Jump to content

SMiSA's Latest Update


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, div said:

I think we all appreciate the cashflow issues that football clubs have at certain points of the season.

The current board inherited a situation where the budget was spent, the management team was underperforming, the team was underperforming and the clubs infrastructure was suffering from neglect. It's been a perfect storm and I don't think they can realistically be judged on any sort of financial basis right now. There is no room for a honeymoon period but the new board need time to grow the clubs revenue, it ain't going to happen overnight.

In previous seasons, as the accounts have shown, the directors put their hand in their pocket and propped up the club with cash during the season, taking back funds when prize & TV money is paid out at the end of the season. This time around we don't have that option, so we're fire fighting using what funds we do have available.

I would concede that throwing money at the playing budget is a sign of desperation right now, but anyone looking at the current on field situation would realise that these are desperate times and desperate times call for desperate measures.

So why is the £8k - £9k request from SMiSA not being handled as a loan to be repaid when prize and TV money is paid out at the end of the season? Why are SMiSA the only shareholders being approached for extra money? And why didn't the SMiSA "board" insist that if SMiSA members funds were going to be used to fund ventures such as this one, that there should be a second SMiSA representative on the club board?

in six months we've discovered that the new St Mirren board failed to notice a lack of maintenance on the under soil heating system. We've seen Gordon Scott approve signings that in his own words left an unbalanced squad at the club. We've seen promises to fans broken - whether it's the event to compensate fans for having to move for the Rangers game, or free tickets to those who beat Gordon Scott in the Paisley 10k. We've learned that the board have lost a contract worth a reported £130,000 per season to the club from JD Sports. And then on top of everything else we see the football club board put in a request to SMiSA for £9k to bring in a single player that is supposed to be a cure all in terms of the playing side of the club - despite the fact that at the club right now there are players earning significantly more than £450 per week who have been told they will no longer be playing in the first team squad. 

Honeymoon period? Gordon Scott and SMiSA told us that they'd turn the club around with fresh ideas and enthusiasm. Tony Fitzpatrick promised that "big things" were happening behind the scenes. So far there's no evidence of fresh ideas, no evidence of a new way of working, no evidence of anything exciting happening anywhere. And there's certainly no evidence at all that SMiSA are succeeding in their pledge to put St Mirren at the heart of the community. All I can see is more of the same old shite and a group of supporters being screwed out of even more money and to top all that off I'm told that there are elements within the organisation who are intent on looking after their own interests rather than working with people who have a desire to see the club being successful. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


33 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Okay your first paragraph, SMISA do lots for the community have you missed that? Are they applying for community grants/ loans whatever to line their pockets or give the money to our budget? Pretty sure the answer to that is no.  I'm pretty sure any community loan that was then used for a different purpose would be found out. They have a tough job on their hands but if you think any SMISA representative is getting a quick buck and taking the club for a ride would love to see your evidence for that. SMISA has a goal to strengthen the bonds between club and community but they also want the strongest most competitive St Mirren in the league.  They don't have to give every single penny to the community they can do both without 100% money going into community funds.  

They put it out to a vote to fans, what about this are you not getting? What isn't going in?  This wasn't SMISA this was a fan decision.  If you think any other option on that ballet would of won you are more delusional than it comes across on here.  On the budget, no one is saying this money is the be all and end all of our season what it's continuously been flagged as is a way to help.  Any funds that are available will help in bringing in player.  Whether this forms 100% 10% or 1% of the player budget for rest of the season who cares? Fans have spoken that they want to do everything in their power to help.  They've voted overwhelmingly.  What's your problem with that? If you think any fans believe this £9,000 will be the be all and end all of our season you are the biggest fool on this forum.  No one has said that, myself included believes we have a duty to follow the clubs wishes in whatever small way we can.  If you like figures how about this if we take an average of 1,300 paying fans a month that's £31,200 a year in the discretionary fund, £312,000 over the course of the buy-out. £9,000 of that is less than 3% of the overall funds that could be spent on community, improving the experiences of our vulnerable fans, funding grass routes and youth football.  yes £9,000 won't make a massive dent to a wage budget but it also isn't a massive dent on money that could be spent on the good of the club and local community. (again not SMISA's choice all use of the funds will be put to the vote) 

Fan ownership will work for St Mirren, SMISA have no power outside St Mirren fans and supporters of fan ownership.  They can make some local level decisions yes maybe, they can have someone on the board but bottom line is long term it will be the St Mirren fans that have the power to steer the club in the direction they want.  You've been exceptionally impatient, short sighted, put down your fellow fans and downright foolish in your unfounded criticism. Do you really think you're right, can see all the facts and everyone else is blind to big bad SMISA? My god what a world you must live in. 

