Jump to content

SMiSA agree to contribute £50k to 10000 Hours CIC with conditions


Recommended Posts

, "If you are handing over £50,000 to someone do you not want to know this?" - It is between SMiSA and the CIC, if you are not a member of SMiSA then it has nothing to with you just as the details of the commercial CIC has nothing to do with you.

"

It is time to accept that the CIC and St Mirren are one and the same and start supporting your club. :)

Sid, whilst I understand your sentiments, If I were an ordinary member of the CiC, I would expect to be informed of what "conditions" other investers/donors were setting.

My/yours/the dogs £120 per year may only be a drop in the ocean incomparison to a 1 off £50K investment but if all 772 pledgers do pay up, that is almost £100k {nearly double} the SMISA investment.

If I were one of the "ordinary" members, I would want to know what "conditions" or dispensation is being given to 1 organisaton making such a donation. Being told it is none of my business would demonstrate a lack of transparency and would suggest to me, that I should think twice if I wish to continue donating £10 per month and if I were told by the CiC that it was none of my business, then they don't really want my £120 per year.

Edited by Kombi Buddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites


What I don't understand is why SMiSA would choose to invest through the CiC route. How they spend their money is entirely their own affair but surely they would be better offering to buy up the shares of those amongst the 48% who feel their shares are going to become worthless. Here would have been a chance for those to recoup some of their investment whilst handing over to a group who care about the club. Doing that would surely have guaranteed them a place on the football board and it would have meant a return on investment if the CiC does fail and has to go back on the market.

I agree with Stuart....they should pay at least £12 a share for the other 48%. If they want to mkake a start they can mail me. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid, whilst I understand your sentiments, If I were an ordinary member of the CiC, I would expect to be informed of what "conditions" other investers/donors were setting.

My/yours/the dogs £120 per year may only be a drop in the ocean incomparison to a 1 off £50K investment but if all 772 pledgers do pay up, that is almost £100k {nearly double} the SMISA investment.

If I were one of the "ordinary" members, I would want to know what "conditions" or dispensation is being given to 1 organisaton making such a donation. Being told it is none of my business would demonstrate a lack of transparency and would suggest to me, that I should think twice if I wish to continue donating £10 per month and if I were told by the CiC that it was none of my business, then they don't really want my £120 per year.

Your decision KB. However, it is up to CIC Members to decide who represents them on the BoD and then to let them decide what is and what is not acceptable. If they don't like the decisions made they don't re-elect the BoD member responsible. One minute you are griping about the 3 boards being too cumbersome, now your moan is that every snippit of information won't be published for every man and their £10 playing dug to mull over and vote on.

This is funding at the top level of the table for 10,000 hours. SMiSA will be negotiating directly with that BoD rather than putting money into the Members BoD or SMFC. The outcome will be the 52% shareholding being passed to the Members BoD to take control of the club. The CIC Members BoD does not exist and not to put too fine a point on it - I reckon it's f"k aw to do with them anyway. :)

I still find it astonishing how poor the understanding of the CIC-knockers actually is when they keep harping on about how they are "concerned" for the club.

Speculating I would be very pleased if one of SMiSA's conditions was a permanent seat on the top BoD. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your decision KB. However, it is up to CIC Members to decide who represents them on the BoD and then to let them decide what is and what is not acceptable. If they don't like the decisions made they don't re-elect the BoD member responsible. One minute you are griping about the 3 boards being too cumbersome, now your moan is that every snippit of information won't be published for every man and their £10 playing dug to mull over and vote on.

This is funding at the top level of the table for 10,000 hours. SMiSA will be negotiating directly with that BoD rather than putting money into the Members BoD or SMFC. The outcome will be the 52% shareholding being passed to the Members BoD to take control of the club. The CIC Members BoD does not exist and not to put too fine a point on it - I reckon it's f"k aw to do with them anyway. :)

I still find it astonishing how poor the understanding of the CIC-knockers actually is when they keep harping on about how they are "concerned" for the club.

