buddiecat Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Why would all the members need to be in SMP to vote on a proposal? The fact you're posting on a forum should point to that not being the case. As for documents being available, maybe John's need is greater than mine. There's enough there for me just now, I can ask questions on Thursday. okay fair enough so how do they vote on proposals, given that the proposal has to be made at a meeting, or is there another method of submitting proposals and gaining support from other pledgers that has already been decided Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 okay fair enough so how do they vote on proposals, given that the proposal has to be made at a meeting, or is there another method of submitting proposals and gaining support from other pledgers that has already been decided It's already been said that there could be postal votes, or an online solution to accommodate oversea's members who clearly won't be able to attend meetings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 okay fair enough so how do they vote on proposals, given that the proposal has to be made at a meeting, or is there another method of submitting proposals and gaining support from other pledgers that has already been decided Are we now seriously having a go at 10000Hours for not polling the members on how they will be polled ! The FAQ has the answer to your question. Users will be polled electronically for most votes, whilst others will be done by post/in person depending on magnitude of what is being decided. Of course the members can vote to change that structure once the organisation is fully up and running. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I'd hope it's very much like the Ebbsfleet model for proposals. The club could create votes and proposals, whilst members could submit proposals and have them supported through to vote. There were no postal votes for us, even the sale of John Akinde was an online vote. The one thing I would say is that some major decisions were carried without the majority of members voting, thats not something I'd like to see here. The proposals and votes were discussed on the forums and at matches, so even if non-member fans had issues with decisions there was a degree of transparency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 well said sid , SMISA have only the interests of the club/support as their reason for being and i would tend to think that if they have issues with the set up then i will go with their decision and if the shit hits the fan i will lend my support to them, not to something i don't believe is workable from a tenner pledgers point of view I am surprised that in the three years since the club was out up for sale SMiSA never thought about putting together their own takeover bid for the club. A crying shame they are now fighting against fan control of the club, I really hope they can be brought back onside but looks increasingly likely that isn't going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Are we now seriously having a go at 10000Hours for not polling the members on how they will be polled ! The FAQ has the answer to your question. Users will be polled electronically for most votes, whilst others will be done by post/in person depending on magnitude of what is being decided. Of course the members can vote to change that structure once the organisation is fully up and running. hey keep it cool man i'm just asking a question, i'm not having a go at anyone ffs, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 It's already been said that there could be postal votes, or an online solution to accommodate oversea's members who clearly won't be able to attend meetings thanks for your calm unaccusing post in answer to my question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I am surprised that in the three years since the club was out up for sale SMiSA never thought about putting together their own takeover bid for the club. A crying shame they are now fighting against fan control of the club, I really hope they can be brought back onside but looks increasingly likely that isn't going to happen. well there you are SMISA , any of you online care to answer to this , i would be interested in a SMISA led takeover but i believe i read somewhere that none of you had the time or inclination to get involved at board level so i don't see that happening, and DIV i don't think they are fighting against fan control , just that they have decided they do not want to be part of it, they "strongly advised " anyone thinking of pledging should take a long hard look at the situation - which of course can be taken (and has been taken by me) as being a thinly veiled warning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 well there you are SMISA , any of you online care to answer to this , i would be interested in a SMISA led takeover but i believe i read somewhere that none of you had the time or inclination to get involved at board level so i don't see that happening, and DIV i don't think they are fighting against fan control , just that they have decided they do not want to be part of it, they "strongly advised " anyone thinking of pledging should take a long hard look at the situation - which of course can be taken (and has been taken by me) as being a thinly veiled warning If it is a thinly veiled warning, why not just come out and tell everyone what the problem is so we can all see it? If there is a silver bullet and they have real concerns why not load the gun and pull the trigger? I can't speak for SMiSA but my