Are You Going To Sign Up To Join #buythebuds At Smisa.net?

[slapsalmon]

Lets take a real example of what difference and influence there would be with a Smisa Board member, and holding almost 30% of shares.

Gordon used the example of the upcoming stupid decision to turf season ticket holders out of their seats to accommodate a support that wont even be in our league next season. He indicated that he wouldnt be in a position, or have the inclination to just make that type of decision without consulting all major shareholders (i.e. Smisa).

Dont you think the Smisa membership could come up with a much better contingency to cover such circumstances in the future that maximises income, but has been devised with/by the fans affected?

What input did we have this time round?

But there's no guarantee he wouldn't do it. He could if he wanted to.

[rea]

Als when you are a member of the SMFC board your first duty is to SMFC not SMISA, it does not matter that it is because of your involvment with and support of SMISA that you got there, the board of SMFC can limit what you are able to say to SMISA if it wishes, so again the small print of the workings of the relationship is vital.

Taken from rea's post , I think he knows a bit more about this issue.

but dont take me out of context, the fact that the SMFC board can limit does not mean it either should or would

[faraway saint]

Lets take a real example of what difference and influence there would be with a Smisa Board member, and holding almost 30% of shares.

Gordon used the example of the upcoming stupid decision to turf season ticket holders out of their seats to accommodate a support that wont even be in our league next season. He indicated that he wouldnt be in a position, or have the inclination to just make that type of decision without consulting all major shareholders (i.e. Smisa).

Dont you think the Smisa membership could come up with a much better contingency to cover such circumstances in the future that maximises income, but has been devised with/by the fans affected?

What input did we have this time round?

How would this work?

How would all SMISA members be able to come to better solutions?

Do you REALLY belief the fractioned support, and all the small groups that will form within SMISA, will be able to come to an agreement within a reasonable time frame?

These are some of the problems I see arising, and that is IF there is enough decision making issues taken to SMISA as a group.

[linwood buddie]

but dont take me out of context, the fact that the SMFC board can limit does not mean it either should or would

Not doing so mate , many things get caught out by the small print.

[Mid Calder Saint]

We need a new board with fresh ideas and I think all St Mirren supporters would agree on that , the current board have served us well but want to move on , so sooner it happens the better and with fans at the helm all the better #BUYTHE BUDS

[Lord Pityme]

But there's no guarantee he wouldn't do it. He could if he wanted to.

Why would he?

[Lord Pityme]

Als when you are a member of the SMFC board your first duty is to SMFC not SMISA, it does not matter that it is because of your involvment with and support of SMISA that you got there, the board of SMFC can limit what you are able to say to SMISA if it wishes, so again the small print of the workings of the relationship is vital.

Taken from rea's post , I think he knows a bit more about this issue.

So having a Smisa member on the board is a bad thing? How does your source know any of the decisions a new board he isnt part of may make?

Lets deal with the real stuff.

[linwood buddie]

So having a Smisa member on the board is a bad thing? How does your source know any of the decisions a new board he isnt part of may make?

Lets deal with the real stuff.

How did you get to that assumption?

I never knew I had a source , I had sauce this morning on a bacon roll if that makes any sense?

Edited April 26, 2016 by linwood buddie

[Lord Pityme]

How did you get to that assumption?

I never knew I had a source , I had sauce this morning on a bacon roll if that makes any sense?

You were quoting REA as a source. Wonder what Gordon Makes of a former board member telling BAWA how he (Gordon) will run his board.

[linwood buddie]

You were quoting REA as a source. Wonder what Gordon Makes of a former board member telling BAWA how he (Gordon) will run his board.

Sorry Div ,I know you would have wanted us all to follow this thread in a nature manner but he started it.

LPM stick this up your jumper..........WHOOOOOSH!!!!!!!.

[Stuart Dickson]

i think you need to remember (i posted about this sometime ago) that the only organisation that can appoint a board member to SMFC is the SMFC shareholders.

What Gordon is effectively saying is that is SMISA members have a vote among themselves then the winner of that vote will get the backing of GLS majority shareholding at the AGM and so become a member of the St Mirren board.

However the small print needs to be watched.