Speculating I would be very pleased if one of SMiSA's conditions was a permanent seat on the top BoD. :)

If I were part of SMISA, and this money is being invested entirely in the club, then one condition I'd ask for would be that the SMFC Board would control how the 50K is allocated. I'd question whether 86 members is justification for a guaranteed seat on any board, especially as come election time at least one SMISA member is all but guaranteed getting voted in anyway. Not really sure what other controls you would have once you've voted the 50K in to the budget, you'd need to assign it within the original vote (that'll be the complicated micro stuff that so many seem to be promising yet not actually want to provide).

As for your comment above about just letting people get on with it post election...NO. This whole process needs proper processes, you also can't go out to the International media and sell fan involvement with the "decide where the scraps go" tagline. Especially as, at least in the meetings I went to, we've been told by very high up members of the CIC that they don't want to run the club as it's our club.

Edited by TsuMirren
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were part of SMISA, and this money is being invested entirely in the club, then one condition I'd ask for would be that the SMFC Board would control how the 50K is allocated. I'd question whether 86 members is justification for a guaranteed seat on any board, especially as come election time at least one SMISA member is all but guaranteed getting voted in anyway. Not really sure what other controls you would have once you've voted the 50K in to the budget, you'd need to assign it within the original vote (that'll be the complicated micro stuff that so many seem to be promising yet not actually want to provide).

Indeed - if they had 86 thousand members it is still no justification in terms of how the CIC is being sold to potential members. I have no issue in someone contributing money setting conditions or requests on how that money is spent, but there should be nothing "in return" in those conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your comment above about just letting people get on with it post election...NO. This whole process needs proper processes, you also can't go out to the International media and sell fan involvement with the "decide where the scraps go" tagline. Especially as, at least in the meetings I went to, we've been told by very high up members of the CIC that they don't want to run the club as it's our club.

Another one that can't make their minds up. Ebbfleet by your own account turned into a web based squabble with too many small decisions being debated to death. We need to elect our representatives to the BoD and let them crack on with their role. They should be available for consultation; however we need to give them a mandate to act on our behalf and let them deliver. If they fail they get replaced. Clean and simple. WIll guarantee success. Letting dafties like Stu Dickson / Yul / Kombie waste everyone's time with borderline sectionable lunacy will contribute nothing to the club or the CIC.

This is not an invitation to blubber on about Ebbsfleet by the way....bores the nipples aff me. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed - if they had 86 thousand members it is still no justification in terms of how the CIC is being sold to potential members. I have no issue in someone contributing money setting conditions or requests on how that money is spent, but there should be nothing "in return" in those conditions.

It is all about value Colin M. SMiSA's £50K is pretty important in the bigger scheme of things. That being said, our 700 x £120 per year commitment is significantly more than SMiSA's one off £50K. Certainly debatable - however SMiSA represent our support and additional seats for them, particularly at the top table would benefit us all. Remember SMiSA can be joined for just £2 a month and would therefore provide a voice for fans that would not be able to afford the £10 per month CIC membership. This ticks my boxes in terms of the CIC being all inclusive and ensuring all fans views are recognised and not just the ones prepared to pay £10 per month. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one that can't make their minds up. Ebbfleet by your own account turned into a web based squabble with too many small decisions being debated to death. We need to elect our representatives to the BoD and let them crack on with their role. They should be available for consultation; however we need to give them a mandate to act on our behalf and let them deliver. If they fail they get replaced. Clean and simple. WIll guarantee success. Letting dafties like Stu Dickson / Yul / Kombie waste everyone's time with borderline sectionable lunacy will contribute nothing to the club or the CIC.

This is not an invitation to blubber on about Ebbsfleet by the way....bores the nipples aff me. :P

I was busy agreeing with you until you listed me as a dafty wasting everyone's time with borderline sectionable lunacy :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one that can't make their minds up. Ebbfleet by your own account turned into a web based squabble with too many small decisions being debated to death. We need to elect our representatives to the BoD and let them crack on with their role. They should be available for consultation; however we need to give them a mandate to act on our behalf and let them deliver. If they fail they get replaced. Clean and simple. WIll guarantee success. Letting dafties like Stu Dickson / Yul / Kombie waste everyone's time with borderline sectionable lunacy will contribute nothing to the club or the CIC.

