Member's October Update

[El Gingero]

The skill requirements I would suggest are there for guideline purposes only.

If SMISA & GLS started cherry picking who THEY wanted and not who had the most votes, then it would be a long time before the loan was paid back as I'm sure most people wouldn't pay their money every month to a dictatorship.

I'm pretty sure the person with the most votes will be elected as the SMISA Board Member.

I for one hope it's David Nicol.

[Gruffalo]

On 10/12/2016 at 5:19 PM, Stuart Dickson said:

Can someone explain why in the Job Description for the board election it states

I don't understand why those attributes would be essential for the SMiSA representative on the board. Surely their main duty is simply to represent the interests of SMiSA members and supporters of the club on the board. Whilst I get that those experiences might well be desirable to the St Mirren board, I would say that it's far more important that the elected member is capable of accurately reflecting the views of the membership than it would be to have experience of managing projects. 

The job description should have made potential candidates aware of the legal requirements of being a Director of a business rather than highlight potential professions that would  be suited. It is worth noting that there is a huge difference from being on a committee to that being on a Board of Directors on a business that turns over £m's. The candidate is being asked to represent SMISA however they are also being asked to part of a £m business.  

[Vambo57]

22 hours ago, BLF said:

 

To be absolutely fair, that is not how it is written in the actual document - http://smisa.net/images/docs/election2016/Job_description_v1.pdf

For avoidance of doubt, the document also states:

"The successful candidate will [...] Be a SMISA member and be passionate about St Mirren and the community around it."

and:

"No specific qualifications are necessary for the position."

 

 

Fair enough, but I think the whole 'The Candidate' section is a wish list, but is worded in a way that a person reading it might be deterred from standing for election because they may not satisfy the 'business' criteria/wishlist.  

 

20 hours ago, antrin said:

Hah!  Serves you right for siding with Dicko.

I quote:

"I  hope whoever is elected, has a better command of the English language than the person who wrote the above?  

To have or to have not.  To be or not to be.

Edited 3 hours ago by Vambo57 "

The stray 'r' was a thick-fingered typo mate.  Big difference.  But that is a moot point now after BLF's reply above.

Of course, the Criteria should have been shown as 'being advantageous', 'beneficial', 'desired', or something like that.

I just don't think it should be put forward in the way it is. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the candidate elected by the SMISA membership had none of the 'Candidate' business criteria.

 

[Lord Pityme]

I think there has been some excellent points raised regarding the election and candidate criteria.

i wonder how all members of the SMFC board measure up against it?

[Stuart Dickson]

The job description should have made potential candidates aware of the legal requirements of being a Director of a business rather than highlight potential professions that would  be suited. It is worth noting that there is a huge difference from being on a committee to that being on a Board of Directors on a business that turns over £m's. The candidate is being asked to represent SMISA however they are also being asked to part of a £m business.  

Yeah, your right, there is. If I had chosen to turn my business into a limited company for any reason I would have had to appoint directors just to fulfill the legal obligations. I know many businessmen who run bigger businesses than St Mirren whose boardrooms are made up of their wives and their kids. Indeed Gordon Scott had a family member on his board at Laidlaw Scott.

To serve on a committee you generally have to be elected by the membership and if you let the membership down or they are unhappy with your performance you can be replaced through either the AGM or a EGM.

I know which one more closely resembles the post of fans representative on the clubs board of directors

[Stuart Dickson]

I've got to admit I'm getting a bit concerned about the lack of communication on this issue - which seems strange since everyone appeared to promise better communication at the time of the takeover. This is a SMiSA section of the website yet - unless Antrim was a SMiSA committee member too scared to reveal his real identity - there seems to be no response to my enquiry. I've even sent an e-mail to no avail. So right now I'm seeing poor communication, a lack of democracy, a broken promise that any member could be elected to the football board, and I'm still waiting to see if the pledges made about greater involvement with the local community will ever be fulfilled. 

[Callum Gilhooley]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

I've got to admit I'm getting a bit concerned about the lack of communication on this issue - which seems strange since everyone appeared to promise better communication at the time of the takeover. This is a SMiSA section of the website yet - unless Antrim was a SMiSA committee member too scared to reveal his real identity - there seems to be no response to my enquiry. I've even sent an e-mail to no avail. So right now I'm seeing poor communication, a lack of democracy, a broken promise that any member could be elected to the football board, and I'm still waiting to see if the pledges made about greater involvement with the local community will ever be fulfilled. 

Mibbee if you weren`t as much of a shit stirring prick , people would take you more seriously. As it is, you are a simply a boring fat f**k who most people on here f**kin hate.

[Stuart Dickson]

Still no response from SMiSA, either on here or by e-mail. Got to say I am disappointed especially since one of the pledges was improved communication. A sad, sad state of affairs

[antrin]

Well done, SMISA, I say.

communication with you would be the usual one-way failure.

[Bud the Baker]

I thought the whole point of being fan owned was that we'd be different from other clubs but if the BoD are gonna discourage anyone with the wrong profile from the inner sanctum then what was the point?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.............

