bazil85
-
Posts
10,425 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
I get that perhaps not many want to be seen as being hoodwinked, and admit it, but surely the youth academy have a moral duty to offer to pay back the thousands Smisa have given them, since they just got £15k from a sponsor, and the money they got from Smisa meant we would no lo longer be funding the Panda club....
doesnt anyone else feel uncomfortable with being guided to vote to fund the academy when they are cash rich, and the Panda club is left out..?
No, why would we want it back? Invest the money back into the academy. Not like that money is lining people's pockets. -
How are these circular arguments meant to encourage my family and myself to become members?
Give me 5 straightforward reasons anyone should join?
Please.
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 -
what about Duffy?did we sign a guy that's about 3 months away from full fitness,must have played about 5 league game minutes and is hilson injured again??
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. -
46 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:
Yeah that's how it looks to me too. They seem to have very little interest in getting it right, or of understanding the opportunities that are afforded to them by being a Social Enterprise. It's pretty sad really.
One of the saddest elements in all of this is that the whole Independent Supporters Movement was about getting people elected on to the boards of football clubs so that the ordinary football customer could be represented in the boardroom and in the corridors of power at the relevant Football Associations and League Management bodies. SMISA having got one of their members onto the football club board now seem desperate to have that single member behave like any other football board member in becoming as detached as possible from the support he was meant to represent - whilst also doing exactly what he is told to do by the rest of the football club board.
I also don't get why the SMISA board think it's perfectly rational to be the only shareholders putting up money to keep the club going, whilst not seeing that cash put in being met with equity and a greater say in the way the club is run, or why any member would be happy to accept that situation.
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.
-
37 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:
At the risk of being stupid here - CCBS? I tried a search on Google. Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences? Centre for Central Banking Studies? Calcium Channel Blockers? I'm sure all three are perfectly sound in their operation.
If you mean the Community Benefit Society - no it's not sound. It isn't even compliant with it's own constitution, it's website is misleading, and it has breached the terms of it's asset lock a number of times - even Andrew Jenkin acknowledges that he wasn't comfortable with the contribution to player wages, and that he would have preferred that to have been an investment in return for equity.
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.
-
10 hours ago, Bellside Bud said:
I'm glad you think yourself a spokesperson for the whole of the SMISA membership.
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.
-
I can't help but wonder why the discretionary fund is so important to SMISA. Why open themselves up to a situation where every three months they are challenged over costings, the range of options, the ever manipulated version of the vote, and why put themselves in breach of their own constitution and the rules regarding Community Benefit Societies are laid out by the Financial Conduct Authority? Why not accept that it would be better if that proportion of fund raising was being down outwith the Community Benefit Society model with it's strict asset lock in place? Why not allow fans to contribute regardless of their SMISA membership status? And why not have a system that allows the club and community groups to give details of their project and to allow fans to contribute or not to each one as per their own personal preference?
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] -
I did report it and the case - as far as I know - is ongoing. I've shared Andrew Jenkins' take on the contribution SMISA made to players wages. He claimed he wasn't comfortable with how it was done and he would normally recommend that money being an investment made in return for equity but he believed it was a unique circumstance - which of course has since been repeated.
I have no issue with people trying to make the football club I grew up supporting better. None at all. I just believe that they are going about it the wrong way and that the projects that SMISA are funding have extremely short term gains if they are indeed gains at all with very little sustainability. I also take issue with being mislead, and with SMISA continuing to claim on their marketing website that they want to put the club at the heart of the Paisley Community - whilst on football forums their "spokesman" claims that they are only interested in the "St Mirren Community" which isn't even mentioned on their site or in their constitution.
And to answer your subsequent post, no. It would help but I would need to see a complete overhaul of the SMISA board and much more clarity on their website and constitution before I ever considered rejoining. However if the Fans Council - or someone similar - was to set up something similar to Go Fund Me where both the club and community groups within the local community could put forward projects for funding I would definitely be willing to contribute to the projects I believe I could support.
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:
Sorry Bazil, I failed to add that I think going forward the discretionary fund element should be scrapped. SMISA is not the right vehicle for this money if it's to be used to pay players wages and to pay for sports scientists etc. At the very least it should be a optional side fund, or the Go Fund Me type set up that I have come to believe would be much more preferable. Maybe it would be something the Fans Council could get involved in. I honestly believe that it would clean up SMISA allowing them to focus on simply buying shares in the club and, if they were to go with the Go Fund Me type idea - it would allow members and non members to back the proposals that they strongly believe in with as much money as they would like to give. It would also give scope the Fans Council to go to local community groups and charities to get their proposals and to allow them to seek funding from the St Mirren support without the need to stand outside the ground shaking a collection can.
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.
