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

[St. Sid]

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

'We need to know how the CIC will operate'

As always you have missed the point being made.

We don't need to KNOW how the CIC will operate. We need to ensure that we have a role in defining how the CIC will operate. Two very different things altogether.

Time to get off your submissive position allowing the CIC guys to rub your belly for dog treats and act like you are a St Mirren supporter rather than a CIC supporter.

[pozbaird]

As always you have missed the point being made.

We don't need to KNOW how the CIC will operate. We need to ensure that we have a role in defining how the CIC will operate. Two very different things altogether.

Time to get off your submissive position allowing the CIC guys to rub your belly for dog treats and act like you are a St Mirren supporter rather than a CIC supporter.

Of course we need to know how the CIC will actually operate, and of course we need the members, especially the Saints supporting members, to help shape the way the CIC operates - for the benefit of all.

Frankly, can't see why you went off into 'Yulspeak' - with belly rubs and dog treats bollocks... it'll be cowpokes and pardners next.

I state again - we need to know how it will all work, will it work smoothly, or will it prove to be a feckin' nightmare getting anything done.

To say we don't need to know how it will actually operate is plain stupid... IMHO naturally. If you are a supporter who is happy just to pay their £10 a month to do their bit, but has no real deep desire to put yourself up for election, or to become deeply involved - you simply need to know how the organisation you are backing with your tenner a month goes about their business, and how the decisions it makes are reached, and by whom.

Sid, the trait you display of seemingly saying 'Sid is right and you are all dumbfcuks' is not an attractive one. Seriously.

Edited July 20, 2011 by pozbaird

[Stuart Dickson]

Far be it for me to speak for Sid Poz but I think what he actually meant was rather than being told how it would work, it was time for St Mirren supporters to get together now to tell 10000hours how they would like it to work. I get what he means but I think he gives the average football fan more credit then they are due. The reality is that it would be better if 10000hours let the community members draught the constitution, after all they are the important element with the relevant experience.

[pozbaird]

Far be it for me to speak for Sid Poz but I think what he actually meant was rather than being told how it would work, it was time for St Mirren supporters to get together now to tell 10000hours how they would like it to work. I get what he means but I think he gives the average football fan more credit then they are due. The reality is that it would be better if 10000hours let the community members draught the constitution, after all they are the important element with the relevant experience.

... and I have no truck with that view Stu... but in my 'Christ Sid, you could have saved a lot of typing....' post, I said that because Sid himself had made a long post about the voting, who would do what, what problems could arise... etc. He was talking about how it would work, not what it should be doing....see below.

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?

What's that, if it isn't talking about how the CIC will actually operate? All I did was jokingly suggest he could have condensed it into one sentence.

It's no big deal, I still don't understand why he adopted a condescending tone in his reply, effectively telling me that I wasn't grasping what was going on.

I find most of his posts entertaining and like his style, but as I say, I think there's a side to his posts that goes beyond a flippant forum style, and talks down to people he may deem beneath him, when it comes to discussing the CIC and all that goes with it.

Someone once said that Sid could do more damage to the 'pro CIC' argument than AnimYul, hotdiggity, or any other vehemently anti-CIC forum user. Maybe they've got a point.

Incidentally, I have absolutely no desire to put myself up for election to any board of any sort, but my interest in the whole process remains keen, and I remain supportive..... even if El Presidente elect disapproves of my line in posting. Fair enough.

Edit: I have no doubt that if 'El Presidente elect' comes back with another post, it will be something along the lines of 'Lighten up ginger' - accompanied by the obligatory 'I was only kidding' smiley....

Edited July 20, 2011 by pozbaird

[chico]

Far be it for me to speak for Sid Poz but I think what he actually meant was rather than being told how it would work, it was time for St Mirren supporters to get together now to tell 10000hours how they would like it to work. I get what he means but I think he gives the average football fan more credit then they are due. The reality is that it would be better if 10000hours let the community members draught the constitution, after all they are the important element with the relevant experience.

Why would the St Mirren support bother?

