bazil85

I really don't know what you have against our club. Are they doing this, are they doing that. I genuinely could not care less how they use it, as long as it benefits our football club.

No, why would we want it back? Invest the money back into the academy. Not like that money is lining people's pockets.

How about 1. It benefits your football club 2. It benefits your football club 3. It benefits your football club 4. It benefits your football club 5. It benefits your football club Just a thought

Who would you take out the team for Duffy? Reilly or Smith? I think Duffy probably is around about fitness now but would be surprised if he got much game time while they're both on decent form.

I don't feel like David or the board are detached. I don't really know what your rational is for thinking that when paying members have been engaged in more or less every major spend of their funds and in the year the new board has been in place improvements seem to have been made (IMO) I also don't understand at all what you really want!? You keep banking on about community involvement the exact same as when you were using your previous profile but reject that we should spend money on things like the disabled platform or sponsoring a youth team. What exactly would be acceptable within the community to spend the funds on? Does it have to be something that IN NO WAY BENEFITS ST MIRREN FOOTBALL CLUB AS WELL. It betters our football club Stuart! Sorry if you expected and equity return on any investment (strange for someone hell bent on putting every penny the club can muster into community projects) when you signed up last year but that was never the deal, nor would a lot of signed up fans really want it to be. I'd much rather all funds went to better my club without them having to worry down the line about profit sharing and dividend payments. For me St Mirren will always be the priority, community work is also great but if that community work can tie into bettering the club also then win win.

There has been no legal wrong doing noted in the time the CBS has been running. If you feel the need to grass on your club because you don't like aspects of the fan buy-out fine but it doesn't appear like you have got/ or will get anywhere. There is a difference between not being comfortable with a use of funds and actually breaching regulations or laws. SMISA doesn't appear to have done either.

I don't, I simply know what the voting percentages were for members. Enough have voted for each action to be passed. Can only assume you have some issue with how a democracy works.

Yeah we get it, we know your thoughts. Majority of paying SMISA members are happy with it though Stuart so you can drop it. I'm delighted the funds were there to help us through our relegation struggle last season like the majority of paying members.

My days! the 'fans' on their high horse about a very positive aspect of a football club moving into fan ownership is unreal. Without the discretionary fund we may of been playing league 1 football this season, our training facility's wouldn't be as good, we wouldn't have had some new gym equipment for the team, the disabled platform would of had to come out of the club fund and we wouldn't have a season ticket batch for underprivileged people in our community to use. People might think this shouldn't be what fans money is spent on, that's their right but I wish the same people were man enough to accept that the majority of fans that pay their money a month (especially when the people moaning don't even contribute to the buy-out) have thought these uses are perfectly justified. It's been a democratic vote so for the love of god drop it! The club aren't doing anything illegal, immoral or contrary to the wishes of the majority of fans involved in the club purchase. Points taken, now I wish you'd let it go. Stuey Dicky, you can let us know how you get on grassing on your club... in fact don't bother I know exactly what the outcome will be. [emoji23][emoji23]

Did report it? That again sounds very similar to a previous poster on here... Well why don't we just wait and see how that goes before commenting further? We know your thoughts but they don't speak for other fans. (And certainly not for the majority paying money to the fund)

Ben Gordon would be better on Saturday than only having one available centre back. Can he play as an emergency loan player even without a club? Thought he was decent, just very unfortunate with injuries.

Would that make you join back up? For me SMISA is the correct vehicle because the majority of members have voted in favor of proposals put forward when they've had the option to reject. If it ever gets to the point where we have a majority saying 'No these aren't the right ideas' then sure change it. A very vocal minority don't speak for me and many others, I'm more than happy for my money to go to my football club and would always vote as my club requests. As long as it's done legally and for lawful purposes. My opinion is there has been no law breaking at all. As I said previously, if you disagree then raise it with the regulator.

