Jump to content

SMiSA's Latest Update


Recommended Posts



And here is the very definition of short term thinking. A behaviour that equates to the guy who passes all his wages away on the 20/1 three legged donkey running in the 3.30 on pay day.

The club currently pays out in excess of £1.2m per annum in wages and associated costs. As a result of their recruitment policy St Mirren have got and are paying the likes of Jamie Langfield and Kyle Hutton not to play. They've got Andy Webster - another of the top earners and with 28 international caps often left out of the squad. Yet you think chucking an extra £2k per month at the team will solve all its problems.

Community initiatives will raise money, will bring positive PR and will deliver more interest in the club from local people. That's a long term vision, not short term. It's not even a gamble. Yet sadly those chumps on the SMISA committee won't even put the easiest and most secure of options that I put forward on the ballot paper.

Democracy my arse. There's more democracy in a Tibetan election. :rolleyes:


If you don't agree with the funds being spent that way vote against it? It's hardly throwing away millions of pounds. It's spending money that only took 3-4 months to accumulate. It's a long term plan for fan ownership and we find ourselves in an extraordinary place where we're 6 points adrift at the championship. It won't always be like that but I feel we have a responsibility to do all we can right now.

Maybe fans would prefer we raised funds another way. Maybe we should sell Mallan and Mccallister in January and then bring in 4-5 players in the hope we are kept up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 


Then vote against it? Oh wait you can't you cancelled your 10 year membership to bring fan ownership to St Mirren because you're not happy that some fans are willing to gamble with a minuscule £6 per member on a player or two that might save us from relegation.

It's a democracy and has always been put forward as that way. Fans have the choice to vote for or against... guess they also have the option to take their ball and go home.

 

Cancelled also because of smug gits like you. 

Fecking superfan rank pullers :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Then vote against it? Oh wait you can't you cancelled your 10 year membership to bring fan ownership to St Mirren because you're not happy that some fans are willing to gamble with a minuscule £6 per member on a player or two that might save us from relegation.

It's a democracy and has always been put forward as that way. Fans have the choice to vote for or against... guess they also have the option to take their ball and go home.


Vote for Putin, or don't. Some f**king democracy that is. The chief money wasters at the club pull the string of their puppets on the SMISA committee and we're all suppose to accept it. f**king disgrace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 


If you don't agree with the funds being spent that way vote against it? It's hardly throwing away millions of pounds. It's spending money that only took 3-4 months to accumulate. It's a long term plan for fan ownership and we find ourselves in an extraordinary place where we're 6 points adrift at the championship. It won't always be like that but I feel we have a responsibility to do all we can right now.

Maybe fans would prefer we raised funds another way. Maybe we should sell Mallan and Mccallister in January and then bring in 4-5 players in the hope we are kept up.

 

A vote isn't enough for this numpty - think he wants a veto...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, elvis said:

Fan ownership what a f**king joke a few months in and they are arguing among themselves what a f**king disaster this is going to be thank Christ I never went anywhere near it .A disaster waiting to happen.

If it helps to secure the club's future, though, I'm sure you'll be grateful to those who are at least trying to do something tangible in that regard, eh? :rolleyes:

Smug pish like this is a hell of a lot more corrosive than a few people having a spat over how a few quid should be used. But hey, if sniping from the sidelines is your thing (as, evidently, it generally appears to be), crack on.

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, elvis said:

Fan ownership what a f**king joke a few months in and they are arguing among themselves what a f**king disaster this is going to be thank Christ I never went anywhere near it .A disaster waiting to happen.

Debate is ok mate. As long as people realise that at the end of the day the majority will rule in decisions like this. I voted to allocate the money to the playing budget, as I feel it would help the manager to bring in someone in that he feels can help the team. If the fans vote against this, I'm fine with it. Then again, I'm not trying to run the club from top to bottom for a £25(+) a month investment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think fan ownership will be a great thing and bottom line is these are still funds that we wouldn't have if it hadn't went through.

What I don't agree with is people cancelling memberships in protest because they don't agree with a request from our chairman/ SMISA for use of the funds. All that will do is hurt Our football club in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Soctty said:

A vote isn't enough for this numpty - think he wants a veto...