First off I have never claimed that anyone at SMiSA is lining their pockets. I've no idea where you are getting that from. Second, SMiSA is a Community Benefit Society - SMiSA chose to set themselves up in that way because it comes with certain tax breaks that help in it's operation. That means they have a legal obligation to the local community. Third, my objection to how the ballot was run was that it was manipulated by the SMISA board who took the decision to leave off other options from the ballot paper. I've no idea if any other option would have won, but it wasn't the first time the SMISA board have manipulated a vote within the organisation. Fourth, clearly I don't believe that this £9k will be the be all and end all of St Mirren's season. That's exactly the point I've been making. It's absurd to me that anyone would think that an extra player on £450 per week is going to keep St Mirren in the second tier all on their own yet that was how SMISA sold it, and it's how people like you have represented it over the last few days. 

You say I'm short sighted, yet your argument is that this £9k - this £450 per week - is essential to the club to give it every chance of staying up. My argument is that the same £9k could have been better utilised by investing it in community related activities that would not only have returned a profit on the £9k, but it would have increased club engagement within the local community, with a number of possible spin offs from increasing supporters numbers to less obvious things like the opportunity to create a large buying group that would help in sourcing team wear at a much better price than St Mirren can do on their own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

So why is the £8k - £9k request from SMiSA not being handled as a loan to be repaid when prize and TV money is paid out at the end of the season? Why are SMiSA the only shareholders being approached for extra money? And why didn't the SMiSA "board" insist that if SMiSA members funds were going to be used to fund ventures such as this one, that there should be a second SMiSA representative on the club board?

in six months we've discovered that the new St Mirren board failed to notice a lack of maintenance on the under soil heating system. We've seen Gordon Scott approve signings that in his own words left an unbalanced squad at the club. We've seen promises to fans broken - whether it's the event to compensate fans for having to move for the Rangers game, or free tickets to those who beat Gordon Scott in the Paisley 10k. We've learned that the board have lost a contract worth a reported £130,000 per season to the club from JD Sports. And then on top of everything else we see the football club board put in a request to SMiSA for £9k to bring in a single player that is supposed to be a cure all in terms of the playing side of the club - despite the fact that at the club right now there are players earning significantly more than £450 per week who have been told they will no longer be playing in the first team squad. 

Honeymoon period? Gordon Scott and SMiSA told us that they'd turn the club around with fresh ideas and enthusiasm. Tony Fitzpatrick promised that "big things" were happening behind the scenes. So far there's no evidence of fresh ideas, no evidence of a new way of working, no evidence of anything exciting happening anywhere. And there's certainly no evidence at all that SMiSA are succeeding in their pledge to put St Mirren at the heart of the community. All I can see is more of the same old shite and a group of supporters being screwed out of even more money and to top all that off I'm told that there are elements within the organisation who are intent on looking after their own interests rather than working with people who have a desire to see the club being successful. 

 

Nobody at any point has equated the £9k to the signing of a single player. It is a contribution to the playing budget. It's up to the manager how he spends his budget.

Gordon took control of the club on 22nd July 2016. At that point the current management had just presided over a pretty good second half of the previous campaign, so he had no reason to doubt their judgement in the transfer market (and nor should he, it isn't his job to pick the team).

After a while it became clear to the current board that the current management team didn't align well with their longer term strategy of the football club and with results on the park also now desperately poor they made the decision to bring in their own men. I can't really see a problem with any of that to be honest.

JD are re-algining their business and have withdrawn from Scottish Football. ICT have also "lost" said contract. The board can't "lose" a contract when the incumbent supplier doesn't want to bid to renew.

The current board are fire fighting but there are still tangible signs of progress on and off the park. New sponsors have come in over the last few weeks, the emergence of McAllister and Magennis has been very welcome by pretty much everyone, the disabled platform has been built and the new website is now actually starting to generate revenue for the club rather than being a cost overhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, div said:

Nobody at any point has equated the £9k to the signing of a single player. It is a contribution to the playing budget. It's up to the manager how he spends his budget.

Gordon took control of the club on 22nd July 2016. At that point the current management had just presided over a pretty good second half of the previous campaign, so he had no reason to doubt their judgement in the transfer market (and nor should he, it isn't his job to pick the team).