SMiSA never got much backing, the forums are but a percentage of the support. There's no organised supporters group.

Yup there'll be a few up for shouting the odds, but your average St Mirren fan will have hee haw to do with the whole process, CiC member or not.

We'll get told how it'll work and some brave souls will get involved in it and get end up getting utter pelters for being on the board or in with the CiC.

Only if there's an emergency or if things look like turning to shite will there be any active agitation by ordinary supporters.

Edited July 20, 2011 by chico

[BLF]

Just to pull the discussion back on topic - What conditions would people consider acceptable/reasonable for SMISA to put on thier investment/gifting of this £50k.

[pozbaird]

Just to pull the discussion back on topic - What conditions would people consider acceptable/reasonable for SMISA to put on thier investment/gifting of this £50k.

If the SMiSA 'conditions' related to the actual 50k, perhaps the timescale for it to be handed over, maybe it being paid in installments, anything of that nature - that must be acceptable, given that it's SMiSA's money, and they should be able to lay down 'conditions' on how to transfer it that satisfies their membership.

I cannot imagine that their 'conditions' would be something along the lines of 'We'll invest the 50k in return for guaranteed 'X' amount of representation on the BOD, no elections for us to go through thanks very much!...' That would simply be buying a seat on the BOD. That can't be right.

Ironically though, my gut feeling is that SMiSA have paid their dues, put in the effort, tried to do good, and actually deserve representation in the new ownership model.

Edited July 20, 2011 by pozbaird

[chico]

Ironically though, my gut feeling is that SMiSA have paid their dues, put in the effort, tried to do good, and actually deserve representation in the new ownership model.

Of course they do. I feel sorry for the committee guys that tried to plug away buying shares from the current board to be snubbed at every turn.

SMiSA's gig became damn near impossible when the tesco deal for the new ground went through. The club was 'saved' there was the perception in the support that nothing was wrong and the BoD no longer needed cash in.

We'll soon learn if the CiC model actually delivers St Mirren to the fans rather than through a supporters trust.

I think the CiC delivers St Mirren to the 'community' which isn't quite the same, but possibly it's close enough.

[St. Sid]

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

'cannae handle it'

I actually think that my tongue in cheek style is seen as that. There are far more condescending posters that sadly do it in earnest and there has been far too much of it on the CIC issue. Don't want to name names but you're one of the worst for it.

[St. Sid]

Of course they do. I feel sorry for the committee guys that tried to plug away buying shares from the current board to be snubbed at every turn.

SMiSA's gig became damn near impossible when the tesco deal for the new ground went through. The club was 'saved' there was the perception in the support that nothing was wrong and the BoD no longer needed cash in.

We'll soon learn if the CiC model actually delivers St Mirren to the fans rather than through a supporters trust.

I think the CiC delivers St Mirren to the 'community' which isn't quite the same, but possibly it's close enough.

Good post. I have heard some ex-SMiSA members comment that once the ground was sold they left SMiSA as they felt the job was done - as in securing the future of the club.

I also agree that most fans interest in the CIC will only emerge if / when something goes wrong, just as interest in forming a group like SMiSA occured when SG 'fessed up that we were genuinely on the brink.

That will be the tragedy. The CIC will form based on those putting the effort in. If SMiSA wasn't so heavily involved then supporters would hardly have a say in the process as the funders, corporate and community members all negotiate their agreements, MoUs, etc - the supporters are taking a back seat and crossing their fingers that someone else is looking after our interests.

The biggest threat to the CIC will be the apathy of the support when there are other players who will be working hard to make the CIC work for them.

[St. Sid]

The White Man [at the risk of sounding like heap big chief and falling into Yul's fantasy world] is in the PDE making good sense in relation to SMiSA's position. I am delighted to hear that SMiSA will be continuing to be an operational supporters organisation. They are the only organised fans organisation playing a part in the CIC process. This is the time to be joining them.

JW clarifies SMiSA's position in the PDE

Edited July 21, 2011 by St. Sid

[bud77]

Why would the St Mirren support bother?

