[The 3 Monthly Spend]

11 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

This makes no sense, and once more completely ignores the fact that monies RING FENCED to buy shares have been discussed in regard to being dipped into for an astroturf pitch between the club and SMiSA, BEFORE anyone even bothered to ask the people who are paying the money if they would entertain the thought of it being used for anything else in the first place.

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

2 minutes ago, rea said:

Poz is of course right.

A better  process would be to vote on the change of use of the money and then on its use.

This separates the issues as i am sure many will vote on the use without consideration of the more fundamental point first.

 

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.  

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

3 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

No. Firstly Mrs Poz would be approached and asked if she would be happy for her monthly spend, which was ring-fenced to purchase a new TV, be used for anything else. There would be no assumption on my part that golf clubs, or an astroturf pitch for my back garden, could be a big ticket item that the TV fund money could be dipped into for.

I’m now finding this hard work - getting a simple point across. The argument seems to be met with denial, or just being ignored. 

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... 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

16 hours ago, pozbaird said:

Oh, I do admire the cheek. Even before asking members IF they want their £10s to be used for anything other than what members signed up for, discussions clearly took place about those monies funding a specific need - in this case an astroturf pitch. 

If it isn’t sheer arrogance, I don’t know what it is.

Me to Mrs Poz: Why don’t we stick £20 in a jar every month, save up for a new TV?

Mrs Poz: Sounds good, count me in.

(Fast forward a year)

Me to Mrs Poz: I really need new golf clubs, the money in that jar should do it.

Mrs Poz: Is that right?

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

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

17 hours ago, Sonny said:

You are making that up as I never said that anywhere.

Of course a last minute goal beats a mural but the Club pays players' wages and not the fans. Fans have been treated like shit for generations and its not just St Mirren I am talking about. Even today at some stadiums there is no covered terracing or hot (or cold) water, and at Ayr you are still peeing up against a wall. The 1877 Club is a good example of providing facilities for fans even though there is a flaw in that not every fan can afford to join. For a small time-frame we have a chance to do something  to improve the experience at no cost to the Club and with some initiatives we are saving the Club money that can be used for player budgets.  That source will dry up soon and the chance gone.

It is a democracy and everyone will vote as they see fit. But if this proposal is effectively to pay a player's wage then I am out.

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

16 hours ago, rea said:

The FCA will have zero interest in this, and i have no interest in reporting it.

My interest is in making sure for future issues that the transaction (which will almost certainly be approved, i would think ) is water tight, these things can come back and bit you hard in future if not done correctly.

As for the issue proof, take me for example. I am not a SMISA member anymore, I am however a Shareholder in St Mirren. SMISA spending money on something i own a share of notionally supports/boosts the value of my shares, great for me.....thanks SMISA members

 

 

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

41 minutes ago, rea said:

Except that the funds are being used to support the asset/balance sheet of what is still a private company, with many thousands of shareholders who are also members

 

Funds are not allowed to be used for the profit of members

 

As you work in financial risk etc etc...i invite you to join the legal dots between the above and the below, and you will see the issue that needs clarified...let me make it clear i do not think there is some grand conspiracy but just concerned every i and t is dotted and crossed to ensure any transaction is done properly.

 

3. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PURPOSE The Society’s purpose is to be the vehicle through which a healthy, balanced and constructive relationship between the Club and its supporters and the communities it serves is encouraged and developed. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members.

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Schoolboy Error...... now i know you dont read stuff! There were four possible scenarios, and given they were all contrary to the Smisa constitution they are negative because the proposers created them such!

you're officially on the naughty step now, have a good life.

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?  

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

7 minutes ago, rea said:

St Mirren are a ltd Company. There is no such legal thing as a "Community Club" it is a turn of phrase.

 

I suggest you read SMISA mems and arts and then go and have a wee think.

We are a community club (I'm not talking about our company status I'm talking about what St Mirren stand for) in that we serve the people of Paisley (our community) this proposal has a community benefit in it = Nothing illegal. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Now you are just being funny for tbe sake of it... tatty bye!

From the guy that has said there are only two options of what's happening and both of them negative... nae bother. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

10 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Can i ask again, have you read the share agreement and sale agreement..? If not you need to read these in conjunction with the Smisa constitution and the legal framework set out by the FCA that smisa has to operate within..... then you can carry on ignoring the facts and supporting an illeagal proposal regardless.

I have read and reviewed every available aspect of BTB, I also work in Financial Risk and I'm in regular contact with the FCA in my career choice. I have absolutely no concerns that we are doing anything illegal. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

25 minutes ago, Sonny said:

I get that maybe the £2 spend had a wider remit but supporters and community are my priorities  for the £2 which I maybe naively thought would leave the Club a bit more money to spend on players eg fans funding the platform for disabled supporters meant the Club did not have to do it. If the new pitch also has extensive use by local people that changes things a bit but if the first team are now going to use it as well as the academy does that not reduce local use?

