USH Statement

[div]

I said weeks ago GS believes SMiSA is a cash cow, he tells them he needs money and they bend over.

Can't really see the logic in that.

SMiSA does what it's members tell it to do.

The club can ask for help, but it's up to the members to decide how the money is spent, not the club.

[Tam M]

Don't think that's very helpful Tam. The point of this has to be that any vote goes with the majority.

Really destructive if we have members withdrawing because they don't like the way votes go IMHO

If the club asks for help I think SMiSA should add that as an option. Same as if the SMiSA membership comes up with options like your food bank idea then those should be put on the list too.

Then up to the members to vote. We all need to respect the outcome though and continue to invest even if we don't agree with it!

It's not a case of not liking the way votes go. It's just not what I signed up for.

I don't think SMISA members should be paying for business expenses. If it's something that benefits the fans or community then fine. When I signed up, I didn't think the options for the spend would be paying bills for the club. Effectively that means we're paying to buy the club, whilst paying to maintain the assets which contribute to the overall value of the club until we raise the funds to purchase GS' stake.

Like I said I would offer to continue to pay my £10 towards the purchase of the club, but I won't be spending my money on what should be business expenses.

[TsuMirren]

I'm more than happy for the £2 pot to go to the club for this purpose provided it is a loan or for the purchase of shares.

However, I would like to see the £2 pot being spent on things that enhance the match day experience like the disabled platform. If something that improves the match day experience brings in more money for the club then that's a bonus. Alternatively, I'd be happy to see it spent within the local community. This time of the year I'd be happy to put the £7k to a local food bank.

From what I've been told, it's very unlikely that the £2 spend will ever be arranged in the form of a loan or for the purchase of shares. It was never intended to be handled that way. That said, there's nothing to stop a procedural vote where that might change.
Then again, if we're looking to take ownership and be at a point where all donations would be for the use of the club/community then why not donate in good faith now?

[div]

13 minutes ago, Tam M said:

It's not a case of not liking the way votes go. It's just not what I signed up for.

I don't think SMISA members should be paying for business expenses. If it's something that benefits the fans or community then fine. When I signed up, I didn't think the options for the spend would be paying bills for the club. Effectively that means we're paying to buy the club, whilst paying to maintain the assets which contribute to the overall value of the club until we raise the funds to purchase GS' stake.

Like I said I would offer to continue to pay my £10 towards the purchase of the club, but I won't be spending my money on what should be business expenses.
 

Yeah, I get you, but I'm still disappointed in this. Sets a really dangerous precedent when people start to withdraw funding because they don't like what the majority vote for.

Absolutely the club SHOULD be budgeting for this sort of thing, but clearly it isn't/hasn't been tucking at least some of it's depreciation money away. Every last penny we have goes on the squad and the academy and that is fundamentally not how a normal successful business operates. This is football though, and football clubs seem to live purely for today rather than tomorrow.

Still think if the club asks for help with the USH it should be an option on the ballot. That doesn't mean to say the members should blindly vote for it though.

[Tam M]

Yeah, I get you, but I'm still disappointed in this. Sets a really dangerous precedent when people start to withdraw funding because they don't like what the majority vote for.

Absolutely the club SHOULD be budgeting for this sort of thing, but clearly it isn't/hasn't been tucking at least some of it's depreciation money away. Every last penny we have goes on the squad and the academy and that is fundamentally not how a normal successful business operates. This is football though, and football clubs seem to live purely for today rather than tomorrow.

Still think if the club asks for help with the USH it should be an option on the ballot. That doesn't mean to say the members should blindly vote for it though.

Like I said I would be happy for money to be loaned to the club, but for me after season tickets, merchandise, hospitality days out, paying towards buying the bloody club... This is just one step too far IMO.

From conversations I've had today with a few other members, I'm confident any request would be booted out in a vote anyway.

[buddiecat]

13 minutes ago, Tam M said:

 

It's not a case of not liking the way votes go. It's just not what I signed up for.

I don't think SMISA members should be paying for business expenses. If it's something that benefits the fans or community then fine. When I signed up, I didn't think the options for the spend would be paying bills for the club. Effectively that means we're paying to buy the club, whilst paying to maintain the assets which contribute to the overall value of the club until we raise the funds to purchase GS' stake.