SMiSA never got much backing, the forums are but a percentage of the support. There's no organised supporters group.

Yup there'll be a few up for shouting the odds, but your average St Mirren fan will have hee haw to do with the whole process, CiC member or not.

We'll get told how it'll work and some brave souls will get involved in it and get end up getting utter pelters for being on the board or in with the CiC.

Only if there's an emergency or if things look like turning to shite will there be any active agitation by ordinary supporters.

There will be a draft constitution somewhere but until it has been voted in or out by the members it will only be a draft. I think it's vitally important that we carefully consider the constitution we'd like, for me the main aspects are a) ensuring the individual members have the say and representation that we want, not neccessarily voting on every minute detail but there certainly will be matters we must be able to vote on and for me that vote should include the most up to date electronic methods available and protecting the future of the club if something goes wrong with the CiC, maybe not in 10 years or 20 years but what about 50 or 100 years time ? The average St Mirren fan might not get involved and that's really a pity because now we should be examining all the possibilities, how they could affect the club and what we can do to ensure the future individual members have as much say as possible.

[Stuart Dickson]

There will be a draft constitution somewhere but until it has been voted in or out by the members it will only be a draft. I think it's vitally important that we carefully consider the constitution we'd like, for me the main aspects are a) ensuring the individual members have the say and representation that we want, not neccessarily voting on every minute detail but there certainly will be matters we must be able to vote on and for me that vote should include the most up to date electronic methods available and protecting the future of the club if something goes wrong with the CiC, maybe not in 10 years or 20 years but what about 50 or 100 years time ? The average St Mirren fan might not get involved and that's really a pity because now we should be examining all the possibilities, how they could affect the club and what we can do to ensure the future individual members have as much say as possible.

Constitutions evolve and change through time. The last three AGM's I've been at with our football club have involved two minor changes to the constitution and then in the third a complete rewrite. I'm only mentioning that as the constitution will not be set in stone and it may look completely different in 50 years to 100 years time. I agree with the crux of what you and Sid are saying though - I'd hate to see the CIC model being damaged by snipers from within who took out memberships and then forgot to tell the CIC what they wanted in return and who then demanded the earth. However I still feel that it would be better to let community members draft the constitution and to let them outline how they want it to work. After all the club will belong to the community, not to the supporters.

[St. Sid]

I agree with the crux of what you and Sid are saying though - I'd hate to see the CIC model being damaged by snipers from within who took out memberships and then forgot to tell the CIC what they wanted in return and who then demanded the earth.

Pretty much where I coming from Stu. I know that the CIC will be successful. However, what we want to avoid is the venting from supporters who haven't made the effort to understand what it actually is. The petty attacks on the CIC and the people involved created a dichotomy that prevented constructive open debate.

I would now like to see a more mature debate based on the assumption that it is going to happen. The outcomes of the debate will be a more informed St Mirren support and secondly I believe that it will actually generate more members.

Nonsense statement like that from Pozbaird that open debate will damage the CIC are frankly shocking. We should move on from nonsense like that and the Yul fannyslabber and now openly discuss the small detail that concerns us. We keep hearing from the most ferocious defenders of the CIC that they still have concerns. We all do - mines relates to the process moving forward as any lack of transparency and any attempt to rush through the constitution without due dilligence or hold votes without full consultation will only lead to severe gripes and potentially costly mistakes that are not easy to resolve. Constitutions once formed are not quite so easy to amend as you suggest depending on how they are written. Just look at the state of the SPL.

[pozbaird]

Nonsense statement like that from Pozbaird that open debate will damage the CIC are frankly shocking.

Sid,

Please show me where I said such a thing. I simply have not, even for one minute, suggested that an open debate will damage the CIC.

What I did say was that during the course of the online CIC discussions, others have said your incessant posting on the subject, and constant putting down of other people's views, could do more damage to the CIC's online support, than the efforts of anti-CIC posters such as Yul Brynner could do. It wasn't something I had given much credence to - until recently.