I want the £2 spend to be used to improve the overall Club  infrastructure and matchday experience and to generate potentially more fans. You ask about choosing options the Club wants well I think we have done that quite a lot to date. As I said I would now like to see a little more being done to improve the matchday experience for fans. Some options I consider to be relatively cheap like bins and a few TVs. Another option is to subsidise the 'buy a brick' for anyone taking out a season ticket.  Fans are what will keep this Club going and we should do what we can to make them feel part of the setup and for them to spread the word to increase support. I asked a couple of times about murals and was told to go away and cost it.  Do proposals from fans have to be costed by those fans that make the proposal but proposals by the Club are added to the list automatically?

Of course I, like every Buddie, wants to see a successful team but if we spend most of the £2 money on facilities then surely more fans = greater income and less money being used from the Club budget on other initiatives? When the £2 dries up, in what 8 years time, then there won't be any money for murals etc. I would like to see tangible benefits now while the money is available.

Yeah it might do, but at the benefit of an extra area for the first team to train on. It could be very important given the AstroTurf pitches for some SP games. 

I take all the other points you mention about fan experience and they are all 100% valid. I do think you fall into a tiny bit of a trap though thinking that the majority of paying members would rather their match day experience was enhanced through TVs and  murals etc over the performance on the park. Fans are what keeps the fans going but performances are what will keep a fan happy over everything else, I'd hang upside down from my feet at the games to watch the buddies do well on that park and I think if the voting history has shown us anything the majority of paying members priorities items that are better for the team than for the fans. Not a bad thing IMO, just the demographic. 

I think this vote will pass, I could be wrong but it's my gut feel and if it doesn't fine, that's democracy. What I would say to you, do you think if there was a third options about bins, TVs and murals it would genuinely beat out this vote? I don't think so. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

27 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I get that not every smisa member wants to know the ins and outs of a cats arse every time there is something to consider. But please, if you will, consider this.

Scott asked Smisa to make £50k borrowing facility available from its ring-fenced funds not long after takeover, initially that was to be drawn from the subs of the premium £2500 members. However when smisa decided not to pursue a loan and grant that £50k was needed to pay the selling consortium.

then because Scott still wanted it Smisa agreed to still make the £50k available from all members ring-fenced fund, but without balloting, or consulting the members first. In a long drawn out process that seperate account with £50k in was set up, however as of now I am unsure if its ever been drawn down???

so this means  either, this is an additional £50k Scott wants from Smisa ring-fenced funds, and doesnt want to pay it back! Or they have realised creating the original £50k borrowing facility was indeed illeagal without consulting the members first, and this is a work round to try and legitimise that folly, or Scott doesn't want to draw down and have to pay £50k back, so this shambles enables him to get the original £50k of members ring-fenced funds, and not need to pay it back..?

serious credibility issues are setting off alarm bells here, the Smisa committee seem to be facilitating either a £100k cash grab from tne ring-fenced fund, or indeed helping Scott get £50k he doesnt have to pay back. I dare say the FCA will be interested to know which?

ffs what a load of rubbish.

Really they are the only two options that's happened here? There is zero chances of anything else that's happened... Say that's perfectly ethical, legal and beneficial to St Mirren football club? One of these two things has 100% happened and not one person has blown the whistle or seen a shred of evidence of wrong doing? Sounds likely 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

23 minutes ago, rea said:

You are missing the issue that SMISA is not a normal company.

It is a Community Benefit Society.

The members cannot simply decide to spend money on whatever the majority vote for, it has to be "competent" within the rules of a CBS.....

 

....from what i can see (i have not seen a copy of the actual documentation), this idea certainly has issues

 

It does adhere to the activities of a CBS. St Mirren are a community club and it benefits the communities of Paisley/ Renfrewhshire.

There's two different issues here. One 'is it legal?' other 'is it ethical?' the ethical one is up for debate and people have different opinions on this ask and canvasing members but the legal one is categorically without question. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

14 minutes ago, melmac said:

Ask yourself why SMISA want to disapply the requirement to appoint an auditor. Would it be because the auditor may look a bit more closely at money being spent; do they have the proper authority for the spends, was it spent in accordance with the Rules etc etc.

No, absolutely not. It's because of the turnover and there's no legal requirement for it (cost saving). They have independent people that have looked at their accounts and proposals and everything's above board. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

Just now, Wilbur said:

Maybe SMISA needs a name change as well. The organisation's status as "Independent" from the club no longer seems appropriate IMO.

How much more independent were you expecting for an organisation set-up specifically to buy St Mirren and ran by St Mirren fans? Of course they're going to work in partnership, whole thing would fall apart if they didn't. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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. 

 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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? 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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? 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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.

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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 .  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.  

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

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. 

[The 3 Monthly Spend]

11 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

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

I would be very interested to know who you think I am. I've never tried to hide who I am , 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.