Drew Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Or maybe you just forgot to save your edited post? Nobody edits posts here without the "edited by...." tag being appended. You can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 This mornings back page in the Daily Record - Neil Doncaster thinks our game is under huge threat from a European cartel. I know his last prediction was wildly inaccurate but when the man hired by Scottish Football to head up the Professional Football Leagues in this country says the games on the brink surely we should at least pay some heed. As I've said SMiSA should not be attempting to buy St Mirren at this time in the current climate in Scottish Football. Instead they / we (since I'm a member) would be better waiting and leaving the risk in the hands of the current consortium holding the majority shareholding. It could be that much of the money about to be given away to five individuals to feather their nests with, would be better used saving the club in what could be the very near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whydowebother Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) The Scottish game is under greater threat from Doncaster & Regan. How these clowns represent our game is simply astonishing. As regards our club, when there is something credible to know, I'm sure we will be told. Edited March 4, 2016 by whydowebother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabuddies Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 The Scottish game is under greater threat from Doncaster & Regan. How these clowns represent our game is simply astonishing. As regards our club, when there is something credible to know, I'm sure we will be told. Neither have executive powers. All policy decisions are made by the clubs they are just the public face of the committes they are employed by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) The Scottish game is under greater threat from Doncaster & Regan. How these clowns represent our game is simply astonishing. As regards our club, when there is something credible to know, I'm sure we will be told. They represent our game because the member clubs chose them to represent them. I don't know why people don't understand that. Doncaster and Regan were hired by member clubs, and they can be fired by member clubs if they chose to do so. The fact is that the member clubs are happy with the performance of both men even if the fans are really unimpressed. In this instance though I do agree with Doncaster. It would cause a crisis of finance in the Scottish game. The ISA should avoid buying the majority shareholding in the club at all costs until the future of the game in Scotland is on a surer footing and the real value of the football club can be realistically assessed. Leave the risk in the hands of the incumbents and keep members money for when / if such times as finances dictate Edited March 4, 2016 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 The peasants are looking at England's top tear and thinking how can I get some of that. Simple you can't. Denmark top team play Celtic. Norway top team play Rangers. Belgium top team play Dutch top team. On garlic tv St mirren v Morton. On BBC Dundee v Aberdeen. What are you going to watch. Enough said. Finally do you think for one moment England is going to give up a band of gold to join forces with Germany and France. Seriously . Not a chance. English football has won the lottery now the rest are coming with a begging bowel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) ETA - f**k it, I am confusing myself now.... Edited March 4, 2016 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 ETA - f**k it, I am confusing myself now.... You on the bevvy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 ETA - f**k it, I am confusing myself now.... TBH, not very hard. ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 You on the bevvy? Aye, but only just starting. Jesus, I am definitely getting old! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 TBH, not very hard. ???? No argument from me on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 Aye, but only just starting. Jesus, I am definitely getting old! Which Jesus? I've been learning on here! ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 Aye, but only just starting. Jesus, I am definitely getting old! Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) Which Jesus? I've been learning on here! ;-) Your own personal one. Edited March 4, 2016 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 Your oen personal one. Cash or Depeche Mode? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 Cash or Depeche Mode? Now Modalism. .. don't get me started Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 Your comments strike me as coming from someone who has no clue what goes on at SMFC. I also notice a lot of your post match comments are almost word for word what someone else has written, either in here or in papers and even comments from the telly. Anyone with any knowledge of SMFC will know that the club is for sale, that is why fans are making a bid, to try preventing another group of businessmen from taking control. We are controlled by a consortium of businessmen at the moment and with half their mind on Saints and the other half on their business interests, then yes they are the best people to be in charge at the moment. But If they sell to fans then SMFC will no longer be subject to decisions made by people who have to think of their own interests as well. So anyone who gets on the fan-controlled board will be required to resign from their jobs/seats on the council/sell their own businesses/resign from church or charities they support? Will they be elected union-style to salaried positions to compensate them for the sacrifice? Or will they simply be a different set of people with a different set of outside interests that compete just as hard for their attention as those affecting the current board? