bazil85
-
Posts
10,613 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
10 minutes ago, garzo said:
Entitled to that view, respect it.
This however is a business transaction.
We are saving up to take control of a business - we should start acting like it.
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.
-
17 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:1 hour ago, bazil85 said:Can you elaborate on how a no to the vote will result in ring fenced funds being used?
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.
-
3 minutes ago, garzo said:
Quite simple really. I think its a fair deal, if only 1 shareholder is investing, that the shareholder is compensated in proportion by the other.
That's my point - we can vote to be a cash cow if we like, for no return - that's what's being asked of us I think.As fans, we might say - yes that's fine.
But in this context and for such a large some of money we should think like shareholders.
Shareholders should be compensated.I'm not aware of the deal and relations between all parties so I'm commenting from a distance on this...
Here's what I see about to happen.
We give the money we are saving to buy shares in the club, direct to the club, on our own as shareholders and for little or no return.
We then save up again to purchase shares from another shareholder later on.Is this what we are voting on?
If other shareholders are doing the same and in proportion then that is OK .
If we get the money back by agreement as a loan, than that's OK too.
Otherwise its a gift, donation - call it sponsorship if you like.
But it's not what the money was intended for - it was intended to buy shares - that's its sole purpose and it should be ring fenced for that purpose.Just my view mind and I'm open to be convinced otherwise :-)
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
-
12 minutes ago, HSS said:
We are just about to collect £533k for winning the League.Can't some of that be used to replace the pitch?
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.
-
1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know!Can you elaborate on how a no to the vote will result in ring fenced funds being used?
-
4 minutes ago, pozbaird said:
I don’t even know how to respond to this one... I’ll just bow out, as I am no longer a SMiSA member, and can remember why I am no longer one....
Had my tuppenceworth on an open forum, will bow out and go pack for Brechin.
Cool story bro. toys/ pram sounds like to me.
-
15 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:
Several years ago the Local Authority decided to withdraw their contract with the charity vI work for and "reprovision the Service Users into their own centres"!
I wrote and asked them, " In line with your own policies and procedures, what consultation will take place with Carers and Service Users?"
From a very senior Council official came this stunning reply...
"There will be no consultation until after the decision has been confirmed"!
This is very similar. We are not part of a democratic decision to agree a fundemental change in how ring-fenced money is used...
we are being told that now a decision has been made to change how the ring-fenced money is used, like it or not, is this how you would like it spent?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.
-
11 minutes ago, garzo said:
Fully support our chairman and what he's done to get the fan ownership model off and running.
Full credit and respect to the team at SMISA too.As shareholders we should be saving up to purchase the shares - only once!
That is the sole reason for SMISA existing and why we are saving up - nothing (barring catastrophe) should deflect us from that singular objective.This deal is OK if we are offered shares in return, otherwise we are paying for the shares twice!
Just my view mind :-)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
in SMiSA
Posted
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.