SMiSA's Latest Update

[Stuart Dickson]

1 minute ago, scabbydug37 said:

I will probably get dogs abuse for this.

Firstly, SMISA members elect a committee to act on behalf of them, but complain when they do act. A similar situation with UK Government, who have been elected by the public, but do what they think is OK for the country.

Secondly, when SMISA do get control of the Club, do members get a say in the running of the club? IMO, the committee (Directors) at that time will make decisions, which in their perception, benefits the club

 

How many of the committee members were voted into their posts and how many were co-opted onto the committee? I asked that question yesterday - still no response. 

[Pidge]

26 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

Can see your point mate but with it being a loan is there really any risk? The club will pay it back and if they didn't for any reason who would that impact? SMISA as an entity not the fan ownership deal from what I can see. As far as I know the money comes from SMISA members and isn't in anyway related to the fan buyout stuff. Would probably say that's not really something we should have a vote on? SMISA as a fan club can surely spend the money in their account anyway they please? Maybe that's just me.

 

I agree there isn't any great risk involved in the actual lending of £15k to the club.  The arrangement worked fine with the dome.    

But the loan for the dome was to create infrastructure and a new revenue stream for the club that would benefit it for years to come.  Lending the club money just to maintain existing assets for me isnt what SMISA funds should be used for - but that is just one members opinion.  If it had been put to a vote then if the majority are happy for a USH loan to happen then I am happy.  However, the concern I have is that SMISA's board agreed to loan the club £15,000 of its members money without consulting the membership. 

[Ayrshire Saints]

1 hour ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 

Oh FFS. Did you miss the last two referendums where either side argued about the potential outcome?

Yep, definitely. St Mirren fans are too stupid for Fan Ownership

 

Of course we are.  We should leave it all to uber inteligent non supporters like..............................................

[barrhead saint]

44 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Absolutely Drew. There is a Fan Ownership bid just down the road from me here in Lanarkshire which already looks like it's been run by people more capable than the car crash SMiSA is turning out to be. 

I would have walked away from my SMiSA membership months ago but I held out hoping to see some proper astute leadership. Even 36 hours ago I was busy telling someone who was giving me an insight into the shambolic factions within the club that despite what he said I was going to persist with my membership in the hope that we'd see some change in the coming months. Today I've got three choices as I see it. 

1. Persist with my £25 per month membership in the hope that one day common sense will prevail. 

2. Reduce my membership down to the standard £12 per month as an act of protest against the actions of the SMiSA committee and to continue to argue from within for change. 

3. To give up and simply walk away. Cancel my SMiSA membership, admit Fan Ownership at St Mirren is a massive disaster, write off the money I've paid in already, and face up to the fact that as shite a Chairman as Stewart Gilmour was, and how much I always disagreed with him, the truth is there are many worse people that could be running the club - and that sadly most of them are holding positions of influence within the club. 

Sadly the dream of fresh ideas, prudent management, and "putting the club at the heart of the community" have all remained just that. A cruel con trick to make mugs like me part with our cash to help a millionaire play with a business with a £multi million turnover, enjoying free admission to matches all round the country, luxurious hospitality - put on for other millionaires within football -  no matter how much money they've had to beg for off the supporters, whilst putting on a turgid low quality show for the same hard pressed customers. 

It's a sad, sorry car crash. Mismanaged to f**k by people with an utterly myopic vision. What a sad day it is for the club I grew up supporting. 

You could put that to a vote. SMISA members only though !

[div]

1 minute ago, scabbydug37 said:

I will probably get dogs abuse for this.

Firstly, SMISA members elect a committee to act on behalf of them, but complain when they do act. A similar situation with UK Government, who have been elected by the public, but do what they think is OK for the country.

Secondly, when SMISA do get control of the Club, do members get a say in the running of the club? IMO, the committee (Directors) at that time will make decisions, which in their perception, benefits the club

 

Yeah I think that is fair enough mate. I've no problem with the board of the club or SMiSA making decisions as I trust the people involved to do what they think is in the best interests of the football club.

The loaning of money to fix the USH seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. If we have money sitting in the bank doing nothing, it seems sensible to me to remove the risk of frost for example causing the postponement of the Morton game on Hogmanay (although to be fair I've no idea if it will be fixed in time for that). The loan will be paid back, same as the loans were paid back to the previous directors who pitched in money when it was needed.