I think it's a pretty shoddy forum tactic to put the boot into people's posts, and to give them a virtual dressing down - then when there's any comeback, simply say it's 'forum banter' or 'your irreverant style' and it was only a laugh. Stick a smiley at the end - didn't really mean to say you're a diddy who doesn't understand the CIC.... only a laugh, right? I actually don't think you are just playing the forum jester - I think you genuinely believe you are dealing with 'fannyslabbers' - and have a genuine superiority complex towards us lesser mortals (whether pro or anti CIC), who just don't grasp it like El Presidente Elect grasps it.

As I say, I hadn't given much credence to the view that you could put some of the online community off the CIC with your 'irreverant style', but as I said earlier, hmm, who knows? Without doubt I've allowed you to get under my skin, so I guess if it's going to be like this, I'd be better off taking a step back from discussing the CIC. Far from this being a 'dummy spitting' act, instead I'll just carry on doing what I'm doing - being supportive of the CIC and the club, working as best I can, lending my talents (such as they may be) to the club, and continue to work behind the scenes on ideas and projects that are actually seeing positive results come through. I certainly don't want to get into an extended online verbal spat with a fellow fan.... unless of course they post utter shite such as I think open debate will damage the CIC, or they think they can treat me like a fool and play the smiley card retrospectively.

Edited July 21, 2011 by pozbaird

[bud77]

Constitutions evolve and change through time. The last three AGM's I've been at with our football club have involved two minor changes to the constitution and then in the third a complete rewrite. I'm only mentioning that as the constitution will not be set in stone and it may look completely different in 50 years to 100 years time. I agree with the crux of what you and Sid are saying though - I'd hate to see the CIC model being damaged by snipers from within who took out memberships and then forgot to tell the CIC what they wanted in return and who then demanded the earth. However I still feel that it would be better to let community members draft the constitution and to let them outline how they want it to work. After all the club will belong to the community, not to the supporters.

I think it would be entirely wrong to let the community members lead the constitution. First there's the question of the CiC then being seen as exclusive rather than inclusive, secondly the people (i.e. individual members) and businesses (corporate members) are part of the wider community and lastly there would be the simple fact that to let one group write the constitution could result in something along the lines of 'any future changes to the constitution must be agreed by 75% of community/corporate/individual members' - which could make it very difficult to amend the constitution in the future. Every group involved should have equal input to the constitution if the CiC is to truely serve each category of membership and be inclusive and I also think if anyone has any real concerns (other than scarves not being available) now is the time to say them in a manner which allows them to be looked at and possibly have safeguards against them included in the constitution.

[garzo]

“The money was originally raised with the aim of helping the membership buy shares in St Mirren itself and, while Mr Atkinson’s plans are not what was originally intended, the money will still go toward aiding the broader cause, which is benefiting St Mirren.

bollocks.

Its a lot of dosh going towards debt repayment.

Where is the direct benefit to St Mirren?

[St. Sid]

Sid,

Please show me where I said such a thing. I simply have not, even for one minute, suggested that an open debate will damage the CIC.

What I did say was that during the course of the online CIC discussions, others have said your incessant posting on the subject, and constant putting down of other people's views, could do more damage to the CIC's online support, than the efforts of anti-CIC posters such as Yul Brynner could do. It wasn't something I had given much credence to - until recently.

I think it's a pretty shoddy forum tactic to put the boot into people's posts, and to give them a virtual dressing down - then when there's any comeback, simply say it's 'forum banter' or 'your irreverant style' and it was only a laugh. Stick a smiley at the end - didn't really mean to say you're a diddy who doesn't understand the CIC.... only a laugh, right? I actually don't think you are just playing the forum jester - I think you genuinely believe you are dealing with 'fannyslabbers' - and have a genuine superiority complex towards us lesser mortals (whether pro or anti CIC), who just don't grasp it like El Presidente Elect grasps it.