After a while it became clear to the current board that the current management team didn't align well with their longer term strategy of the football club and with results on the park also now desperately poor they made the decision to bring in their own men. I can't really see a problem with any of that to be honest.

JD are re-algining their business and have withdrawn from Scottish Football. ICT have also "lost" said contract. The board can't "lose" a contract when the incumbent supplier doesn't want to bid to renew.

The current board are fire fighting but there are still tangible signs of progress on and off the park. New sponsors have come in over the last few weeks, the emergence of McAllister and Magennis has been very welcome by pretty much everyone, the disabled platform has been built and the new website is now actually starting to generate revenue for the club rather than being a cost overhead.

My only issue with the above was the board racking up the significant expense of sacking the previous management team after only six games, spending money bringing in a new one, then having to dip into Smisa's funds to fix the USH and supplement the playing budget. I think it was an act of naivety on their part that could yet cost us our place in this league. You live, or die by your decisions, I hope the board get the chance to live again and learn its easy to chuck money at things, however its much harder to actually make them work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

You say that you have never accused anyone from Smisa of lining their pockets .

 

Quote from Dickface. "The SMiSA committee however are nothing but cheap con men,"

mibbee not , but damn close .

 

They are though. They have misrepresented what they are about. They set up as a Community Benefit Society, they promised to put the club at the heart of the community, and they claim on their website that they wish to strengthen the bonds between the community and the club. I haven't made up any of that - it's all available on their website, yet to date they have completely misrepresented their offering and indeed one of their "directors" has posted claiming that the "Community" he thinks that SMiSA are there to benefit are paid employees of the football club. 

They are con men, they conned me into being a member. However all of that is a million miles away from any claim that anyone is lining their pockets. 

Edited by Stuart Dickson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

OK, so if the club is prudently run, with a wage budget way below the PWC ceiling, why the f**k does it need to ask SMiSA and it's membership for a £9k donation to pay one player £450 per week to save the club from relegation? What level of mismanagement if going on in the new St Mirren Ltd club board to make this cash grab so essential? 

The truth is Div, this is exactly like t-shirt and towelgate. You've got a football club board who are so grasping, so greedy and so needy that they see the whole SMiSA operation as a way of extracting more money from the support. And you've got a SMISA "board" so desperate for credibility from the football club board that they have been willing to drop their pants and take a right good shafting, even to the extent of manipulating the vote by excluding any other suggestion for funding off the vote. 

You know, you would have thought that you would at least have the decency to acknowledge that, in your series of posts containing a regular diatribe at how stupid Saints fans are for their lack of business or arithmetic acumen, you haven't managed to get either the turnover or wage bill correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

Quote from Dickface. "The SMiSA committee however are nothing but cheap con men

 

 

4 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

They are con men, they conned me into being a member. However all of that is a million miles away from any claim that anyone is lining their pockets. 

So what is it that con men do in planet dickhead - other than con people out of their money for their own devious uses?

 

And they were only cheap con men to you, because you never ever intended to be a member for longer than it suited your self-glorification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

They are though. They have misrepresented what they are about. They set up as a Community Benefit Society, they promised to put the club at the heart of the community, and they claim on their website that they wish to strengthen the bonds between the community and the club. I haven't made up any of that - it's all available on their website, yet to date they have completely misrepresented their offering and indeed one of their "directors" has posted claiming that the "Community" he thinks that SMiSA are there to benefit are paid employees of the football club. 

They are con men, they conned me into being a member. However all of that is a million miles away from any claim that anyone is lining their pockets. 

Thought i was on Ignore ?  Liar.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Eaglesham saint said:

Please Lads and lassies, it's the season of goodwill,I would hate to see anyone with nae pals.

Shull will agree with this sentiment ,let's all be mates again like in the euphoria after Dumfries 

My stress levels are rocketing as we speak:P

 

I wish good tidings and seasons greetings.

 

But only to those who  have the good of our beloved club at heart .

 

Anyone else on here who doesnt can go and f**k themselves !!        Is that ok ? -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 Second, SMiSA is a Community Benefit Society - SMiSA chose to set themselves up in that way because it comes with certain tax breaks that help in it's operation. That means they have a legal obligation to the local community.

What are these legal obligations that they are not adhering to. If you believe they have failed in their duties you have a moral obligation to report them to the FCA and allow them to investigate with a view to raising a prosecution.