That sounds a lot like one of our former contributors on here... Killing a ref no matter how much of a bell-end they happen to be is breaking the law, regardless if you vote on it (I know to most that would be obvious but I'm not so sure in this case). As I stated previously my professional role is heavily linked to regulatory compliance I would be under the impression from my knowledge of the set-up (which i would consider to be more than most) that SMISA, St Mirren or anyone else involved are not breaking any laws here. You can associate it as St Mirren community, Paisley community or whatever you want but you'd have some job proving wrong doing. If you do think there is some law breaking why don't you go report it? You clearly have some issue with aspects that make this football club better and people democratically voting on spending their own money. Report it to whoever you feel will listen if you feel you have that time to waste of course. Otherwise let it go and let the paying members get on with it.

I liked it. Still as long as the usual suspects get a wee Booooooo all's right with the world.

Had a wee read through the recent comments. I'm not too fussed about how Airdrie did it to be honest. They requested the rights to use the old clubs name what's wrong with that? I think it's pretty clear they aren't the same club and the history of that club is pretty much Clydebank. A name change or being allowed to use a name to me isn't a big deal. Same with the new Rangers club. Look at Livi, changed their name a few times but still with an unbroken history (as far as I'm aware) no one bats an eyelid. I'm all for an independent enquiry as well but the question of new club old club has already been answered and and answered very easily. Rangers are a new club and Airdrie are a continuation of Clydebank after buying them Out .

Hahaha I don't think I've ever agreed with a post more!

Surely you're not implying that Bellside Bud is in some way oor Dickie?..

It can't be far away haha

It's good to see Stuart Dickson has a new profile. Welcome back Stuart

I see what you're getting at. I just think some fans that feel 'mislead' have to consider that in every vote so far there has been either a community idea put forward or the option to role the funds over (by voting against any pledge) The harsh reality is a majority of paying members have wanted the discretionary funds to mainly go to the betterment of St Mirren football club. under those circumstances I don't see how changing it can be a 'better way' How can they justify making a change to something that majority of paying members thinks works fine? Would be a bit tail wagging the dog IMO. SMISA at no time said every penny would be going to community projects, they made it completely clear it would be a democratic vote and the way they run is very much within the regulatory boundary of being and acting as a Community Benefit Society. In my current role I have to deal very heavily with regulatory and legal adherence and they are doing so. Further more, I don't think they're doing anything underhanded or sneaky in their compliance, I'm very proud of the community work from SMISA, St Mirren and other groups of St Mirren fans. From where I'm standing the only way fans can claim to be 'mislead' is if they didn't think other fans might vote differently to them and that a majority of fans might want to see their money improve their football club. If fans genuinely thought that, have to say I'm surprised. I would also raise an assumption to fans making this point, that they must of initially signed-up surely? If a reason not to be involved is the belief of being mislead, surely they were signed-up in the first place before realizing it wasn't as expected?

yeah i guess so, could be something they put in place. Could be a promotional technique now, something like: **** Anyone already signed or that signs up between now and say September 2018 and continues to make their monthly commitment to completion as a token of gratitude will receive XX shares in St Mirren football club upon fan ownership being achieved**** I think that would be a really good idea.

Would be interesting to know from anyone that attended that isn't currently a member. Has last night changed your mind? Any new sign-ups? Anyone had their decision not to be a member reaffirmed? Read previously that SMISA had a target of getting member number up to 1,400. Hopefully last night went someway to hitting that target.

yep, we've still got way over the required numbers to bring St Mirren into the ownership of those who care most about them, the fans. Also 1,300 X £2 a month is still a decent wee bit of money over and above to be invested into our great club. Can't complain about that and who knows, could always get more fans buying in down the line. If Motherwell can get over 2,200 so can the buddies!

It's going to be fan owned, we'll all have a say on the running of the club through elections. I get that some fans might have the need for a bit of paper saying they have a share in the club but for me why would that be a deal breaker against paying the equivalent of 40p a day. For me seeing my name up at the stadium is also a bigger selling point than a share.