take on this is that they are actually issuing sound advice rather than a warning. Everyone who cares should be reading all the available documentation, including the draft constitution and once they've consumed all that then they should be like Sid and demand the details that they believe are missing. The problem right now is that too many people are skipping reading the documentation and instead waiting on others to interpret it for them and as a result they are getting a view that has been distorted by individuals who are following their own agenda. I've read the documentation and responded to the questions posed by RIchard in the notes on the draft constitution - how many others have? I'm pretty comfortable with what I've seen but I wouldn't expect anyone to blindly follow me - after all my views on St Mirren have been widely stated and repeated. My advice to anyone would be to read the documentation, become informed, and then draw your own conclusions - in fact it's exactly the same advice I believe SMiSA are giving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I am surprised that in the three years since the club was out up for sale SMiSA never thought about putting together their own takeover bid for the club. A crying shame they are now fighting against fan control of the club, I really hope they can be brought back onside but looks increasingly likely that isn't going to happen. I don't think you are being fair on either SMISA or 10000 Hours there Div. REA took all of SMiSA's questions at the last public meeting. At no point did he accuse them of fighting against fan control of the club. He actually apologised for the same lack of communication we are all struggling and was actually happy with the meeting really getting down to detail. SMiSA showed their support to 10000 Hours early on in this. We have seen some significant changes since the early proposals. They clearly see something they are worried about and have asked further questions. I witnessed with my own eyes and ears some of their questions at the last public meeting that have still not been answered. I went to the meeting - you chose to start a thread against SMiSA from the comfort of your own home. I was shocked to the bollox when I heard the SMISA guys having a right good go at the CIC plans and my initial reaction was similar to yours. We all want fan involvement at the club and we all want to secure the long term future of the club. I feel as if we ar being sold on our desire for those goals rather than actually being shown how fan involvement will work and how £1.7 Million of debt funded by fans achieves a secure future for the club. You must admit that this is very different from the original plan that had significant investment coming into this from social fund grants. People are entitled to question the detail - detail which is not yet in their posession. I was prepared to give this the benefit of the doubt as the consortium that includes SG were involved in it and that SMiSA had been looking at it. We now have SMiSA questioning it to the extent where they have CURRENTLY withdrawn support. The last we heard from SG on the subject was at the public meeting many months ago. We are told that it is the consortium that put the deadline in place - that doesn't instill confidence. All the salesy shite needs to stop. This isn't a business transaction. This is fans trying to realise something very, very close to their heart. This should stop being about trying to manage fans opinion and should new be about convincing fans with facts - not rallying them. This is the future of the club - not a competition / debate to be won or lost. I think the solution needs to be information - not a ppt presentation, but cold hard information. Not tarted up marketing shite.....cold hard reality....be honest about the risks involved, be honest about the level of involvement fans will actually have, be honest about how much additional investment will go from the CIC to the club over the next ten years. The fans deserve the warts and all view of this - not some salesy bollox. This is fan to fan stuff....not corporate trying to take our money. At the moment the nature of communication is commercial to consumer. It shouldn't be like that at this stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I've read the documentation and responded to the questions posed by RIchard in the notes on the draft constitution - how many others have? Great....and did you ask any questions and get a response to them? It would be good if you could post the answers you got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I'd hope it's very much like the Ebbsfleet model for proposals. The club could create votes and proposals, whilst members could submit proposals and have them supported through to vote. There were no postal votes for us, even the sale of John Akinde was an online vote. The one thing I would say is that some major decisions were carried without the majority of members voting, thats not something I'd like to see here. The proposals and votes were discussed on the forums and at matches, so even if non-member fans had issues with decisions there was a degree of transparency. an online voting system would be fine as long as the name of each voter was listed under the proposal they were backing, and postal voters listed also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 an online voting system would be fine as long as the name of each voter was listed under the proposal they were backing, and postal voters listed also One of my disappointments has been the removal of the list