sourced and money needs to be saved for a rainy day (I don't think this is what the discretionary fund should be used for just FYI). We've never had a sugar daddy in our history so fan ownership won't be different. 

    I don't fully understand the concerns around raising capital that some fans have shown. Fan owned clubs are no different from firm/ individual owned clubs, for the most part. They're ran as businesses for the profit of the owners/ at cost (we'll be at cost) 

    I would love to see further recruitment drives, a proper Q&A session for example. I've heard from SMISA they apparently have done stuff like this and had sign-up forms handed out etc. I've never seen any of it and I'm a SMISA member + season ticket holder so it makes me think there are likely a lot of fans that haven't signed up that also haven't seen it. 

  18. 14 hours ago, Hambud said:

    Sad thing is there's too much greed and the decision makers won't turn their back on 4 OF matches a season so it won't change.

     

    14 hours ago, Dave The Buddie said:

     


    Also the TV broadcasters want 4 Old Firm games.

    Me personally would have two leagues. 18 top flight would be ideal.

     

     

    4 hours ago, shull said:

    The two Glasgow Bigots must be removed from Scottish Football.

    Otherwise it is business as usual , no matter what League format is being used.

    We must have a Top League where all teams have a chance to win it.  Not just two.

    1985 was a long time ago.

    Yep, yep and yep. 

    Wish we had people in charge of our game with a wee bit more backbone that would crack down on these horrible teams, shown for generations they stand for bigoted, sectarian, self-preservation rubbish.  The 11-1 vote rule is a perfect example of the pathetic yellow streak that exists in our game, the Glasgow lovers able to vote together to stop any real beneficial change. 

    Recent chat about the Colt teams, I'd love nothing more than England doing us a favor and allowing them to put Colt teams in the lower English leagues then them both buggering off in a few years. Would be the best thing for Scottish football as a sport. Too many people think sport/ financial gain are the same thing.  Although in saying that, why on earth would England want these football clubs and the trouble they bring. 

  19. If anyone is feeling just a wee bit too happy with their life I suggest they have a read through this thread. We don't get the St Moan reputation from nothing after all :lol:

    All the items discussed face every club not just in the country but in the world. SMISA/ Fan ownership running the club is not fundamentally different from GS , SG or anyone else running the club. All clubs should live within their means, spend what they make on the running (and also the growing of the club) Yes decisions will have to be made in the future about potential loans of funds, savings of funds and activity that could increase the standing of St Mirren football club but that's part and parcel of football. It's not doom and gloom situation, we'll have a plan in place for a board and a chairman going forward to make our decisions (in partnership with fans which is the main fundamental difference of fan ownership) as we do now. 

    In regards to the £2 and fans financial commitments over and above the BAU (tickets/ merch, etc.) That's all a bonus  above the normal running of a club, if fans are willing to continue it great, if not it'll be same situation as vast majority of other clubs. 

    Chill! 

  20. It's a bit of a strange one Saturday. I don't think I've ever experienced a St Mirren victory that's left me feeling so uneasy. On one hand it's job done, on the other we looked out of ideas and nonclinical (If that's even a word) with the ball going forward. 

    In the interest of trying to remain positive I guess this time last year grinding out victories like that would of done the job for us fans. Hopefully this wee bad spell will be out our system come Friday. 

×
×
  • Create New...