SMISA sooper dooper fans are showing true colours. Bad enough before when the likes of Calum abusing punters asking relevant questions while Buy The Buds campaign was going on. 

The bottom line is this type of fans money must not be gambled.

Rainy day only.

If Jack Ross is incapable of saving our Club without new players, he should be booted out the door now.

We haven't fabulous players but they are better than most in our league.  

Edited by shull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think fan ownership will be a great thing and bottom line is these are still funds that we wouldn't have if it hadn't went through.

What I don't agree with is people cancelling memberships in protest because they don't agree with a request from our chairman/ SMISA for use of the funds. All that will do is hurt Our football club in the long term.


Whilst I don't agree with putting the money towards the playing budget I am happy to accept what the majority vote for. However, my concern is that the members are not getting all the options available put to them. For example getting the shelters for the remaining disabled people for the corners, especially at this time of the year would be a priority for me.
I'm pretty sure on the USH thread it was mentioned several times that all the options would be put forward and then they could be voted on. That's all I want and thought I was getting... But instead I'm left disappointed that we either have a Yes or No poll for what the committee deem as being priority.

According to a St Mirren director who engaged on a Tweet of mine last night stating the club need to live within its means, if we lived within our means Alex Rae would still be the manager.... Bit concerning he's implying we're not living within our means - who is picking up the loss then?

My view would be that reducing expenditure elsewhere to pay off a contract is living within means, but SMISA topping up a wage budget isn't...

With regards to the loan, again, don't have an issue with loaning the club money and don't necessarily feel a need to vote on this as the money would be returned. But to state that they wanted to consult the membership but couldn't because of time restrictions is lame. It takes five minutes to send out an email to the members.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dibbles old paperboy said:

If the board are going to ask SMISA to pay for USH, cashflow issues, January transfer window cash (and no doubt a new astroturf pitch and building repairs at Ralston), SMISA should say they'll match new money being invested by the directors rather than stump up instead of the directors stumping up.

^^ This.

Pro-rata investment in accordance with share %. It's just business.
We are saving to buy out another shareholder.
This should be the purpose of SmisA, not diluting funds.

Just a thought ;-)

Edited by garzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMISA sooper dooper fans are showing true colours. Bad enough before when the likes of Calum abusing punters asking relevant questions while Buy The Buds campaign was going on. 
The bottom line is this type of fans money must not be gambled.
Rainy day only.
If Jack Ross is incapable of saving our Club without new players, he should be booted out the door now.
We haven't fabulous players but they are better than most in our league.  


More than that. Their version of democracy is to attempt to silence opposition.

I'm free to put my money wherever I like. It certainly won't be in to an organisation where gambling seems to be the mantra of those controlling the funds. f**king bonkers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 


Vote for Putin, or don't. Some f**king democracy that is. 

 

Democracy - the best system we currently have.

sometimes it gives the result you want and other times, not.

thatcher, SNP, IndyNO, brexit...  all forms of democracy in flawed action

 

why not resign from normal life cos there's no escaping democracy and the majority of people regularly disagreeing with you?

hissy fits and petulance are not your style.  

 

I hear the moon's nice this time of year...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted No/Yes. I have no desire to see the surplus generated spent on Players budgets or day to day running. If the money isn't there to bring in players then either raise additional revenue or cut costs. However if the majority vote in favour of the £8k then I'm happy to go along and chip the other £1800 or so in too.

I said previously about the USH that I would support a loan to the club, particularly in this 1st year when the board have uncovered a basket case with regards to maintenance and their hands tied with regards to contracts and balancing books. Yes it would have been good to go to the members, but I see the genuine benefit in this and it is low risk to SMISA.

Oh and irrespective of the outcome I will still remain a member of SMISA. My review point on that front is the initial 3 years after we have the key 25%+ ownership.

Edited by madball
update
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus wept what a car crash !!!!

 

Arguing about the outcome of a democratic vote before the result is even known is totally pointless.  Democracy in the UK is well and truly dead in the last few years. It seems nowadays if a vote goes against the way you think it should you simply spit the dummy and refuse to accept that outcome.  The old adage you can never please all of the people all of the time was never truer (is that a word ?)