of pledgers on the 10000 Hours web site. Why not just publish the members list? Are we going to be using dodgy handshakes and key phrases to get served at the members bar? The list of names was reassuring, especially as some of the SMiSA guys were on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 If it is a thinly veiled warning, why not just come out and tell everyone what the problem is so we can all see it? If there is a silver bullet and they have real concerns why not load the gun and pull the trigger? I can't speak for SMiSA but my take on this is that they are actually issuing sound advice rather than a warning. Everyone who cares should be reading all the available documentation, including the draft constitution and once they've consumed all that then they should be like Sid and demand the details that they believe are missing. The problem right now is that too many people are skipping reading the documentation and instead waiting on others to interpret it for them and as a result they are getting a view that has been distorted by individuals who are following their own agenda. I've read the documentation and responded to the questions posed by RIchard in the notes on the draft constitution - how many others have? I'm pretty comfortable with what I've seen but I wouldn't expect anyone to blindly follow me - after all my views on St Mirren have been widely stated and repeated. My advice to anyone would be to read the documentation, become informed, and then draw your own conclusions - in fact it's exactly the same advice I believe SMiSA are giving. well that's my take on it and this is your take on it, we can leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Great....and did you ask any questions and get a response to them? It would be good if you could post the answers you got. I answered the questions on the draft articles on the 10000hours forum and got no response - however I have subsequently e-mailed [email protected] a question relating to Community Membership and I've already posted the answer up on here. I don't really have a problem with what is being proposed Sid. Edited June 4, 2012 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 One of my disappointments has been the removal of the list of pledgers on the 10000 Hours web site. Why not just publish the members list? Are we going to be using dodgy handshakes and key phrases to get served at the members bar? The list of names was reassuring, especially as some of the SMiSA guys were on it. Main problem is that you have to ask each individual if they are ok to have their name displayed on the site. I should have added this to the membership sign up form and asked users to opt in or out of having their name on the site but alas I am a fool and did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 well that's my take on it and this is your take on it, we can leave it at that. Fair enough - but I'd still advise you to read up on the documentation cause it's pretty clear you haven't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 an online voting system would be fine as long as the name of each voter was listed under the proposal they were backing, and postal voters listed also Absolutely no need to name everyone backing a proposal, just the member who proposed and therefore owns it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Pledgers and actuall Direct Debits are two Different things Div ? Buissnespersons and Fan's are the Same - Fans are asking for clarity, You Know what your getting out of this Deal, The Fans of SMFC Dont ? Not sure what you mean by this ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Named on a list of Pledgers that was put on the 10000 Hours Website as a supporter of the Original Scheme ? It has since changed on numerous occasions, and It is Not what I originally Pledged For ? You may Know more than I Do Div ? But this is not the Fan ownership model that I had originally signed up For ? There's actually more information relating to fan involvement in the FAQ than there ever was. There's more printed seeds, the fans just need to make them grow. Pretty sure their won't be CIC death squads dragging fans from tneir homes, onky thing to fesr is not wanting it enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animal Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 You gave options, suggesting multiple choice - as if you were in the know. As you first offered those options, you tell me - where did you get your info that he had been at a maximum of 3 matches all season? Again though, this is just a smoke screen. The co-op is about the fans. The diddies who are dead set on making it about REA or otherwise are grossly mislead. I have signed up to the co-op and I was at every home match (bar one) last season - that is just as important. If anyone has a semi-reasonable point about the issues fan ownership/governance now faces, it's Sid... The problems that exist are a lack of current common or garden fan involvement and a derth of info that has been put into the public domain. The issue certainly isn't how many matches one of the CiC members attended last season. Of course, even Sid knows he's ripping the piss going on to the extent he is about his perceived issues. It's a brilliant irony that the best possible chance there is of 10000 Hrs failing is fronted by someone who is a signed up member and who is half joking about the complaints he has. A member of staff told me. Am I wrong ??? Please tell me so. I almost hope I am. It would worry me greatly if the great Mr. A has such a lack of interest in football. It