SMiSA's Latest Update

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, Soctty said:

Is there a way to hide/ignore a whole thread? Make it vanish from my forum view?

 

Even when I'm not looking at it, the shite is seeping out relentlessly...

Aye, don't click on the thread.

[Soctty]

8 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Aye, don't click on the thread.

I've taken the relevant part from my last post.

 

"Even when I'm not looking at it, the shite is seeping out relentlessly..."

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Soctty

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, Soctty said:

I've taken the relevant part from my last post.

 

"Even when I'm not looking at it, the shite is seeping out relentlessly..."

 

Aye, that's relevant.

[Soctty]

Just now, faraway saint said:

Aye, that's relevant.

Hence, when I'm not clicking on the thread I still see the comments on the home page "latest posts" bit - look, this was meant to be a light-hearted comment. I wasn't expecting Pedantic Pete to set about it with logic and reason - begone demon!

 

[faraway saint]

Just now, Soctty said:

Hence, when I'm not clicking on the thread I still see the comments on the home page "latest posts" bit - look, this was meant to be a light-hearted comment. I wasn't expecting Pedantic Pete to set about it with logic and reason - begone demon!

 

Don't call me Pete.

[Soctty]

Just now, faraway saint said:

Don't call me Pete.

Damn that autocorrect. It began with a p anyway...

 

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, Soctty said:

Damn that autocorrect. It began with a p anyway...

 

You need to work on that "light hearted" angle, it's piss poor.

[shull]

3 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Don't call me Pete.

Okay Dunderheid. 

[Soctty]

3 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

You need to work on that "light hearted" angle, it's piss poor.

One man's "light hearted banter" is another man's "antisocial behaviour". 

It's a a matter of perception.

Fine margins.

Ya fanny.

[faraway saint]

Just now, Soctty said:

One man's "light hearted banter" is another man's "antisocial behaviour". 

It's a a matter of perception.

Fine margins.

Ya fanny.

Oh dear.

[Soctty]

Just now, faraway saint said:

Oh dear.

Sorry, nearly forgot - #bantz

 

[shull]

I like Scooty when he isn't serious. 

[Soctty]

Still loving that "you've chosen to ignore content by shull" message. Content is a very forgiving word.

[shull]

Boooooo Scooty  

[Soctty]

There it is again - content. I'm almost tempted to look at his content.

 

Nah - I've seen them all before. Soz shill.

[East Lothian Saint]

Hi Guys I'm trying to read this forum whilst at work and you folks are posting new threads faster than I can read the old ones. (NO wise cracks I keep getting called away from my computer and that's what slows me down, not illiteracy - is that how you spell it? I run the business so I can't get a row for not working) 

Anyway the Jist of the first six pages was Stu Dickson against the rest of the world. That's the case in most threads to be honest. I've been a saints fan since I could go to the football, a SMISA subscriber since its inception and a forum member for about a fortnight.  Stu D's obsession with Rangers and his  ability to wind you guys up appears to be a source of disagreement which brings out the best or the worst in everyone. If you cut through the crap though some of his points are valid. (Non Stu D fans don't switch off just yet)

Even if his approach is controversial. A lot of you agree that SMISA should not be subsidising the playing budget. Reading through the first 6 pages I would say the NO voters are in the majority. I think most of us agree we should be negotiating a better deal for our input. We shouldn't squander our money and Interest free loans cost us money as we lose bank  interest so I think the board are being shrewd businessmen taking advantage of our loan for the USH. Maybe we should be a bit more business like next time a loan is negotiated. We should work with the board but they maybe should be a bit fairer when working with us.

My personal opinion about funding the playing budget is that we should steer well clear of that path. How many times did you guys post about overpaid players not trying. How many moans about Rangers SEVCO and them living outwith their means. My personal opinion is the Board are well out of order even asking for us to pay players wages. That is their responsibility. Personnel additions should not be funded by SMISA. Why not just pass a couple of buckets around the terraces then anyone who wants to pay players wages can donate whether they are a SMISA member or not.