Like I said I would offer to continue to pay my £10 towards the purchase of the club, but I won't be spending my money on what should be business expenses.
 

Two ways to look at it Tam,first there's the opinion of yourself and mine that we shouldn't pay for the heating costs then there is the other way which could also make sense in that if we pay to get something fixed (other than the pitch heating) then when we do take ownership we benefit from having fixed it earlier and probably at lower cost at that time.Just depends what needs fixed i'd say.As far as the heating goes,i think the club should wait until it raises the cash itself to have it fixed.

But as ever it will be down to a members vote and i will accept the vote of the majority,i might not like it but will accept that is what most would want.

[div]

Like I said I would be happy for money to be loaned to the club, but for me after season tickets, merchandise, hospitality days out, paying towards buying the bloody club... This is just one step too far IMO.

From conversations I've had today with a few other members, I'm confident any request would be booted out in a vote anyway.

Fair enough mate. Personally I think we should bank the discretionary spend for a while, save up a proper rainy day fund as it's clear the club ain't going to do that anytime soon!

[Cairters_Corner]

Would rather than SMISA money is spent on purchasing the two shelters for disabled supporters for the south east and south west corners.

[div]

Would rather than SMISA money is spent on purchasing the two shelters for disabled supporters for the south east and south west corners.

What's the cost of those mate, do you know?

[buddiecat]

6 minutes ago, div said:

 

Fair enough mate. Personally I think we should bank the discretionary spend for a while, save up a proper rainy day fund as it's clear the club ain't going to do that anytime soon!

 

Totally agree.

[Cairters_Corner]

8 minutes ago, div said:

 

What's the cost of those mate, do you know?

 

Could be wrong bud but I've heard a figure of around £2,000 each.

[Stuart Dickson]

51 minutes ago, Tam M said:

It's not a case of not liking the way votes go. It's just not what I signed up for.

I don't think SMISA members should be paying for business expenses. If it's something that benefits the fans or community then fine. When I signed up, I didn't think the options for the spend would be paying bills for the club. Effectively that means we're paying to buy the club, whilst paying to maintain the assets which contribute to the overall value of the club until we raise the funds to purchase GS' stake.

Like I said I would offer to continue to pay my £10 towards the purchase of the club, but I won't be spending my money on what should be business expenses.
 

 

Same Tam. I've already cancelled my SMiSA membership once already - back when the majority of the membership decided that instead of raising cash to buy the club they would rather buy the club towels and t-shirts. It was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard and at it was the organisations lack of credibility over that issue that was at the forefront of my mind when I decided to back their bid to buy out the club. 

As a member we are only entitled to one vote and it's absolutely right that the majority should get their will. However if the majority are intent on making mugs out of the membership and SMiSA, then the one thing I can do to protect myself is cancel my membership. Hopefully it won't come to that though and David Nicol will ensure that any request for money to fix the USH is presented to the membership as an interest bearing loan. 

[northendsaint]

6 hours ago, div said:

 

What's the cost of those mate, do you know?

 

The cost of the shelters are £2500 each and the disabled supporters section have approached local supermarkets for grant funding to purchase these units.At present the new disabled viewing platform appears to be accomodating all who wish to use it.I personally would start with one shelter for the away fans.

On the subject of the USH the club has a number of issues it has inherited and have not budgeted for.

Ralston-The floor of the main building is rotten and requires major repair work.(currently underway)

The astroturf requires to be replaced.

The Dome-The design of this beggars belief and repair works cost the club a small fortune.

USH. This unit requires major work to bring it back to fit for purpose capability and yes a local firm can carry out these works.

As it stands just now we just dont have enough paying customers coming through the door to offset these costs and probably dont even have enough to cover the day to day running of the club.Only a change of the teams fortunes on the park will get more people through the gates and i place my trust in Jack and Jamie to do that.As for where the Smisa money goes i really dont care as long as it benefits the club long term.We are not bailing out the board we are contributing to the financial well being of our club.A club we will inherit in the future so i call for unity with one aim.A strong and prosperous St Mirren FC.