This is not an invitation to blubber on about Ebbsfleet by the way....bores the nipples aff me. :P

Cutting through the wind up merchant nonsense. Ebbsfleet were the wrong club, they've never made ends meet and should never have been full time. The club could afford wages around 6K per week (even that meant loans from directors etc), MYFC took that up to 13K per week and I'm sure you can see how expectations were raised alongside the FA Trophy victory and level of membership. Sadly, promises weren't lived up to and people weren't kept happy... are you seeing a link yet? Deals were done in the background, again maybe you're seeing it, and members realised it wasn't everything they had signed up for.

The web based squabble was built on the back of Pick The Team, it was inevitable that an utterly piss awful delivery of that was only going to raise issues. The club didn't care and the mastermind behind it all eventually came out and admitted it had been a gimmick. Small decisions weren't debated to death, it was the delivery of them and at times the lack of delivery. But, they were insignificant compared to other things and really weren't the issue. They were indicative of a much wider issue, with decisions made prior to votes and the entire project never really embraced. We had wind up merchants there too, nice enough when you met them though pretty much useless.

We need to know what we're electing people to and the processes they will be working to, it's pretty much that simple. We need flesh on the bones of the fans experience and what it is, with less wind up merchants calling everyone and anyone thick for not understanding something that isn't very clearly defined.

Your nipples should be the least of your worries, just wait until time comes to grow a set. As for my mind, I've never changed from my original view. I think it can work, but I have serious doubts as to it doing so...sad really, as compared to Ebbsfleet this should be an absolute doddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutting through the wind up merchant nonsense. Ebbsfleet were the wrong club, they've never made ends meet and should never have been full time. The club could afford wages around 6K per week (even that meant loans from directors etc), MYFC took that up to 13K per week and I'm sure you can see how expectations were raised alongside the FA Trophy victory and level of membership. Sadly, promises weren't lived up to and people weren't kept happy... are you seeing a link yet? Deals were done in the background, again maybe you're seeing it, and members realised it wasn't everything they had signed up for.

The web based squabble was built on the back of Pick The Team, it was inevitable that an utterly piss awful delivery of that was only going to raise issues. The club didn't care and the mastermind behind it all eventually came out and admitted it had been a gimmick. Small decisions weren't debated to death, it was the delivery of them and at times the lack of delivery. But, they were insignificant compared to other things and really weren't the issue. They were indicative of a much wider issue, with decisions made prior to votes and the entire project never really embraced. We had wind up merchants there too, nice enough when you met them though pretty much useless.

We need to know what we're electing people to and the processes they will be working to, it's pretty much that simple. We need flesh on the bones of the fans experience and what it is, with less wind up merchants calling everyone and anyone thick for not understanding something that isn't very clearly defined.

Your nipples should be the least of your worries, just wait until time comes to grow a set. As for my mind, I've never changed from my original view. I think it can work, but I have serious doubts as to it doing so...sad really, as compared to Ebbsfleet this should be an absolute doddle.

Longwinded post, but you are still thick and don't understand a perfectly simple structure. :P

Your experience at Ebbsfleet is redundant. I have read nothing of relevance except someone taking the opportunity to bitch about a failed venture and try to tag it onto a completely different scenario. It's like trying to compare the Tile Bar Bus Football Card to the National Lottery.

One thing that is clear is that there is a lot of blind support and blind resistance in relation to the CIC from the bigger gobbed web haunters. Thankfully the level of understanding in SMiSA and the public meetings was much highers. Let's hope the eventual BoD Members joining me will come from those sources rather than t'Internet, whose role has been vastly overplayed in terms of the CIC. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is all about value Colin M. SMiSA's £50K is pretty important in the bigger scheme of things. That being said, our 700 x £120 per year commitment is significantly more than SMiSA's one off £50K. Certainly debatable - however SMiSA represent our support and additional seats for them, particularly at the top table would benefit us all. Remember SMiSA can be joined for just £2 a month and would therefore provide a voice for fans that would not be able to afford the £10 per month CIC membership. This ticks my boxes in terms of the CIC being all inclusive and ensuring all fans views are recognised and not just the ones prepared to pay £10 per month. :)

I don't believe that any individual or group should be able to, for example, "buy" a seat on the board (especially not for as little as 50 grand!). But I don't really want to speculate as to what the conditions might be which is why I'm asking what they are.