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 So anyone who gets on the fan-controlled board will be required to resign from their jobs/seats on the council/sell their own businesses/resign from church or charities they support? Will they be elected union-style to salaried positions to compensate them for the sacrifice? Or will they simply be a different set of people with a different set of outside interests that compete just as hard for their attention as those affecting the current board? Point taken, i messed up there. What i should have made clear is that anyone elected to the board would be representing the trust and all the shares held by the trust, no trust shares can be sold on to anyone but the trust itself, therefore nobody elected by the trust members would have any self interest in what price the shares could be sold on for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 Point taken, i messed up there. What i should have made clear is that anyone elected to the board would be representing the trust and all the shares held by the trust, no trust shares can be sold on to anyone but the trust itself, therefore nobody elected by the trust members would have any self interest in what price the shares could be sold on for. Sorry but that is where the first issue arises. The first duty of a board member of smfc is to smfc. SFA rules do not permit corporate members...something I am trying to get changed. This fact does from time to time at clubs that have had this sort of trust appointed director lead to some conflict. It is very important that this current subtlety is understood otherwise an elected member and the trust members that put them there could misunderstand exactly what sort of information can and cannot be shared Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted March 6, 2016 Report Share Posted March 6, 2016 Sorry but that is where the first issue arises. The first duty of a board member of smfc is to smfc. SFA rules do not permit corporate members...something I am trying to get changed. This fact does from time to time at clubs that have had this sort of trust appointed director lead to some conflict. It is very important that this current subtlety is understood otherwise an elected member and the trust members that put them there could misunderstand exactly what sort of information can and cannot be shared Got me with that one, are you saying a board member put up by a trust cannot act for that trusts' interests Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Sorry but that is where the first issue arises. The first duty of a board member of smfc is to smfc. SFA rules do not permit corporate members...something I am trying to get changed. This fact does from time to time at clubs that have had this sort of trust appointed director lead to some conflict. It is very important that this current subtlety is understood otherwise an elected member and the trust members that put them there could misunderstand exactly what sort of information can and cannot be shared Do you mean under Article 13 of the Articles of Association? Surely there have been examples of corporate members in recent years at Scottish Football clubs? I'm pretty certain I could name at least two ex Chairmen who purchased their shares in their club through their businesses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Got me with that one, are you saying a board member put up by a trust cannot act for that trusts' interests You would think diginity would prevail among those who have dragged the club through the shite, and they would cease throwing jealous & petulant hand grenades at the real fans buy out proposal? We know what you meant, the point is redundant, Smisa's trust is one member, one vote, all board elected by membership, there was never any intention of allowing a corporate (daddy's money) presence in the Smisa trust, and we should fight to keep the SFA article that prevents corporate plundering of football clubs assets! You only have to look at the mess Sevco are in with major shareholders being fined, and others refusing to identify themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Got me with that one, are you saying a board member put up by a trust cannot act for that trusts' interests Bit more complex than that but basically yes. Company law dictates that directors of that company first responsibility is to the interests of the company. So if some decision existed that was viewed as being in the interests of the company but not the trust the board would have a responsibility to the shareholders of the company to act in the best interests of the company. That is why it is more important for the trust to own a majority of the shares so that these conflicts are less difficult Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Do you mean under Article 13 of the Articles of Association? Surely there have been examples of corporate members in recent years at Scottish Football clubs? I'm pretty certain I could name at least two ex Chairmen who purchased their shares in their club through their businesses? Maybe but the legal position on the actions of directors is to the company and its shareholders first and foremost. Buying shares via a company is not relevant. To be the director of an SFA club you have to be a "natural person" As an example the Douglas Street may own 52% of the Club but in theory the directors of smfc must work in the interests of the club and all the shareholders. Otherwise you can get an issue of what is called the "rights of the minority" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 You would think diginity would prevail among those who have dragged the club through the shite, and they would cease throwing jealous & petulant hand grenades at the real fans buy out proposal? We know what you meant, the point is redundant, Smisa's trust is one member, one vote, all board elected by membership, there was never any intention of allowing a corporate (daddy's money) presence in the Smisa trust, and we should fight to keep the SFA article that prevents corporate plundering of football clubs assets! You only have to look at the mess Sevco are in with major shareholders being fined, and others refusing to identify themselves. You really should put aside your dislike for me for 5 minutes and you might learn something useful that will actually help SMISA get some control in a way that actually works. Proposal should be that the SFA members vote to change the rules on corporate membership specifically and only for CIC or CBS (e.g registered OMOV fan groups) to be able to elect a corporate member to Club board this would achieve at least the first two objectives in the government review 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.