 

[pod]

 

7 hours ago, div said:

 

 

Fair enough mate. Personally I think we should bank the discretionary spend for a while, save up a proper rainy day fund as it's clear the club ain't going to do that anytime soon!

 

 

7 hours ago, Cairters_Corner said:

Would rather than SMISA money is spent on purchasing the two shelters for disabled supporters for the south east and south west corners.

Hence rainy day fund.

[pod]

7 hours ago, div said:

 

 

Fair enough mate. Personally I think we should bank the discretionary spend for a while, save up a proper rainy day fund as it's clear the club ain't going to do that anytime soon!

 

It never rains but pours in our case.

[Drew]

12 hours ago, div said:

There is no requirement to have USH in any other league in the SPFL bar the Premiership.

Disappointing that we have seemingly inherited this issue, I'd think if the insurance doesn't cough up that there would be grounds for a chat with the sellers?

To put it in context I believe the repairs required would be around £15K.

Would I be correct in thinking that the sellers might not have all the monies due to them at this time?

Was there a staggered element to the payment, or was that an element of a previous proposal to purchase their shares?

[Drew]

For those calling for Gordon Scott to dip into his pocket and fund this or that, ponder on this....

When the club is in full fan ownership (the very purpose of this exercise, after all), who will be expected to dip into his own pockets and spend substantial sums of his own cash to meet all these additional day-to-day running and player budget costs at the club?

I wonder if folk are missing the entire  point of what we are trying to achieve, here. This notion that we can expect someone with reasonable, relative wealth to prop things up during lean times is a fantasy that is wholly unsustainable, and contrary to what we are trying to build towards for the club.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Drew

[Stuart Dickson]

The cost of the shelters are £2500 each and the disabled supporters section have approached local supermarkets for grant funding to purchase these units.At present the new disabled viewing platform appears to be accomodating all who wish to use it.I personally would start with one shelter for the away fans.

On the subject of the USH the club has a number of issues it has inherited and have not budgeted for.

Ralston-The floor of the main building is rotten and requires major repair work.(currently underway)

The astroturf requires to be replaced.

The Dome-The design of this beggars belief and repair works cost the club a small fortune.

USH. This unit requires major work to bring it back to fit for purpose capability and yes a local firm can carry out these works.

As it stands just now we just dont have enough paying customers coming through the door to offset these costs and probably dont even have enough to cover the day to day running of the club.Only a change of the teams fortunes on the park will get more people through the gates and i place my trust in Jack and Jamie to do that.As for where the Smisa money goes i really dont care as long as it benefits the club long term.We are not bailing out the board we are contributing to the financial well being of our club.A club we will inherit in the future so i call for unity with one aim.A strong and prosperous St Mirren FC.

 

FFS, is the dome is costing more to repair than it raises common sense would say scrap the inflatable bollocks and leave it as an all weather 7-a-side pitch. I always said the idea of the dome was massively flawed and criticised the use of public funding and SMiSA loans for this. It looks like I've been absolutely vindicated now.

I reiterate that unless all shareholders are being asked to make the same proportionate donation that SMiSA members money should only be used for these repairs if it is in the form of a loan or in return for a greater equity stake. Using SMiSA as the cow that should be milked will only lose you members as it did when SMiSA started buying towels and t-shirts. I would hope that there would be enough self awareness on the SMiSA committee to realise this may well be a step too far for many.... And so early in the project too.

[TopCat]

For those calling for Gordon Scott to dip into his pocket and fund this or that, ponder on this....

When the club is in full fan ownership (the very purpose of this exercise, after all), who will be expected to dip into his own pockets and spend substantial sums of his own cash to meet all these additional day-to-day running and player budget costs at the club?

I wonder if folk are missing the entire  point of what we are trying to achieve, here. This notion that we can expect someone with reasonable, relative wealth to prop things up during lean times is a fantasy that is wholly unsustainable, and contrary to what we are trying to build towards for the club.

 

That's the issue we have. The previous board regularly loaned the club 6 figure sums to cover unexpected expenses and general running costs through the season.

Who can do that now? Scott doesn't seem like he fancies it. So... begging bowl to Smisa? The club has no savings, the money has to come from somewhere.

