Abstain From The Vote?

[oaksoft]

Yes I do, because you can agree or disagree or just ignore it.

What I think does not inspire adult debate is being shouted down by the mods/owner on what is a saints fans forum for discussing a selection of highly controversial questions. That is not democracy in action

As much as I agree about the nature of the questions, the fact remains that people are voting almost unanimously No, No, No and Yes. Under those circumstances your fears (and mine) about our support being confused are not being realised. Therefore you should with some relief place your vote safe in the knowledge that if the intention was to rig the vote it failed.

Edited June 27, 2012 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

Sid it leaves a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth that a supposed "fans" organisation consults on the questions, then ignores the feedback and puts them anyway including the question where they plead for more debt before they've even been able to table a bid. 10000 hours have shamefully sought to make this vote about them rather than scottish football and St Mirren.

Shame on them, first consultation with the fans and they've ignored the feedback. shape of things to come from the self appointed BoD???

I think you need to grow up a bit for two reasons.

1) You've won the debate. The overwhelming answer is NO to NewCo under ANY circumstances.

2) You've misunderstood why these questions are being asked. The BOD are looking for evidence that the support fully understand the consequences. In this way, the BOD will vote NO and if/when we complain about the consequences, we'll be shown the vote. This is an exercise in the BOD covering their arses over a decision which might land us in the shit if we're not careful and quite rightly they don't want to be blamed. This is politics. If there was glory to be had the BOD would want the credit. If there's shit to be eaten, it's our baby. In many ways, that's fine by me. Fans got their say when it really mattered. I could spend a month arguing amongst guys like Div etc but expecting to get absolutely everything your own specific way is childish.

[St. Sid]

As much as I agree about the nature of the questions, the fact remains that people are voting almost unanimously No, No, No and Yes. Under those circumstances your fears (and mine) about our support being confused are not being realised. Therefore you should with some relief place your vote safe in the knowledge that if the intention was to rig the vote it failed.

The concern about the mechanism for fan influence on the CIC board and then the SMFC board is not quite addressed. As it stands under the draft constitution there isn't a high enough no vote from fans for Question 1 never mind the rest of the votes.

[div]

What I think does not inspire adult debate is being shouted down by the mods/owner on what is a saints fans forum for discussing a selection of highly controversial questions. That is not democracy in action

That's the second time you have had a go at me personally for apparently not being fair in the management of the forum.

I have not removed or edited a single post of yours, or indeed even of "Dick Sylexia" who has posted several rounds of foul mouthed personal abuse (and actually in a couple of cased defamatory comments) at me.

It shows a massive lack of respect if you ask me that you can come on to this forum, that I have run now for ten years, and accuse me of not offering a fair platform for any St.Mirren fan to air their views.

[oaksoft]

The concern about the mechanism for fan influence on the CIC board and then the SMFC board is not quite addressed. As it stands under the draft constitution there isn't a high enough no vote from fans for Question 1 never mind the rest of the votes.

FFS Sid stop your negative pish!

75% of members need to vote a particular way to get the vote carried but that's only when the CiC take over which they haven't.

Most of the results are showing well over 95% in favour of NO to NewCo.

To cross that 75% of members (because some haven't voted yet) we need:

15 more No votes on question 1.

36 more No votes on question 2.

150 more No votes on questions 3 and 4.

There are 260 people still to vote.

[oaksoft]

The concern about the mechanism for fan influence on the CIC board and then the SMFC board is not quite addressed. As it stands under the draft constitution there isn't a high enough no vote from fans for Question 1 never mind the rest of the votes.

I do accept however that requesting 75% of the entire membership to vote a patricular way is tantamount to having no voice.

That would require nearly 100% of voters to turnout and even at that, almost no issue will gain that sort of support.

This will need looked at BUT the fact remains that you're being unusually negative.

[Guest somner9]

I do accept however that requesting 75% of the entire membership to vote a patricular way is tantamount to having no voice.

That would require nearly 100% of voters to turnout and even at that, almost no issue will gain that sort of support.

This will need looked at BUT the fact remains that you're being unusually negative.

I think that is where you need to grow up a bit and read the daft! constitution, because anything less than 75% equals No Voice!

[St. Sid]

I do accept however that requesting 75% of the entire membership to vote a patricular way is tantamount to having no voice.

That would require nearly 100% of voters to turnout and even at that, almost no issue will gain that sort of support.

This will need looked at BUT the fact remains that you're being unusually negative.

I'm not being negative oaksoft, I am being truthful. I am not hiding behind spin or pretending that there are no issues with 10000 Hours in order to appear to have a positive mental attitude.