I would suggest ANYONE who is unwilling to accept the democratic decision of fellow SMISA members would be best just cancelling their DD and withdrawing from the whole process (including moaning about anything the members do decide to do) now.  If you don't believe in democracy then don't enter financially into a democratic process.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus wept what a car crash !!!!
 
Arguing about the outcome of a democratic vote before the result is even known is totally pointless.  Democracy in the UK is well and truly dead in the last few years. It seems nowadays if a vote goes against the way you think it should you simply spit the dummy and refuse to accept that outcome.  The old adage you can never please all of the people all of the time was never truer (is that a word ?)
I would suggest ANYONE who is unwilling to accept the democratic decision of fellow SMISA members would be best just cancelling their DD and withdrawing from the whole process (including moaning about anything the members do decide to do) now.  If you don't believe in democracy then don't enter financially into a democratic process.
 
 
 


And here's another fanny who doesn't understand that part of the democratic process is to have the argument first. :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMISA sooper dooper fans are showing true colours. Bad enough before when the likes of Calum abusing punters asking relevant questions while Buy The Buds campaign was going on. 
The bottom line is this type of fans money must not be gambled.
Rainy day only.
If Jack Ross is incapable of saving our Club without new players, he should be booted out the door now.
We haven't fabulous players but they are better than most in our league.  


This isn't a rainy day? He inherited a squad with players that are not good enough. Clarkson, Webster, Baird, Hutton and no left back in the team. Also three loan signings that have been very disappointing. I have confidence this will be a one off. What better way to support the club than giving the money? People say a gamble, it's £6 per member. Hardly life changing sums. I have a lot more faith in Jack to spend wisely than that walloper Rae that's left us in this mess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 


And here's another fanny who doesn't understand that part of the democratic process is to have the argument first. :rolleyes:

 

No you are aguing about a potential outcome not going your way, that is neither democratic or constructive.  Not only do you want a vote you want to be able to decide what goes on to the ballot paper in the first place, that is a dictatorship not a democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, billyg said:

I don't usually go along with short term policies but on this occasion it's needs must , we can't be relegated. So it'll be yes , yes !

Yeah this is pretty much where I am on this.

I don't agree that SMiSA funds should be used to bolster the playing budget but I'd cite this as being fairly extraordinary circumstances.

Relegation to the third tier would be an absolute disaster with ramifications we might struggle to recover from. If we can give the manager a better hand to play in the January market and that helps him bolster the squad to the extent that it improves our chances of survival then for me anyway it's worth the gamble. And it is very much a gamble.

I completely understand those who are voting no on this issue though, I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer on this one.

Just got to go with your own gut feeling IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, madball said:

I voted No/Yes. I have no desire to see the surplus generated spent on Players budgets or day to day running. If the money isn't there to bring in players then either raise additional revenue or cut costs. However if the majority vote in favour of the £8k then I'm happy to go along and chip the other £1800 or so in too.

I said previously about the USH that I would support a loan to the club, particularly in this 1st year when the board have uncovered a basket case with regards to maintenance and their hands tied with regards to contracts and balancing books. Yes it would have been good to go to the members, but I see the genuine benefit in this and it is low risk to SMISA.

Oh and irrespective of the outcome I will still remain a member of SMISA. My review point on that front is the initial 3 years after we have the key 25%+ ownership.

Good post bud!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



And here's another fanny who doesn't understand that part of the democratic process is to have the argument first. :rolleyes:


And throw your toys out the pram and threaten to cancel your membership because people have a different opinion to yours? Boo goo cry me a river.

I signed up for 10 years and that's what I'll do. Anyone walking away will only hurt our club.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people should really take a step back before they post.

A loan to the club means the club will be paying it back no issue with this as long as it does not affect the overall goal

People wanting more options you will only dilute the votes giving two options at a time should give a clear indication of what the members want.

Some should smell the coffee the high earners are not getting a game cause they are crap if they regain their form they will get back in the first team simple

If we go down there will be no community projects as you will be looking at another Gretna, clydebank etc we do not have the support to survive in the 3rd tier. We were struggling to get 4k in the top flight now we are struggling to get 2.5k how many will we lose if we go down.

The pot is to be used as and when. SMISA have given us two options this time next time I expect another two options and note they can not add to the player budget as Jan will be over. We will probably be offered the player budget in July and this time next year. How did you think fan ownership would work

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...