As I say, I hadn't given much credence to the view that you could put some of the online community off the CIC with your 'irreverant style', but as I said earlier, hmm, who knows? Without doubt I've allowed you to get under my skin, so I guess if it's going to be like this, I'd be better off taking a step back from discussing the CIC. Far from this being a 'dummy spitting' act, instead I'll just carry on doing what I'm doing - being supportive of the CIC and the club, working as best I can, lending my talents (such as they may be) to the club, and continue to work behind the scenes on ideas and projects that are actually seeing positive results come through. I certainly don't want to get into an extended online verbal spat with a fellow fan.... unless of course they post utter shite such as I think open debate will damage the CIC, or they think they can treat me like a fool and play the smiley card retrospectively.

What an odd rant.

I have been throwing up some points for debate in this thread. Points that appear to find some agreement with other posters who are also supportive of the CIC. As stated previously, the time for "them and us" nonsense is over. We should all be going into this as St Mirren supporters and with the capacity to respect each others views. All this nonsense about doing more damage than Yul is pretty devisive. If you actually look back over the last couple of pages you will see that it was you that started the "seemingly saying" nonsense. I am clearly the intellectual alpha male of the forum, so I can understand your inferiority complex.

More than happy to engage with you in debate no matter what level, but don't go throwing the toys out of the pram and trying to switch the rules mid debate. It is that sort of nonsense that will damage the CIC, not playful banter between St Mirren supporting friends.

There are too many precious types blubbering about the CIC. The CIC is in a strong position with widespread support, bordering on being unanimous. On the fringes we have overly protective CIC supporters easily wound up by deranged CIC dissentors. As with all things the truth lies in the middle and was clear to be seen in all the public meetings. It is time for those fringes to quiet down and let the middle ground start debating the CIC sensibly.

You, like me and a few others have had privileged access to the CIC proposers. This was useful to initially put down the dafty rumours that abounded initially from an anti-CIC campaign. Those rumours were proven false through time and have now subsided. No credability is left in their nonsense. This should leave the ground open for a more detailed and open debate. Hysterical reactions and sulks will turn people off though. So sort yourself out and stop the precious nonsense.

Discussing how the CIC will progress is a positive thing to do. I don't see the reason for your continued defensiveness, when the dissention campaign is clearly dead in the water. Within these posts would you like to point out where the specific threat to the CIC actually is? Where is the post that will make over 700 CIC pledgers change their mind?

As Saints fans we all make errors in judgement, we can have our wee fallouts. However, we are all Saints fans first and foremost. No matter how dichotimised our views on certain subjects might become we can all put that to the side and enjoy the football together. When GG and SPS catch up at the game they will have a wee shake of hands and have a friendly chat about the game. Just as I will no doubt meet Yul and whoever at some point and enjoy chatting about our St Mirren supporting experiences. Pretty sure we'll have a wee laugh about B&WArmy.com too.

Online forums should be treated like informal courtrooms. The lawyers will fight their cases, but once out of the fighting pit they will go for a few beers or play a round of golf together or in our case watch St Mirren together and kick off the "who should be in goals" debate again. One lawyer might be a ferocious and determined prosecutor, one might be a conscientious defender of the accused rights. The debate can continue, but that is all it is....a line of reasoning where there is no absolute right or wrong - some will be guilty, some will be innocent - they might not always get justice - hey-ho. When the line of reasoning becomes the be all and end all for you then you lack professionalism and need to think about a new career. So mibbae you are war weary and do need to sit out the CIC forum for a wee while.

St Mirren and its supporters are far more important than a debate about the CIC. If the CIC weren't to happen the club and its supporters would still be there and our desire to keep it alive would be as crucial as ever as pointed out by SMiSA in the PDE article. Try to keep sight of that as much as we all want the CIC to happen.

You gingeys are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy.

[Stuart Dickson]

What an odd rant.

I have been throwing up some points for debate in this thread. Points that appear to find some agreement with other posters who are also supportive of the CIC. As stated previously, the time for "them and us" nonsense is over. We should all be going into this as St Mirren supporters and with the capacity to respect each others views. All this nonsense about doing more damage than Yul is pretty devisive. If you actually look back over the last couple of pages you will see that it was you that started the "seemingly saying" nonsense. I am clearly the intellectual alpha male of the forum, so I can understand your inferiority complex.