 

Before doing so it may be worth you educating yourself on what the FCA classifies as a Community Benefit Society. The rules are fairly subjective and in my humble opinion SMISA could easily put a case forward that demonstrates that they meet all of the criteria. In fact it would probably demonstrate that they had embraced the concept entirely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are though. They have misrepresented what they are about. They set up as a Community Benefit Society, they promised to put the club at the heart of the community, and they claim on their website that they wish to strengthen the bonds between the community and the club. I haven't made up any of that - it's all available on their website, yet to date they have completely misrepresented their offering and indeed one of their "directors" has posted claiming that the "Community" he thinks that SMiSA are there to benefit are paid employees of the football club. 
They are con men, they conned me into being a member. However all of that is a million miles away from any claim that anyone is lining their pockets. 


You can call many things a community, just as you can then prioritise them all differently. If the head of Scottish Water can comment on the community of project managers, I've no issue referring to all club employees as a community. I'm also comfortable listening to those employees to see where SMISA can assist/enable their work. That's just one community forming the broader community served by the society. How, for example, would not caring for club employees strengthen any bonds?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gruffalo said:

What are these legal obligations that they are not adhering to. If you believe they have failed in their duties you have a moral obligation to report them to the FCA and allow them to investigate with a view to raising a prosecution.

Before doing so it may be worth you educating yourself on what the FCA classifies as a Community Benefit Society. The rules are fairly subjective and in my humble opinion SMISA could easily put a case forward that demonstrates that they meet all of the criteria. In fact it would probably demonstrate that they had embraced the concept entirely.

I think they have failed to show how gifting £9k of the Community Benefit Societies Funds to a £multi million business to assist with paying wages is benefiting the community. I think they also fail on a number of other points including the openness of the leadership. The failure to produce minutes of meetings for review by the membership and their attempt at setting a minimum criteria for the Community Benefit Society representative on the board of the football club also breach the guidelines as published, IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 


You can call many things a community, just as you can then prioritise them all differently. If the head of Scottish Water can comment on the community of project managers, I've no issue referring to all club employees as a community. I'm also comfortable listening to those employees to see where SMISA can assist/enable their work. That's just one community forming the broader community served by the society. How, for example, would not caring for club employees strengthen any bonds?

 

Tell me Kenny, it that was the case, what would be stopping - lets say - Amazon from setting up a Community Benefit Society as a tax efficient way of paying their profits into the business under the guise of looking after the community of shareholders of the company. 

I think you should perhaps take Gruffalos advice and have a wee look at the FCA guidelines are as to what the obligations are of the Society that you have been co-opted onto as a "Director". :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point 5.3 of SMISA's constitution, re Powers "take any other steps in relation to the Club which enable it to exercise the greatest possible influence in the ownership, governance and management of the Club."

I suspect that probably allows SMISA to lend to the club. I would hope though that there is a loan agreement in place between SMISA and the club, to keep things above board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, melmac said:

Point 5.3 of SMISA's constitution, re Powers "take any other steps in relation to the Club which enable it to exercise the greatest possible influence in the ownership, governance and management of the Club."

I suspect that probably allows SMISA to lend to the club. I would hope though that there is a loan agreement in place between SMISA and the club, to keep things above board.

What greater influence in ownership, governance and management of the club did they gain as a result of either the loan or the gifting away of money? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very tedious, very tedious indeed.

 

Smisa are an important organisation but...

 

Not nearly as important as the Saint Mirren professional football club pte ltd co.  

 

So if Smisa can do something occasionally to help the more important organisation then bloody good stuff, bloody good stuff indeed.  If Smisa cannot occasionally help the more important organisation then Smisa is an unimportant and pointless entity.  So-called fans who are unhappy at Smisa helping the more important organisation are rather stupid.  Smisa members who are using this nonsense to show how incredibly smart you can appear to be are not only being stupid but incredibloy tedious, tedious indeed.

 

The Smisa membership who use this forum are showing themselves to be a bit of a rabble.  I do hope the wider Smisa membership is far more sensible lest this less important organisation will do much harm to the more important organisation if/when Smisa take over the important organisation.

 

Now away and talk about football.  I am sure the internet will house a forum somewhere entirely for people who like to argue about constitutions and other such urine.  The important organisation needs 3 points on Saturday, the less important organisation needs its membership to stop embarassing it.  

 

Edited to add:  Incredibloy was indeed a typing error.  I left it in as I rather like it!

Edited by TediousTom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...