IMO it's up to the CIC to allow a voice for anyone who can't afford the membership - my understanding was that that would be at least considered. SMiSA represent only a (fairly small it seems) subsection of our support - I believe there should be a greater opportunity for our fans to have a voice as individuals via the CIC than via SMiSA. That's not to say that SMiSA's voice isn't important and I am glad they are supportive of the CIC.

Edited by Colin M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that is clear is that there is a lot of blind support and blind resistance in relation to the CIC from the bigger gobbed web haunters. Thankfully the level of understanding in SMiSA and the public meetings was much highers.

Well, your support is certainly blind and something seen before elsewhere. The forum voice brought in close, the patsy. But, as you say, the three tiered structure at MYFC was totally different to this and so was the fan involvement and promise of bringing the club to the fans...what would I know.

The level of understanding at SMISA should be good as they'll have had more meetings with Richard and seen as many budget projections as probably anyone else has. The level of understanding at the public meetings was also good, well at the second one anyway. I've no issue with Richard, no issue with companies coming on board and no issue with a steady progress of the club. My issue is with the vision, admittedly only portrayed by yourself really (someone who's never, as far as I know, been involved in anything like this), of fans being drip fed some involvement and almost supposedly being expected to thank Richard for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, your support is certainly blind and something seen before elsewhere. The forum voice brought in close, the patsy. But, as you say, the three tiered structure at MYFC was totally different to this and so was the fan involvement and promise of bringing the club to the fans...what would I know.

The level of understanding at SMISA should be good as they'll have had more meetings with Richard and seen as many budget projections as probably anyone else has. The level of understanding at the public meetings was also good, well at the second one anyway. I've no issue with Richard, no issue with companies coming on board and no issue with a steady progress of the club. My issue is with the vision, admittedly only portrayed by yourself really (someone who's never, as far as I know, been involved in anything like this), of fans being drip fed some involvement and almost supposedly being expected to thank Richard for it.

My point proven. No wonder Ebbsfleet descended into an online flaming war. :P

You have already demonstrated that you huvney got a clue so your claim that the level of understanding at the public meetings was good carries no weight. However, I being of higher intellect and having covered all the possible objections with the CIC proponents rather than pitching up with..."oh please REA, please speak to me...I want to be your friend and I was once dooped into signing up for an online club ownership hoax and am prepared so sook the pus right out of your sweaty starfish if you will only acknowledge me in public - just once REA, I need to be taken seriously on an unofishal forum by the great and good St Sid - he's got a less sweaty starfish, and yours would be a step on the ladder to starfish licking Utopia.

This was never about previous experience - yours being of the diddy variety in any case; this was about testing the CIC to the nth degree to ensure it was the right thing for the club. That job has been done by real people like me, and of course the great the good SMiSA chaps - the time has come for you to bow to natural selection and worship your inevitable President. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point proven. No wonder Ebbsfleet descended into an online flaming war. :P

You have already demonstrated that you huvney got a clue so your claim that the level of understanding at the public meetings was good carries no weight. However, I being of higher intellect and having covered all the possible objections with the CIC proponents rather than pitching up with..."oh please REA, please speak to me...I want to be your friend and I was once dooped into signing up for an online club ownership hoax and am prepared so sook the pus right out of your sweaty starfish if you will only acknowledge me in public - just once REA, I need to be taken seriously on an unofishal forum by the great and good St Sid - he's got a less sweaty starfish, and yours would be a step on the ladder to starfish licking Utopia.

This was never about previous experience - yours being of the diddy variety in any case; this was about testing the CIC to the nth degree to ensure it was the right thing for the club. That job has been done by real people like me, and of course the great the good SMiSA chaps - the time has come for you to bow to natural selection and worship your inevitable President. B)

Never mind the sweaty starfish, reading all that pish left me feeling as though I was swimming near the sewage outlet at Ayr beach. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never mind the sweaty starfish, reading all that pish left me feeling as though I was swimming near the sewage outlet at Ayr beach. :unsure:

The sewage would complain. :P

The point being made here is that we have moved on from the will we / won't we debate to the Oh no, what have we done debate. The decision has been made, the funding is in place and control of the club is now happening. It is time to move on from the star fish licking behaviour of the "can I be your pal Richard" to serious debate about what this all actually means to the club as from the posts I am seeing on here many folk haven't got a scoobie.