I told everyone that the constitution was shit. This is just one of many shit clauses and whilst serious enough is not even one of the most concerning ones.

Fans need to stop the blinkered, support it at all costs bollox and take a step back and start fighting fans corner....because that is not what 10000 Hours are doing.

[div]

I think that is where you need to grow up a bit and read the daft! constitution, because anything less than 75% equals No Voice!

On which page of the draft constitution does it say that ?

[St. Sid]

On which page of the draft constitution does it say that ?

From memory I think the pertinent clause is round about 66.1 and 66.2. As with the rest of the constitution it just isn't clear and open to interpretation. I would read it the same way that somner9 has. That 75% of the membership have to pass the mooted direction / guidance. If you don't get 75% of the membership agreeing with the guidance then the guidance does no get put to the CIC BoD for their consideration. The constitution says f"k all about the SMFC BoD.

At best the mechanism is unclear and weak....I don't think it is a stretch to say it is shite.

[ADMITCHELL]

Looks like 67%(Rounded up) to me

66.1 The members may by way of a resolution approved by a majority of not less than two thirds

give directions ("Directions") to the board of directors.

The 75% refers to special resolutions

66.2 Except for the number of votes required to approve a Direction (two thirds as opposed to 75), the provisions relating to the passing of special resolutions contained within the articles and the Companies Acts shall be deemed to apply to Directions. In particular, this shall include the members' powers to require the directors to call a meeting to consider a proposed resolution / Direction or circulate a written resolution / Direction.

I cannot however find if the percentages are of the votes cast or of the total constituants(membership).

Happy to help

Edited June 27, 2012 by ADMITCHELL

[St. Sid]

Looks like 67%(Rounded up) to me

66.1 The members may by way of a resolution approved by a majority of not less than two thirds

give directions ("Directions") to the board of directors.

The 75% refers to special resolutions

66.2 Except for the number of votes required to approve a Direction (two thirds as opposed to 75), the provisions relating to the passing of special resolutions contained within the articles and the Companies Acts shall be deemed to apply to Directions. In particular, this shall include the members' powers to require the directors to call a meeting to consider a proposed resolution / Direction or circulate a written resolution / Direction.

I cannot however find if the percentages are of the votes cast or of the total constituants(membership).

Happy to help

At last.....someone actually posts the bloody thing.

Also happy to help - on a special resolution it does require not less than 75% of the total voting rights of eligible members - not the votes cast.

When you look at UK Company law on ordinary resolutions it gets interesting. 10000 Hours have opted to ramp it up from a simple majority to two thirds majority. And it IS based on the total voting rights of eligible members.

Only 10000 Hours will be able to explain why they have decided not to go with the standard simple majority, which was open to them.

Why have they made it more difficult for fans to have an influence on the running of the club?

[div]

Only 10000 Hours will be able to explain why they have decided not to go with the standard simple majority, which was open to them.

Why have they made it more difficult for fans to have an influence on the running of the club?

There was a wish to include the views of the other 48% of shareholders if the CIC did not reach a majority direction on it's own.

I agree that the voting structure is unclear and needs work. It is a draft when all said and done.

There will never be 100% turnout for a vote on any subject.

I'm interested to know how do SMiSA for example deal with votes ? Anyone able to advise ?

[div]

Some of the most recent vote requests issued by the SMiSA committee never received the required number first time around and had to be re-issued at additional cost which is disappointing given the importance of some of the issues raised.

IIRC a subsequent vote request asked that the membership vote in favour of a reduced majority % to allow a vote to actually take place.

What is the required number mate, do you know ?

ie; If SMiSA have 100 members say, how many need to return their votes before the vote itself is "valid" ?

And if say the number itself is for arguments sake 80%, if they get the 80 votes back to meet that threshold, is the vote then calculated on those 80 on their own ?

Just interested to know how it works in practice ?

[St. Sid]

What is the required number mate, do you know ?

ie; If SMiSA have 100 members say, how many need to return their votes before the vote itself is "valid" ?

And if say the number itself is for arguments sake 80%, if they get the 80 votes back to meet that threshold, is the vote then calculated on those 80 on their own ?

Just interested to know how it works in practice ?

Under company law in the UK.....both standard and special resolutions are based on total voting rights of members. You can just hve it as a simple majority. For whatever reason 10000 Hours have chosen to raise the simple majority to the disadvantage of fans.

[div]

Under company law in the UK.....both standard and special resolutions are based on total voting rights of members. You can just hve it as a simple majority. For whatever reason 10000 Hours have chosen to raise the simple majority to the disadvantage of fans.

I raised the issue of the voting structure this afternoon with Richard and Gordon and it was ackowledged that it is an area we definitely have to improve on.