Use the funds to improve the club infrastructure and cement it's relationship with the community. If the players were performing the fans coming through the gate would fund their wages. Don't turn SMISA funds into a security blanket for subsidising Dud players wages. I haven't been on here long enough to grow to Love Stu D as much as you guys but I do agree with him that paying wages is not the way forward.

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by East Lothian Saint
No paragraghs

[whydowebother]

Myself & 3 family members are in at £12 , I'm happy enough to go with what the majority agree upon.

I do think the proverbial 'begging bowl' being handed out so soon is a worry in itself. There could be 10 years of this.

This can be offset with the fact it's possibly more worrying when we look at the league table.

[div]

8 minutes ago, East Lothian Saint said:

Hi Guys I'm trying to read this forum whilst at work and you folks are posting new threads faster than I can read the old ones. (NO wise cracks I keep getting called away from my computer and that's what slows me down, not illiteracy - is that how you spell it? I run the business so I can't get a row for not working)  Anyway the Jist of the first six pages was Stu Dickson against the rest of the world. That's the case in most threads to be honest. I've been a saints fan since I could go to the football, a SMISA subscriber since its inception and a forum member for about a fortnight.  Stu D's obsession with Rangers and his  ability to wind you guys up appears to be a source of disagreement which brings out the best or the worst in everyone. If you cut through the crap though some of his points are valid. (Non Stu D fans don't switch off just yet) even if his approach is controversial. A lot of you agree that SMISA should not be subsidising the playing budget. Reading through the first 6 pages I would say the NO voters are in the majority. I think most of us agree we should be negotiating a better deal for our input. We shouldn't squander our money and Interest free loans cost us money as we lose bank  interest so I think the board are being shrewd businessmen taking advantage of our loan for the USH. Maybe we should be a bit more business like next time a loan is negotiated. We should work with the board but they maybe should be a bit fairer when working with us. My personal opinion about the funding playing budget is that we should steer well clear of that path. How many times did you guys post about overpaid players not trying. How many moans about Rangers SEVCO and them living outwith their means. My personal opinion is the Board are well out of order even asking for us to pay players wages. That is their responsibility. Personnel additions should not be funded by SMISA. Why not just pass a couple of buckets around the terraces then anyone who wants to pay players wages can donate whether they are a SMISA member or not. Use the funds to improve the club infrastructure and cement it's relationship with the community. If the players were performing the fans coming through the gate would fund their wages. Don't turn SMISA funds into a security blanket for subsidising Dud players wages. I haven't been on here long enough to grow to Love Stu D as much as you guys but I do agree with him that paying wages is not the way forward.

 

That was hard to read, a paragraph here and there would have worked wonders, but the content is fair enough bud.

I'm totally of the opinion that the club should be operating within it's means with regard the playing budget and I don't want SMiSA to go down this route ordinarily, but in the here and now given where we are in the league table and what relegation to the third tier would mean, I personally think it's worth the punt.

There's no guarantee that it will make any difference of course, but if we end up in League 1 then £9K here or there will be the least of our problems.

First and foremost before ANYTHING else we are a football club and the business relies on that football club operating in as a high a level as possible. It's bad enough being in the 2nd tier, but the 3rd would be a disaster.

I note that Raith Rovers fans handed over £14K to their club the other week because they had went a few weeks without a home game. No shares given, nothing asked for in return, they just handed it over. We seem to wring our hands an awful lot about helping the club, when in actual fact the club being successful should be what we ALL want.

Yes it's far from ideal, but we are where we are and for me this is an extraordinary set of circumstances that needs an extraordinary solution.

The USH loan really doesn't bother me at all. It's a loan, it will be paid back. The interest on £15K in the bank would be about a fiver a month.

[East Lothian Saint]

2 minutes ago, div said:

That was hard to read, a paragraph here and there would have worked wonders, but the content is fair enough bud.