The CIC team are currently driving the agenda rather than the supporters. Instead we see posters slabbering a lot of shite about this and that with no real coherence and a lot of personal agendas and general sychophancy - starfish licking.

It is now time for us to see specific detail in terms of the process for formation and ratification of the constitution. Is this going to be done in a single meeting with so many supporters still pretty confused about what they are getting into?

The petty nonsense is a distraction and probably one welcomed by the CIC chaps. We are entering a critical period that will define our club for years to come. No process for the formation of the CIC has been presented as yet, other than some sweeping indicators at the public meetings.

Time for all to accept that it is going ahead and to move the debate onto how we ensure that the fans are represented properly in the negotiation on structure, decision making, inclusiveness, consultation, etc.

A lot of the information management has been through one to one meetings and very good public meetings. It would now be useful to see some detail on the process for the formation of the CIC, its structure and how it will engage with the supporters.

Some of the pro CIC chaps are as unhelpful as the Yuls now. The likes of TsuMirren have served their purpose and should be consigned to dafty status where they belong. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sewage would complain. :P

The point being made here is that we have moved on from the will we / won't we debate to the Oh no, what have we done debate. The decision has been made, the funding is in place and control of the club is now happening. It is time to move on from the star fish licking behaviour of the "can I be your pal Richard" to serious debate about what this all actually means to the club as from the posts I am seeing on here many folk haven't got a scoobie.

The CIC team are currently driving the agenda rather than the supporters. Instead we see posters slabbering a lot of shite about this and that with no real coherence and a lot of personal agendas and general sychophancy - starfish licking.

It is now time for us to see specific detail in terms of the process for formation and ratification of the constitution. Is this going to be done in a single meeting with so many supporters still pretty confused about what they are getting into?

The petty nonsense is a distraction and probably one welcomed by the CIC chaps. We are entering a critical period that will define our club for years to come. No process for the formation of the CIC has been presented as yet, other than some sweeping indicators at the public meetings.

Time for all to accept that it is going ahead and to move the debate onto how we ensure that the fans are represented properly in the negotiation on structure, decision making, inclusiveness, consultation, etc.

A lot of the information management has been through one to one meetings and very good public meetings. It would now be useful to see some detail on the process for the formation of the CIC, its structure and how it will engage with the supporters.

Some of the pro CIC chaps are as unhelpful as the Yuls now. The likes of TsuMirren have served their purpose and should be consigned to dafty status where they belong. :P

Sid, has the funding been approved? I haven't noticed an announcement anywhere.

For what it's worth I agree with much of that. Large committees are completely unworkable and every minutiae can't be debated over and over again by members. I said months ago - much to the annoyance of some - that members say in the running of anything would have to be limited to the election of members and from there they would just have to let them get on with it. However on the other side if there isn't already a draft constitution then someone hasn't been doing their job.

There is obviously going to have to be a period where the club is being run by an unelected committee whilst candidates put themselves forward for election, and start their "campaigns" but i would have thought that RA would have wanted that process started immediately after funding is approved if for no other reason to get people into the positions that will allow MoU's to be agreed, and conditions met for both the Corporate and Community Members. Stringing it out for six months seems silly to me as it would only serve to annoy those who are most important to the CiC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid, has the funding been approved? I haven't noticed an announcement anywhere.

For what it's worth I agree with much of that. Large committees are completely unworkable and every minutiae can't be debated over and over again by members. I said months ago - much to the annoyance of some - that members say in the running of anything would have to be limited to the election of members and from there they would just have to let them get on with it. However on the other side if there isn't already a draft constitution then someone hasn't been doing their job.

There is obviously going to have to be a period where the club is being run by an unelected committee whilst candidates put themselves forward for election, and start their "campaigns" but i would have thought that RA would have wanted that process started immediately after funding is approved if for no other reason to get people into the positions that will allow MoU's to be agreed, and conditions met for both the Corporate and Community Members. Stringing it out for six months seems silly to me as it would only serve to annoy those who are most important to the CiC

Some interesting points there lawfud and you managed it without reference to that diddy event you went to - good man. :P

There has been some amount of pish posted on here by both the supporters and non-supporters of the CIC. We now need to move on from that. It was always going to be a them and us type debate despite best efforts to steer it in a more productive direction. All that needs to be put to bed now.