More than happy to engage with you in debate no matter what level, but don't go throwing the toys out of the pram and trying to switch the rules mid debate. It is that sort of nonsense that will damage the CIC, not playful banter between St Mirren supporting friends.

There are too many precious types blubbering about the CIC. The CIC is in a strong position with widespread support, bordering on being unanimous. On the fringes we have overly protective CIC supporters easily wound up by deranged CIC dissentors. As with all things the truth lies in the middle and was clear to be seen in all the public meetings. It is time for those fringes to quiet down and let the middle ground start debating the CIC sensibly.

You, like me and a few others have had privileged access to the CIC proposers. This was useful to initially put down the dafty rumours that abounded initially from an anti-CIC campaign. Those rumours were proven false through time and have now subsided. No credability is left in their nonsense. This should leave the ground open for a more detailed and open debate. Hysterical reactions and sulks will turn people off though. So sort yourself out and stop the precious nonsense.

Discussing how the CIC will progress is a positive thing to do. I don't see the reason for your continued defensiveness, when the dissention campaign is clearly dead in the water. Within these posts would you like to point out where the specific threat to the CIC actually is? Where is the post that will make over 700 CIC pledgers change their mind?

As Saints fans we all make errors in judgement, we can have our wee fallouts. However, we are all Saints fans first and foremost. No matter how dichotimised our views on certain subjects might become we can all put that to the side and enjoy the football together. When GG and SPS catch up at the game they will have a wee shake of hands and have a friendly chat about the game. Just as I will no doubt meet Yul and whoever at some point and enjoy chatting about our St Mirren supporting experiences. Pretty sure we'll have a wee laugh about B&WArmy.com too.

Online forums should be treated like informal courtrooms. The lawyers will fight their cases, but once out of the fighting pit they will go for a few beers or play a round of golf together or in our case watch St Mirren together and kick off the "who should be in goals" debate again. One lawyer might be a ferocious and determined prosecutor, one might be a conscientious defender of the accused rights. The debate can continue, but that is all it is....a line of reasoning where there is no absolute right or wrong - some will be guilty, some will be innocent - they might not always get justice - hey-ho. When the line of reasoning becomes the be all and end all for you then you lack professionalism and need to think about a new career. So mibbae you are war weary and do need to sit out the CIC forum for a wee while.

St Mirren and its supporters are far more important than a debate about the CIC. If the CIC weren't to happen the club and its supporters would still be there and our desire to keep it alive would be as crucial as ever as pointed out by SMiSA in the PDE article. Try to keep sight of that as much as we all want the CIC to happen.

You gingeys are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy.

Whereas I, as a non St Mirren fan am absolutely perfect in every way.

[St. Sid]

Whereas I, as a non St Mirren fan am absolutely perfect in every way.

Agreed, you are epitomy of absolutely perfect fat billigerent turdishness.

[stlucifer]

St Sid.

You have convinced me about the presidency.

I vote for POZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited to add...............................

Edited July 21, 2011 by stlucifer

[St. Sid]

St Sid.

You have convinced me about the presidency.

I vote for POZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited to add...............................

Good to see you have about turned and joined the CIC membership stlucifer.

[stlucifer]

Good to see you have about turned and joined the CIC membership stlucifer.

Not quite about turned. More, moved to within a whisker of the dividing line.

[St. Sid]

Not quite about turned. More, moved to within a whisker of the dividing line.

Delighted to hear it. Like I said above the middle ground is always the best place to be.

You were a little more cautious earlier; what has changed your mind?

[stlucifer]

Delighted to hear it. Like I said above the middle ground is always the best place to be.

You were a little more cautious earlier; what has changed your mind?

I actually bought into the concept quite quickly but slowly wavered due to the lack of real information and the format of the D.D.

I have still to be totally convinced again but I truly believe the catalyst for the recent new direction and spate of quality signings is within the CiC group.

That beiing the case I feel they must have some interest in what is best for the football club.