-
49 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:
That doesn't cut it with me Bazil. To cite a ridiculous analogy lets say that it was suggested that the discretionary fund was to be used to hire a hit man to take out Craig Thompson or Willie Collum and the majority voted in favour of the spend. Would that absolve SMISA from it's legal responsibility? Is it an OK defence to say that SMISA is no longer complicit in breaking the law because the majority of members voted for it? SMISA are a Community Benefit Society. They have an asset lock in place that should prevent any of the assets under it's control being spent on certain items. It should never have been used to pay the wages of staff at the Limited Company - and as I've said Andrew Jenkin from Supporters Direct has stated to me that he would normally have insisted that money being put into a football club in that way by an ISA be done in the form of an investment in return for equity and for a greater voice for the members on the football club board.
SMISA's own Constitution states quite clearly that all of it's assets are locked in for the benefit of the community. It's very clear Bazil. It doesn't allow for the discretionary fund to be used for items like paying for a Sports Scientist or a Data Analyst for the football club - regardless of what the majority of members vote for. I suppose the majority of members could vote to change the constitution, but I'm pretty sure that would have legal implications given the tax status of a Community Benefit Society. Read the constitution, specifically the section on the asset lock, you'll see where the attempt to mislead is.
And I did sign up, contributed £25 per month and then when it became clear that SMISA were misleading me I cancelled my membership and asked for a refund.
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.
-
Re. The Smisa September update that dropped into everyone's mailbox today/last night.
the survey within the update paints a subtle, interesting positioning strategy by the Smisa committee. Like the initial survey over a year ago that was used to determine the type of thing members may like to see put forward for a vote on the £2 pot, this survey seeks to illicit if members want to see the pot spent on either club issues or community issues.
it appears that this will influence what is put to the vote, and given the outcome of votes thus far it is reasonable to assume the likelyhood is the winning vote will be for a spend on the club. Even though in the last round of votes over 60% of those voting chose options other than just the club.
what it means is the 'first past the post' system of deciding the spend will see community projects overlooked, even though a majority may have chosen a selection of them. If this is how it is going to be it runs contrary to all the communications, promotion, discussion during BTB where it was explicitly stated time and again that the community as a whole would benefit from the £2 pot as well as club related things.
if that is the case, and despite votes cast in the majority for community projects being dropped as no one singular project beat the first past the post vote, it would seem reasonable to accommodate Smisa members who dont then see the point in contributing to the £2 pot as the eventual spend never reflects their vote, or indeed one of their reasons for signing up go BTB...?
looks like a game-changer here, if the community side is effectively dropped then members have the right to opt out of funding the £2 pot.
-
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 . -
4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
Would he not then be Bellend Bud?
Hahaha I don't think I've ever agreed with a post more!
-
21 minutes ago, Stu said:
He's got the time because he mysteriously disappeared from the official forum just as "Bellside Bud" appeared on here.
Surely you're not implying that Bellside Bud is in some way oor Dickie?..
-
9 minutes ago, smcc said:
Has your tongue penetrated your cheek yet?
It can't be far away haha
-
11 hours ago, Bellside Bud said:
Fair enough - you are quite right to distance yourself from the SMISA board decisions that were made before you were co-opted on.
I'm interested in the suggestion you make that the SMISA board weren't sure of their definition of community within their constitution. I take it that is what you meant to type because I'm sure they knew what a committee was. If that was indeed the case can you advise when they finally decided that the community they were supposed to benefit wasn't actually the Paisley Community as had been pledged and promised by a number of prominent SMISA board members in the Buy The Buds period but that it was in fact this "St Mirren Community"?
It's good to see Stuart Dickson has a new profile. Welcome back Stuart
-
On 9/15/2017 at 6:43 PM, Bellside Bud said:
I understand it. Some people simply take the view that they already pay in too much money to the football club and aren't interested in playing their part in owning the club particularly when there doesn't seem to be anything in it for them, or when looking at it as a benevolent payment to good causes. I think that's fair enough - especially when you how SMISA has been run since inception. If you look at the proposals and pledges that were presented to fans in the Buy The Buds offer it also looks like many people were deliberately mislead - myself included - particularly in terms of this supposedly being a Community Benefit Society.
Perhaps a better way to run the "discretionary fund" would be to scrap it altogether and to replace it with a "Go Fund Me" type idea where the club put forward proposals for projects and fans can pledge their donation. If the project receives enough pledges to be fully funded then it goes ahead and all the contributions are taken, if it doesn't the fans get to keep their money. That way no-one will feel as though the money they are contributing is being misappropriated.
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?
-
1 hour ago, melmac said:
A nominal 1 share for each person would be a good gesture; if / when that person leaves then it can revert to Smisa.
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.
-
1 hour ago, paulsmfc said:
Each to their own eh
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!
-
2 hours ago, paulsmfc said:
A token 1 share per member would have been a good idea. Even if it's not possible now, the promise of 1 share when smisa take control.
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.
saints fans survey 2017
in SMiSA
Posted
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.