Now is the time for ramping up our dilligence and ensuring that the CIC is what WE want it to be. To date the only organised supporters organisation doing genuine due dilligenence has been SMiSA. They have been thorough. The rest has been some supporters doing their bit in one to ones. We now need some organisation, perhaps it is SMiSA to represent us in the immediate period of the takeover now it is progressing. It is important that the CIC guys know what we want and that they deliver what we want for this venture to get off the ground running. I would like to see the formal process for achieving that discussed now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St Sid - as I remember from the open nights the intention was to have an initial members meeting to discuss the way forward. The organisation would start to evolve from there. I think it is unfair to suggest at this stage that SMiSA would be representative of the wider support and therefore be handed any sort of role unless formal elections were carried out first. Having attended all the meetings including the SMiSA ones at no stage do I remember anything suggesting that SMiSA would be offered any positions as a result of the £50K contribution.

One of the concerns that some SMiSA members had was handing over the full £50K lump sum was that there would no longer be a fighting fund available in the event that something unforeseen went wrong with the CiC. SMiSA have always been open with what they have done so far, and I'm sure that any conditions that are negotiated with 10000Hours will probably have to be approved by the general membership.

I don't feel it is worth people getting hung up on the "SMiSA funding conditions" until the actual CIC external funding concludes and an initial members meeting takes place. At which stage this can be discussed openly. For people to suggest that they would not support the CiC because of this perceived issue does seem rather odd.

I'm sure the SMiSA comittee will in due course be very open with the wider support on the conditions of the funding.

Excellent post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think the conditions being set by SMiSA will be anything like as grand as demanding a seat on the board or anything like that.

I believe the conditions are more likely to be the point at which the money is released, is it released in increments in line with the CiC proceeding as planned or is it released up front.

I wonder whether it would be worth SMISA putting the condition that they get a representative on the exec board (as a way of ensuring this board always has a saints fans' voice on it?) but there is absolutely no question in my mind of SMISA requesting a seat on either the CIC board or the St Mirren Board, equally if that was to be requested, i am certain it would be rejected.

In any case, the conditions will be set by smisa and agreed by the CIC - so that everyone is happy - Smisa want to invest this cash in the CIC, but are rightly cautious about their investment.

Edited by BLF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

St Sid - as I remember from the open nights the intention was to have an initial members meeting to discuss the way forward. The organisation would start to evolve from there. I think it is unfair to suggest at this stage that SMiSA would be representative of the wider support and therefore be handed any sort of role unless formal elections were carried out first. Having attended all the meetings including the SMiSA ones at no stage do I remember anything suggesting that SMiSA would be offered any positions as a result of the £50K contribution.

One of the concerns that some SMiSA members had was handing over the full £50K lump sum was that there would no longer be a fighting fund available in the event that something unforeseen went wrong with the CiC. SMiSA have always been open with what they have done so far, and I'm sure that any conditions that are negotiated with 10000Hours will probably have to be approved by the general membership.

I don't feel it is worth people getting hung up on the "SMiSA funding conditions" until the actual CIC external funding concludes and an initial members meeting takes place. At which stage this can be discussed openly. For people to suggest that they would not support the CiC because of this perceived issue does seem rather odd.

I'm sure the SMiSA comittee will in due course be very open with the wider support on the conditions of the funding.

Good post Yflab. Nothing in there I would disagree with.

I think we should be teasing out views on what the organisation is going to evolve into though and the process for its evolution. An initial members meeting is of course required. In the interim a draft constitution has been drawn up and no doubt that will be presented at the meeting for discussion. Should be ratifying the constitution at that meeting or should a copy of the constitution be disseminated to members in advance so that suggestions for amendments can be made prior to the meeting. Where is the input into the constitution, process being driven from. Is it being driven by the CIC. Are there supporters involved in its drafting? Is the constitution going to be largely dictated by the funding bodies and we have to comply with certain requirements based on their conditions?