Edited October 16, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[Stuart Dickson]

18 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I thought the whole point of being fan owned was that we'd be different from other clubs but if the BoD are gonna discourage anyone with the wrong profile from the inner sanctum then what was the point?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.............

Yeah, that my view too. At the end of the day I just hope that there is a wide selection of candidates, that no-one has been put off by the Job Description, and that those putting themselves forward and those nominating them realise that there are plenty of £multi million limited companies who have novices in their boardrooms - often the owners wife, kids and mates. My vote will be going to the candidate who I think will listen to the membership and to the clubs customers, who will push to get action and who will drive through the kind of positive changes that are needed to make the club the better, leaner, more efficient and more socially aware business that a club like St Mirren really needs to be. 

I had an e-mail from Colin Orr of SMiSA today where he has stated that the only screening of candidates will be to ensure they meet the legal requirements for being a director. I'm happy enough with that. I just wish they hadn't made it look like any candidate had to have experience of managing projects.  

[St.Ricky]

The "personalities" of those involved are unknown to me. I have not yet "invested" and will not do so until I have been convinced that this model will work. 

I would like to see however is that candidates provide an outline of what they would bring to the table. This is common place where elections are involved.

 

[Kendo]

11 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

The "personalities" of those involved are unknown to me. I have not yet "invested" and will not do so until I have been convinced that this model will work. 

I would like to see however is that candidates provide an outline of what they would bring to the table. This is common place where elections are involved.

 

If you're not investing and not a member of SMISA then I'm afraid you won't get a vote. Why are you so interested in candidates that you can't vote for?

 I suggest that you sign up a £12 a month and get involved.

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, Kendo said:

If you're not investing and not a member of SMISA then I'm afraid you won't get a vote. Why are you so interested in candidates that you can't vote for?

 I suggest that you sign up a £12 a month and get involved.

Kendo

I appreciate your input.

I am interested in what I would be signing up for - is that considered to be wrong?

For me at least, whilst I like the idea of fan ownership in theory, I am not yet clear on governance or ultimate objectives or in the capacity to raise investment in the club.

Forgive me if this sounds negative. It is not meant to be but I know that 3 other members of my family who are fans of the club feel the same way.

However, If you do not wish any input from potential members then do let me know.

 

[Stuart Dickson]

Kendo

I appreciate your input.

I am interested in what I would be signing up for - is that considered to be wrong?

For me at least, whilst I like the idea of fan ownership in theory, I am not yet clear on governance or ultimate objectives or in the capacity to raise investment in the club.

Forgive me if this sounds negative. It is not meant to be but I know that 3 other members of my family who are fans of the club feel the same way.

However, If you do not wish any input from potential members then do let me know.

 

Ricky, Kendo is right. It's not a case of shutting out non members its just that its a bit like any other club. Members get to elect their own representatives. Without membership you won't have a vote, you might not even get to see the list of runners and riders although I'm sure that one way or another it will land up being debated on here.

Far be it for me to act like a salesman. What people do with their money is their own business. The lack of a response from SMiSA pissed me off so much that I had actually penned an email to resign my membership just before Colins email arrived. But I like Fan Ownership and I like ISAs precisely because the purpose is to give customers a greater say in how the club and ultimately the game is run by putting ordinary customers into boardrooms to express the views of the membership. To this extent its not the clubs long term business plan you would be buying into, it's the body of people who should be being listened to when the business plan is being derived.

It should be a good thing but it does raise the heckles for me when those leading the ISA committee, those with the most influence, suggest that the fans representative should be from a background identical to those who have ignored fans opinions for decades now.

[St.Ricky]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 

Ricky, Kendo is right. It's not a case of shutting out non members its just that its a bit like any other club. Members get to elect their own representatives. Without membership you won't have a vote, you might not even get to see the list of runners and riders although I'm sure that one way or another it will land up being debated on here.

Far be it for me to act like a salesman. What people do with their money is their own business. The lack of a response from SMiSA pissed me off so much that I had actually penned an email to resign my membership just before Colins email arrived. But I like Fan Ownership and I like ISAs precisely because the purpose is to give customers a greater say in how the club and ultimately the game is run by putting ordinary customers into boardrooms to express the views of the membership. To this extent its not the clubs long term business plan you would be buying into, it's the body of people who should be being listened to when the business plan is being derived.

It should be a good thing but it does raise the heckles for me when those leading the ISA committee, those with the most influence, suggest that the fans representative should be from a background identical to those who have ignored fans opinions for decades now.


 

 

Thanks Stuart.

I appreciate your input.

I agree with your analysis of what is good about fan ownership.

Perhaps myself and my family will reconsider joining once the choice of representative has been made.

 

[antrin]

20 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

The lack of a response from SMiSA pissed me off so much that I had actually penned an email to resign my membership just before Colins email arrived. 

Oh shock, horror!!  That YOU should contemplate resigning!  YOU ONLY SIGNED UP SO YOU COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT SIGNING UP....

....  and I doubt anyBuddie would be surprised at the pathetic non-threat of you perhaps leaving.

windbaggery, as ever, blawhard.