Will touch on this in the report we issue. There is always room for improvement but over 80% response inside 2 and a half days is decent IMO.

[Vambo57]

I like the idea of Plain English, not lawyer or Committee speak. IMO The whole Constitution needs reworded to be as simple and as clear as possible. A steering committee would have plenty of time to do this. That way any future proposed amendments can easily be incorporated if accepted, so that any member, at any level, can understand it.... even Sid!

If the Constitution needs amended re voting, its simple really:

Actual votes, at either a meeting, or online vote, are what should count. Abstentions or absentees should not count either way.

What does need to be in the Constitution is the actual number of members required to rrequest an EGM or online vote, and what the mechanism/s is/are for this to happen.

IMO ambiguity and blurred clauses are not what is required (look at the mess of the SFA Articles of Association for an example of such. This can just lead to loopholes which can be taken advantage of, fudging and general ignorance.

[BoWSaint]

For once I think St Sid actually has a valid point. I am yet to be convinced by his "under UK employment law" references but if the CIC does take over the club I will certainly be looking to get the voting structure sorted. Main points should be

• Percentage of members participating in a vote for the motion to be carried (I would guess something like 80%)
  
• Percentage of votes made for a majority rule to carry (51% of actual votes cast for me. I don't see why this should change for different decisions but I'm happy to listen to reasons why)
  

The articles and procedures in the companies act of 2006 seem to contradict Sid. They say that if you have 10 members and only 8 decide to vote, then only 5 votes are required for an overall majority. For me, that is the way it should work.

[Grumpy Old Fan]

I would not be too unhappy with that interpretation although in the interests of clarity I think the wording should include some indication on what should happen in the event of the vote not reaching the the required number. Would the directors be able to make a decision without a steer from the members or would they do nothing. Often the do nothing option is not possible as decisions need to be made one way or another.

Without a properly constituted organisation we are destined IMHO to just keep going round in circles, and if I were cynical rather than grumpy I might think that is what certain parties are wanting.

[div]

The articles and procedures in the companies act of 2006 seem to contradict Sid. They say that if you have 10 members and only 8 decide to vote, then only 5 votes are required for an overall majority. For me, that is the way it should work.

That would certainly be my view as well. Perhaps each question needs to have an "abstain" option as well so that members can register either their ambivalence to the question being asked or their displeasure at how the question has been asked or that it has been asked at all.

I'm pretty happy with an 83.5% return in the first poll given that we only had 2 and a half days to get it done and that we are now into the holiday season so it's inevitable that many members are abroad and not necessarily checking their email.

Would agree that there needs to be some sort of threshold on the number of votes we get back, Something in the region of 75 to 80% would seem reasonable enough to me.

On the subject of the return in this test case we only had a few technical issues, which were almost all down to end users (mis typed email addresses), or their computer or security settings where email was spam trapped or the link wouldn't open directly from the email.

[oaksoft]

That would certainly be my view as well. Perhaps each question needs to have an "abstain" option as well so that members can register either their ambivalence to the question being asked or their displeasure at how the question has been asked or that it has been asked at all.

I'm pretty happy with an 83.5% return in the first poll given that we only had 2 and a half days to get it done and that we are now into the holiday season so it's inevitable that many members are abroad and not necessarily checking their email.

Would agree that there needs to be some sort of threshold on the number of votes we get back, Something in the region of 75 to 80% would seem reasonable enough to me.

On the subject of the return in this test case we only had a few technical issues, which were almost all down to end users (mis typed email addresses), or their computer or security settings where email was spam trapped or the link wouldn't open directly from the email.

Given the emotions which run in football, I think a clear majority in any vote is probably necessary and I like the idea of 60-67% of cast votes being decisive and removing any objections.

The setting of a minimum participation limit is, I fear, a dead end. You'll be forever amending it.

Over time, it is inevitable that voter turnout will drop. There is no minimum turnout for any UK election so I don't quite see the logic of having one at Saints. Especially setting it at anywhere near 70%.

If you have to have one, 30% would seem reasonable and sustainable IMO.

Either way, it's good to hear that both issues (turnout and vote) are being addressed because both are fundamental.

[St. Sid]

Good to see some sensible discussion finally taking place without all the bollox.

Part of my feedback at the time was that the draft constitution was delivered with an overview document relating it to the real world operations of 10000 Hours / SMFC. I also suggested months ago before we even had visibility of the draft constitution - as it was being treated as commercially confidential at the time - that a group of fans should form a steering group to work through the constitution. We have wasted months of valuable time because the usual suspects shouted those ideas down as being a challange to 10000 Hours. All that behaviour needs to be knocked on the head.

"turncoat" furfuxake.