We need to keep testing the CIC. Not with speculative comwboy nonsense designed to try and derail support for it, but by ensuring that the CIC we get is the CIC we are expecting. I am sure it will be; however I am slightly concerned that some people may be sleepwalking into it now thinking that it is all done and dusted and the future will take care of itself. If people don't get involved or engaged with the process then come the CIC losing its first late goal the toys will be right of the pram as usual. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post Yflab. Nothing in there I would disagree with.

I think we should be teasing out views on what the organisation is going to evolve into though and the process for its evolution. An initial members meeting is of course required. In the interim a draft constitution has been drawn up and no doubt that will be presented at the meeting for discussion. Should be ratifying the constitution at that meeting or should a copy of the constitution be disseminated to members in advance so that suggestions for amendments can be made prior to the meeting. Where is the input into the constitution, process being driven from. Is it being driven by the CIC. Are there supporters involved in its drafting? Is the constitution going to be largely dictated by the funding bodies and we have to comply with certain requirements based on their conditions?

We need to keep testing the CIC. Not with speculative comwboy nonsense designed to try and derail support for it, but by ensuring that the CIC we get is the CIC we are expecting. I am sure it will be; however I am slightly concerned that some people may be sleepwalking into it now thinking that it is all done and dusted and the future will take care of itself. If people don't get involved or engaged with the process then come the CIC losing its first late goal the toys will be right of the pram as usual. :wink:

:rolleyes:

Eminently sensible point. Advanced copies of the draft Constitution and notification of the voting structure should be made available, as should any amendments put forward. There is no point in asking folk to read, amend and ratify in one session as some mince may get through - or worst stil - something detrimental overlooked.

It will also be interesting to see the voting structure, as I believe in one man, one vote, but would a corporate member be happy with that?

Edited by Vambo57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post Yflab. Nothing in there I would disagree with.

I think we should be teasing out views on what the organisation is going to evolve into though and the process for its evolution. An initial members meeting is of course required. In the interim a draft constitution has been drawn up and no doubt that will be presented at the meeting for discussion. Should be ratifying the constitution at that meeting or should a copy of the constitution be disseminated to members in advance so that suggestions for amendments can be made prior to the meeting. Where is the input into the constitution, process being driven from. Is it being driven by the CIC. Are there supporters involved in its drafting? Is the constitution going to be largely dictated by the funding bodies and we have to comply with certain requirements based on their conditions?

We need to keep testing the CIC. Not with speculative comwboy nonsense designed to try and derail support for it, but by ensuring that the CIC we get is the CIC we are expecting. I am sure it will be; however I am slightly concerned that some people may be sleepwalking into it now thinking that it is all done and dusted and the future will take care of itself. If people don't get involved or engaged with the process then come the CIC losing its first late goal the toys will be right of the pram as usual. :wink:

I've got to agree with this but another reason we should be looking at the constitution is to ensure safeguards are there for the club if things were to go wrong at some point in the future - for instance the CIC members should have input to who the shares can be sold to. This could also help allay some of the fears of the doubters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

Eminently sensible point. Advanced copies of the draft Constitution and notification of the voting structure should be made available, as should any amendments put forward. There is no point in asking folk to read, amend and ratify in one session as some mince may get through - or worst stil - something detrimental overlooked.

It will also be interesting to see the voting structure, as I believe in one man, one vote, but would a corporate member be happy with that?

Not too sure if this is what you meant, but a good point worth exploring. From the outset the corporate members were always having a seperate vote for their allocation of seats on the Board. However, it will get interesting in instances were the views / votes of the general members are sought.

We need to be clear what instances would create a general members vote. We need to be clear on how that will work in relation to the corporate / community members. Can the general members only vote to dictate how our BoD representatives vote? That could see crucial situations for the general support voting unanimously but still not being carried through due to a conflict of interest with the rest of the BoD. Will the number of BoD members on the CIC Board be weighted to ensure at least a dead heat in such circumstances or will it be weighted one way or the other?

Like I say, these matters are very important for the CIC to progress and we need to be discussing these issues frankly and be prepared for the upcoming meetings. The time for being pro or anti are over and it is time to ensure the fine detail is right for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ Sid, you could save a lot of typing by simply saying....

'We need to know how the CIC will operate'

Seriously though, we do. Clearly, concisely, in plain English with no room for doubt or any murky grey areas... Should the CIC come into being, how will it operate, and how do the members fit into the grand scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...