The Club board rotates every three years, in that each member currently needs to stand for re-elction every three years, do SMISA intend that it should be the same person for the first three year or should it be an annual election?

Als when you are a member of the SMFC board your first duty is to SMFC not SMISA, it does not matter that it is because of your involvment with and support of SMISA that you got there, the board of SMFC can limit what you are able to say to SMISA if it wishes, so again the small print of the workings of the relationship is vital.

I personally spent a lot of time on this at 10000hours and while the outcome may have made it all seem a bit complex the key was it was all written down in advance....such as the fact that under 10000hours the SMFC board would delegate on a OMOV basis any vote within the SPFL for league reconstruction etc, meaning that on the really big decsions the fans were absolutly in control.

this all needs thought from SMISA and GLS but mjjost importantly understanding from those financing it so that the expectations are correct and workable.

I personally do not think that if SMISA get 1000members that there will be much if any drop off, but that is provided that those funding it have the right expectations at the start.

i am sure more structural info will come out as the numbers draw closer to 1000

What I was getting at Richard was the power of the consumer. 1000 members would represent an organised body of around 33% of St Mirren's customer base. If any business was faced with around 33% of it's customer base becoming organised in any way it would take a pretty silly board of directors to ignore their wishes.

In this case we're talking about a football club being bought using a fan ownership model where one man is putting up the majority of the money from his personal wealth whilst the 33% is being asked to finance the balance of the purchase using money that would be lent using the stadium as collateral. It's the power of the 33% that should be able to keep the board honest.

I've sat on committees where information was restricted from the membership so I think my expectations are at the right level. I totally agree that the structure needs to be clear, expectations need to be set correctly, and that they need to be detailed in writing with clarity. I'm also very aware that a board members first responsibility is to the club but that's why I think it's important the membership consider that when electing their representative. If you want to use the events of 2012 as an example I'd want my representative to be the kind of person who understood, without the need for consultation, that if you damage the integrity of the sport you damage the viability of the sports club, regardless of the short term losses. I'd want my representative to be the kind of person who would make that point forceably - even to the extent of resigning over the issue if necessary - if the need arose.

[Stuart Dickson]

How would this work?

How would all SMISA members be able to come to better solutions?

Do you REALLY belief the fractioned support, and all the small groups that will form within SMISA, will be able to come to an agreement within a reasonable time frame?

These are some of the problems I see arising, and that is IF there is enough decision making issues taken to SMISA as a group.

I don't think there was a better solution. Faced with the same situation I'd hope any representative would realise the importance of selling as many tickets for the match as possible and taking in as much revenue as it can. I don't back the current board of directors on much but I would on this one. Not maximising the revenue from this game would be a bizarre piece of business.

[pozbaird]

Is having a SMiSA elected board member a good thing? - Yes.

Is that member taking up their position because the folk paying their £12 a month elected them a good thing? - Yes.

Would the SMiSA board member being given a big dunce's cap, shoved in the corner and only spoken to when the rest of the board wanted them to put the kettle on be a good thing? - No.

If indeed that was the way the new ownership model turned out, it wouldn't last very long. If GLS and the rest of his hand-picked board treated the SMiSA board member like the gimp in Pulp Fiction.... Houston, we have a problem.

Edited April 26, 2016 by pozbaird

[linwood buddie]

Is having a SMiSA elected board member a good thing? - Yes.

Is that member taking up their position because the folk paying their £12 a month elected them a good thing? - Yes.

Would the SMiSA board member being given a big dunce's cap, shoved in the corner and only spoken to when the rest of the board wanted them to put the kettle on be a good thing? - No.

If indeed that was the way the new ownership model turned out, it wouldn't last very long. If GLS and the rest of his hand-picked board treated the SMiSA board member like the gimp in Pulp Fiction.... Houston, we have a problem.

They might like being treated like a gimp, each to their own

[pozbaird]

They might like being treated like a gimp, each to their own

Fair point. Will look at those who put their name forward for election with interest!