I'm totally of the opinion that the club should be operating within it's means with regard the playing budget and I don't want SMiSA to go down this route ordinarily, but in the here and now given where we are in the league table and what relegation to the third tier would mean, I personally think it's worth the punt.

There's no guarantee that it will make any difference of course, but if we end up in League 1 then £9K here or there will be the least of our problems.

First and foremost before ANYTHING else we are a football club and the business relies on that football club operating in as a high a level as possible. It's bad enough being in the 2nd tier, but the 3rd would be a disaster.

I note that Raith Rovers fans handed over £14K to their club the other week because they had went a few weeks without a home game. No shares given, nothing asked for in return, they just handed it over. We seem to wring our hands an awful lot about helping the club, when in actual fact the club being successful should be what we ALL want.

Yes it's far from ideal, but we are where we are and for me this is an extraordinary set of circumstances that needs an extraordinary solution.

The USH loan really doesn't bother me at all. It's a loan, it will be paid back. The interest on £15K in the bank would be about a fiver a month.

Superb point about the paragraphs and your views are well put and reasoned. There will be two camps on this issue and whatever the majority agree I'll go with it. As someone once said  "if it's stupid and it works it ain't stupid" so lets hope that whatever we do it ain't stupid.

[div]

1 minute ago, East Lothian Saint said:

Superb point about the paragraphs and your views are well put and reasoned. There will be two camps on this issue and whatever the majority agree I'll go with it. As someone once said  "if it's stupid and it works it ain't stupid" so lets hope that whatever we do it ain't stupid.

Absolutely mate, I won't cry if the majority vote against the proposal and we bank the cash. 

That's what rational people like you and me and most of the forum will do. Those who understand democracy

[East Lothian Saint]

2 minutes ago, div said:

Absolutely mate, I won't cry if the majority vote against the proposal and we bank the cash. 

That's what rational people like you and me and most of the forum will do. Those who understand democracy

And that way we improve Div. I've sorted the paragraph's and it looks so much nicer. Cheers

Edited December 16, 2016 by East Lothian Saint
spelling

[whydowebother]

Div says 'I'm totally of the opinion that the club should be operating within its means with regard the playing budget'

Putting the begging bowl out means looking to go beyond the playing budget , however on the grand scheme of things it's not a great deal of cash and the rewards could well outweigh the negatives which is why I'm happy ( though concerned ) to go with what the majority decide.

The goal is for it to be our club so we can hardly pick and choose the bits we'd like to be involved in, surely we have to be all in or all out ?

[Sonny]

10 days ago we were in the worst League position in our history. Bottom of the second tier and 10 points adrift and staring at the 3rd tier like a rabbit in the headlights. To me this is exceptional circumstances. I would not be happy about paying wages from my SMiSA contributions over the next 10 years however paying £6 for a potential life jacket in our urgent situation is acceptable to me.

And if the majority vote against then fair enough. I won't respond to everyone's opinion but accept their right to make their point once and move on.

[div]

4 minutes ago, Sonny said:

10 days ago we were in the worst League position in our history. Bottom of the second tier and 10 points adrift and staring at the 3rd tier like a rabbit in the headlights. To me this is exceptional circumstances. I would not be happy about paying wages from my SMiSA contributions over the next 10 years however paying £6 for a potential life jacket in our urgent situation is acceptable to me.

Yip, well put mate. This can't be the norm but if it can make a difference then for me it has to be worth a punt.

I'd hate to see us relegated by a point or two and be sitting with an extra £10K in the bank that could potentially have made a difference with an extra player in the squad.

There's no guarantee it will make a difference, we all know football doesn't work like that, but it COULD and for me that's worth it.

[St.Ricky]

Div

Your posts are usually well considered.

On this occassion, I think you may be off the mark.

What seems to be agreed by most, if not all, is that boosting the player budget short term, may be welcome, needed, save us from relegation etc.

What appears to be troubling some folks is whether or not SMISA should be making a contriibution or in fact whether this is within the rules.

If it is within the rules then it should be possible to quote the clause involved.