[Lord Pityme]

If it comes to pass the smisa membership opt to contribute towards the USH repair that will be the second issue they have had to fund that the previous board are responsible for.

the first being the disabled platform that the previous board promised, but didnt deliver, despite selling out to the old firm and getting their loans paid back before exiting stage left.

[elvis]

1 hour ago, Drew said:

Would I be correct in thinking that the sellers might not have all the monies due to them at this time?

Was there a staggered element to the payment, or was that an element of a previous proposal to purchase their shares?

I believe that's the case think I would be having a word with mr Gilmour and co about the state they have left the place.

 

[Drew]

34 minutes ago, TopCat said:

 

 

That's the issue we have. The previous board regularly loaned the club 6 figure sums to cover unexpected expenses and general running costs through the season.

Who can do that now? Scott doesn't seem like he fancies it. So... begging bowl to Smisa? The club has no savings, the money has to come from somewhere.

 

 

So be it.

Those of us who signed up knew the score (unless I missed the small print that specified that Gordon Scott would routinely bail us out by injecting sums of cash on an ad hoc basis).

We need to get used operating the club within its means. To that end, I don't know if it would be particularly helpful to be relying on GS to be bailing us out (unless, of course, we are in crisis and need to call on any available support, Gordon included).

To be honest, the disabled platform aside (an essential, and long overdue facility that I and many others voted for in terms of utilitising the additional SMiSA monies), I favour the idea of building up a reserve fund that we can fall back on in emergencies.

Using loans, etc, cannot be discounted, of course, but should really only be a final resort.

 

[Ayrshire Saints]

Pitch protection in the form of covers would seem the sensible way to go whilst outside the top league.  In an average winter it would get more games on than off and in relative terms cost very little compared to USH. In the longer term of course the USH will need to be repaired assuming we ever get back to the prem and assuming then they still insist on USH but at the moment it just doesn't make financial sense and these are exactly the type of financial decisions we need to address under our new set-up.  A very honest and open statement from the chairman (who some recently said was "struggling badly" !!!) and I have no issue with the option of funding a fix being put to fellow members after all it is a democracy but after reading the statement I personally wouldn't vote for the funds to be used that way now despite publicly suggesting it on here the day the game was called off.  What more can anyone expect the board to do, they have outlined the full extent of the problem, looked at options and admitted they don't have that sort of money available.

[Froggie]

In Saints defence, they have been victim of several major bungles by the footballing authorities. Initially in order to get into the top league, they had to have 10,000 seats which required a brand new stand built at the Love St end  and in use for barely a handful of years. The 10k rule was eventually reduced to whatever it is now (6k ?) when some bright spark realised that crowds have vanished. Incidentally as far as I believe, there is no mandatory requirement in this country to have all seater stadia, it only applies to the English top leagues. Our authorities, like sheep, just follow what big brother does, as if it puts us on a par with our neighbours.

Then it became necessary (apparently) to install USH which we did at Love St then again at GHR. This is the west of Scotland, its not needed here generally as our winters are mostly wet. I cant remember any games taking place solely due to the USH being put on. I can however cite a few which were called off regardless of the heating being on or not. Snow in surrounding roads being the main culprit. If its costs too much to thaw out frozen ground it ought to be considered too cold for fans to sit freezing for two hours , so I don't think repairing the USH should be a priority.

[Lord Pityme]

31 minutes ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

Pitch protection in the form of covers would seem the sensible way to go whilst outside the top league.  In an average winter it would get more games on than off and in relative terms cost very little compared to USH. In the longer term of course the USH will need to be repaired assuming we ever get back to the prem and assuming then they still insist on USH but at the moment it just doesn't make financial sense and these are exactly the type of financial decisions we need to address under our new set-up.  A very honest and open statement from the chairman (who some recently said was "struggling badly" !!!) and I have no issue with the option of funding a fix being put to fellow members after all it is a democracy but after reading the statement I personally wouldn't vote for the funds to be used that way now despite publicly suggesting it on here the day the game was called off.  What more can anyone expect the board to do, they have outlined the full extent of the problem, looked at options and admitted they don't have that sort of money available.

From what i recall, and have heard... covers never got a game on at Love Street? Intresting if anyone knows different.