[pozbaird]

Another thing being discussed were the expectation levels of those signing up. Have pretty much said what mine are somewhere else, but here goes... My expectations are that my £12 a month helps facilitate the removal of a board who have served the club well, but by their own admission are now tired and out of ideas. I expect them to be replaced by a new board, headed up by GLS, who display a new-found desire to be there. A desire to completely freshen the whole place up and lead from the front. Don't treat the SMiSA board member like a fool. Don't treat the St Mirren supporters like fools. Tap into the fanbase for ideas - as well as having ideas of your own. Create a new environment where those paying their £12 feel connected, valued, and make St Mirren a go-ahead club we can be proud of.

The new BoD will have to make unpopular decisions. Decisions I may not personally agree with. My expectation levels do not see me expect to be consulted on very much, but the new BoD need to do a whole lot better - a bloody great deal better, in communicating the reasons for them taking possibly unpopular decisions to the rank and file support. The way the current BoD communicate with the support is frankly a fcuking disgrace. Yeah, it's their ball and they don't need to let us play with it, but still, they'll communicate with us alright when they want us to do something.

Anyway, that's it. Kicking JD Sports to fcuk would be a bonus.

[Stu]

They might like being treated like a gimp, each to their own

Just about spat tea over my monitor reading that

[pozbaird]

Just about spat tea over my monitor reading that

Ahh, I knew it. So GLS and his hand-picked board DID ask you to put the kettle on.

[div]

Personally I'm not expecting the SMiSA members to be consulted and asked to vote on day to day decisions affecting the club. That would be completely impratical and unworkable and would very quickly lead to anarchy, splits and divisions.

What I am expecting is that the fans get a proper voice in the boardroom and that we get heard.

An example;

In 2012 the fans were told at a well attended public meeting that voting against allowing Rangers back into the top flight was madness and that the club could easily go into administration as a result and jobs would be lost. The fans were asked for their thoughts via an online survey conducted by 10000Hours at the time.

10000Hours polled 1038 members of which 867 responded.

97% said they wanted the club to vote against Rangers being re-admitted if it did not affect our revenues in the then SPL.

95% said that even if the loss of "Newco" cost the club £200K in revenue that the club should vote against Rangers being re-admitted.

80% said that even if the loss of "Newco" placed Saints in danger of administration, that the club should still vote No.

The board eventually did vote "No". I'd like to think that was at least in part because the fans voice was heard.

[pozbaird]

Personally I'm not expecting the SMiSA members to be consulted and asked to vote on day to day decisions affecting the club. That would be completely impratical and unworkable and would very quickly lead to anarchy, splits and divisions.

What I am expecting is that the fans get a proper voice in the boardroom and that we get heard.

An example;

In 2012 the fans were told at a well attended public meeting that voting against allowing Rangers back into the top flight was madness and that the club could easily go into administration as a result and jobs would be lost. The fans were asked for their thoughts via an online survey conducted by 10000Hours at the time.

10000Hours polled 1038 members of which 867 responded.

97% said they wanted the club to vote against Rangers being re-admitted if it did not affect our revenues in the then SPL.

95% said that even if the loss of "Newco" cost the club £200K in revenue that the club should vote against Rangers being re-admitted.

80% said that even if the loss of "Newco" placed Saints in danger of administration, that the club should still vote No.

The board eventually did vote "No". I'd like to think that was at least in part because the fans voice was heard.

Div,

I voted consistently throughout the process and never wavered..... Yadda.

- StuDick.

Just saving him the trouble.

[Stuart Dickson]

Div,

I voted consistently throughout the process and never wavered..... Yadda.

- StuDick.

Just saving him the trouble.

Thank you.

[slapsalmon]

Why would he?

Same reason the current mob did. To make more money

[Lord Pityme]

Same reason the current mob did. To make more money

But in the greater scheme of things the current mob arent making more, they are making a lot less, hence the need for change!

[slapsalmon]

But in the greater scheme of things the current mob arent making more, they are making a lot less, hence the need for change!

Nobody can say for sure if they're making more or making less. They thought they were making more which is why they've done it. Only they will have a decent idea whether or not they made more or less after the gates are counted.

[Lord Pityme]

Nobody can say for sure if they're making more or making less. They thought they were making more which is why they've done it. Only they will have a decent idea whether or not they made more or less after the gates are counted.

Its in the accounts, our turnover is falling.