would raise the obvious question in my mind that he has another agenda. Sid has seen the light. This is an attempt to get fans and taxpayers to pay for Mr.A and his Executive Board friends to take over our Club. I won't make it back in time for the 7th. Perhaps someone else can ask this question at the public meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 There are no documents available. There's some sales flyers and a shit draft constitution that couldn't be more unfavourable to fans if Reg Brearely had written it. SMISA have set us the challange rightly to review all of the information relating to the CIC / SMFC. There isn't any available. We have hee-haw to base our questions on as all we really have is a gooey feeling about fan ownership and the long term future of the club. We all want a bigger say in the running of the club for fans, we all want to secure the long term future of the club. That is the end product that we all desire. What we haven't actually seen is any detail of the product we are being told will deliver it. I defy anyone to back the view that information and communication on this has been anything other than woeful. We are now being given a deadline to decide whether to allow this to happen - f"k the tenner a month...I pish more than that after a business lunch......we need to take a cold hard look at the £1.7Million debt that fans are committing to fund and what this actually delivers. I am not saying tear up your direct debits. All I am saying is let's show the same trust for SMiSA as we are showing for 10000 Hours and look into what they are saying. I doubt for the life of me that a group setup to help save the club when we were right in the shitter are trying to do anything that would harm the club. They clearly have some concerns and I believe that they should be respected as fellow St Mirren fans that have already put their money were their mouth is to support the club through difficult times. If the CIC does hit the shitter and the club is put to risk, you can bet your arse that the SMISA guys will be the first ones to step up to try and help. If the CIC is the best way forward then the consortium will be happy to allow the fans time to carry out their due dilligence. If they try and force it through then something is clearly amiss. There should be no pressure on fans to sign up by a specific date. That in itself smells of all sort of shite. As I have asked before on the relevant thread, surely SMISA could at least tell us exactly what they unhappy with? I certainly would like to know. To withdraw their support (all be it perhaps temporarily) is a helluva decision and to NOT tell fellow fans why is not good. Why all the secrecy? Get it out in the open FFS. What did the ask the CIC for and what was not forthcoming? I don't think the usual suspects are trying to discredit you at all sid , i think they are insulting the intelligence of all of us with their contrived posts and the loaded article in the herald ( FFS it looked like a question and answer session made up from all the posts on here), decisions have been made already on the way the cic will be run, fans are being treated with contempt, BoW saint said there would have been bedlam if it was put to the pledgers , this is one thing i have agreed with since day one, i wondered how hundreds of fans would be able to be brought together and where that could be (how many fans can be accommodated at a meeting in SMP) and also came to the conclusion that any meeting would be bedlam given that we can hardly agree to disagree with each other on here. Now i know the answer to my question - it doesn't matter as the decisions already made exclude pledgers, and it will take 75% of cic members to agree on a proposal before it gets anywhere near the next stage, would 75% be able to get into a meeting at SMP and indeed would 75% be able to or be bothered to attend. Peter, are you contradicting yourself in the bolded bit above, or am I reading you wrong? The CIC have always stated - from meeting number one - that there will have to be an interim Board made up of members who know what they are doing, until the Constitution is tweaked, ratified and actual elections take place. There will always be continuity on the Board to provide guidance and experience, and FF for that! Could you imagine a completely new board of novices being elected every two years or so? A recipe for disaster. I am glad of that and I thought you would be too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Fair enough - but I'd still advise you to read up on the documentation cause it's pretty clear you haven't. i have read the documentation, (and i object to the fact that you you say i clearly haven't) this is why i am posting my thoughts, just because i do not agree with you does not mean i have less ability to understand the plan, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Absolutely no need to name everyone backing a proposal, just the member who proposed and therefore owns it. well if people are not named then how can you prove the vote has been counted in the correct manner - does it get counted by an independent unbiased authority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 i have read the documentation, (and i object to the fact that you you say i clearly haven't) this is why i am posting my thoughts, just because i do not agree with you does not mean i have less ability to understand the plan, You clearly hadn't read the FAQ's on the website because you asked a question that had already been answered on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.