It should be a good thing but it does raise the heckles for me when those leading the ISA committee, those with the most influence, suggest that the fans representative should be from a background identical to those who have ignored fans opinions for decades now.

You're NOT a f**kin fan.  Remember? You're a customer.

A customer with a perverted desire to fund fan-owned enterprises.

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by antrin

[Stuart Dickson]

 

I'm still a member. Are you?

I've no idea what would be perverse about running profitable enterprise using anyone's money. But regardless of that I can't think of a single post that I've made suggesting anything that would be anything other than self funding and self financing.

[Vambo57]

On 10/16/2016 at 10:15 PM, St.Ricky said:

The "personalities" of those involved are unknown to me. I have not yet "invested" and will not do so until I have been convinced that this model will work. 

I would like to see however is that candidates provide an outline of what they would bring to the table. This is common place where elections are involved.

 

I am sure each candidate will need to put together a blurb on why you should vote for him/her.  If they don't, then who in their right mind would vote for them.  I am also sure there will be some kind of Hustings.

Personally, I'm not that bothered what experience/qualifications they have.  I'm not even bothered - or even sure - that they need to working actively behind the scenes in the running of the Club.  After all a candidate e.g. may work long hours in their day-job and have little time to actually do any physical work for the Club.  There are other Directors and staff already in place to do that.  The SMISA Director is a Fan's representative first & foremost.

After all, The BOD of SMFC can Co-opt any Director they fancy, Fan or not.  No, what I am possibly more interested in:  is the candidate a true FAN (not a businessman/chancer who sees an opportunity), can relate SMISA membership concerns to the BOD in an acceptable manner and to keep an eye on - and blow the whistle if needs be - on matters that they deemed NOT to be in SMISA's interests.

Of course, if there is a suitable candidate that can combine business savvy with all the above, he gets my vote.  From what I've seen and heard, the present SMISA/SMFC Director Davie Nicol is doing a grand job on both fronts.  I know he satisfies all MY criteria and will get my vote - unless of course, he does not stand, or a better candidate declares themselves.

[Stuart Dickson]

What I am surprised about, and perhaps a bit concerned about, is that I haven't seen anyone putting themselves forward and asking for nominators to back them. There's only ten days left for candidates to put themselves forward and each candidate needs 10 nominees. I honestly hope we are going to see a decent selection of candidates and that there will be a vote. I'd be incredibly disappointed if it transpired that the person getting the seat on the board got it by default because they were the only candidate.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Stuart Dickson

[Kendo]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

What I am surprised about, and perhaps a bit concerned about, is that I haven't seen anyone putting themselves forward and asking for nominators to back them. There's only ten days left for candidates to put themselves forward and each candidate needs 10 nominees. I honestly hope we are going to see a decent selection of candidates and that there will be a vote. I'd be incredibly disappointed if it transpired that the person getting the seat on the board got it by default because they were the only candidate.

Why does being the only candidate mean you're elected by default? 

If there's a lack of candidates willing to stand that's usually a sign that most people are happy with things in general.

Unhappiness usually results in unrest and loads of people putting themselves forward for change.

[antrin]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

What I am surprised about, and perhaps a bit concerned about, is that I haven't seen anyone putting themselves forward and asking for nominators to back them. There's only ten days left for candidates to put themselves forward and each candidate needs 10 nominees. I honestly hope we are going to see a decent selection of candidates and that there will be a vote. I'd be incredibly disappointed if it transpired that the person getting the seat on the board got it by default because they were the only candidate.

Ooooh!

we must ALL get the finger out, become candidates AND nominate each other!

i'd so hate to see The Dick being concerned or incredibly disappointed.  

 

 

Eta:

"nominators"!

Edited October 18, 2016 by antrin

[Stuart Dickson]

Ooooh!

we must ALL get the finger out, become candidates AND nominate each other!

i'd so hate to see The Dick being concerned or incredibly disappointed. [emoji20] 

 

 

Eta:

"nominators"!

Check the election rules - its not my word. It's what SMiSA calls them.

[Stuart Dickson]

Why does being the only candidate mean you're elected by default? 

If there's a lack of candidates willing to stand that's usually a sign that most people are happy with things in general.

Unhappiness usually results in unrest and loads of people putting themselves forward for change.

It means you are elected by default because there is no election. You are also making an assertion that members are happy with how things stand rather than apathetic and unwilling to put themselves forward for abuse and ridicule.

I've found through experience that unhappiness in how an organisation is run doesn't mean more candidates putting themselves forward to run the organisation. Rather it means grumbling amongst the membership followed by a sharp falling off in membership numbers.

[Kendo]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 

It means you are elected by default because there is no election. You are also making an assertion that members are happy with how things stand rather than apathetic and unwilling to put themselves forward for abuse and ridicule.

I've found through experience that unhappiness in how an organisation is run doesn't mean more candidates putting themselves forward to run the organisation. Rather it means grumbling amongst the membership followed by a sharp falling off in membership numbers.

 

You mean like the Labour Party where lots have stepped forward for abuse and ridicule among a very unhappy party where membership is rocketing despite all of the above?