The spending of the discretionary pot on the wage bill is up to the members to decide. I've voted Yes, as I mentioned previously in my post, but if the majority vote no then I'm absolutely cool with that.

[BuddieinEK]

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.

This is the same loaded gun talk that Stuart Gilmour used when talking about The Rangers.

How did Armageddon work out?

[bazil85]

This is the same loaded gun talk that Stuart Gilmour used when talking about The Rangers.

How did Armageddon work out?

How is it in anyway similar? I'm for spending this money on players and don't see any great risk attached.

[kevo_smfc]

18 minutes ago, Eric Arthur Blair said:

Loan players who have barely featured under Ross, such as Walsh and Hardie, will almost certainly return to their parent club which should free up a bit of money to strengthen the squad.

I agree with that. Theres a possibility with Magennis just signing pro and McAllister hopefully to follow, these will be two senior places filled, with the extra cash from SMISA going towards either another loan or short term contract. 

[bazil85]

Cancelled also because of smug gits like you. 
Fecking superfan rank pullers 

Crazy! 10 year plan cancelled after 6 months. Hurting no one but your clubs long term plan because some fans have a different opinion from you.

Wait and I'll get my violin out for you!

[Wilbur]

My vote was No and No. These £2 contributions (as I understood it) were to be set aside from day-to-day costs and ring-fenced towards small improvements that would make a difference in some way.

I don't really go along with the argument that these are exceptional circumstances with the team sitting at the arse end of the league table. I'm struggling to remember the last season when that wasn't the case. On the field improvement is a matter for the football club to get right. SMiSA surplus funds should be spent elsewhere. Disappointed that SMiSA members weren't offered an alternative proposal for the funds.

Just my opinion of course.

[bazil85]

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

Haha is this guy serious? Comparing a fans contribution of £6 each to go towards enhancing the squad in January to the Russian president. Probably need someone's help to figure out how to cancel a direct debit pal!

[div]

1 minute ago, Wilbur said:

My vote was No and No. These £2 contributions (as I understood it) were to be set aside from day-to-day costs and ring-fenced towards small improvements that would make a difference in some way.

I don't really go along with the argument that these are exceptional circumstances with the team sitting at the arse end of the league table. I'm struggling to remember the last season when that wasn't the case. On the field improvement is a matter for the football club to get right. SMiSA surplus funds should be spent elsewhere. Disappointed that SMiSA members weren't offered an alternative proposal for the funds.

Just my opinion of course.

And a very valid opinion mate.

I can see both sides of this one, and I do definitely agree that there should have been alternative options on the ballot.

[bazil85]

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

No one is trying to silence your opposition to the proposal. People just think it's crazy that people like you are threatening to cancel your membership based on a democratic vote not going your way.

[Tommy]

With the lack of win bonuses that been paid this season, the club should have more than enough spare cash to pay for the USH without putting the begging bowl out.

[Gruffalo]

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

To state there would be challenges along the way on our journey to fan ownership seems already like a dim and distant little small print add on. I went into this with crystal clear vision and understanding that football clubs dont make money, they spend it, and the worst offenders spend their own and anyone elses money they can get their hands on, when it is obviously incapable of balancing its books.

bla bla bla

I actully thought it was in bank acounts to pay off our debts, and buy a majority shareholding in SMFC, not to make up the wage and maintenance bill of a multi million business! Still I am sure the directors will be matching everything Smisa funds?

For a guy that is a self-proclaimed business guru your post questions you knowledge of business.

If you are so against this proposal as a Committee Member of SMISA why did you allow the vote to be put to the members in the first place. Why was the club not told to go and do one ? Or was it a SMISA idea in the first place?

What evidence do you have that the club has abandoned their well-established business model of living within their means. Where have they squandered money. Oh they paid off the management team because we were heading to the bottom of the league.

Next you allude to the club rolling in money as there was cash in the bank at the end of the accounts. You well know that annual accounts are a snap shot on time they do not really reflect the true balance of a company. Accounts can be manipulated to say what you want. Your statement does not take in to account that last week I had a £100 in the bank. Therefore I am loaded. However on Monday I got a £500 electricity bill, 3 £80 parking tickets and SMISA took my £12 now I am declaring myself bankrupt.

Your next masterpiece to save money is to get rid of the ageing players from the squad by settling up their contracts. Firstly your cast offs were signed by the manager that you did not want paid off. Secondly to pay off their contracts does not save the club money. If I have a 2 year contract and you want me to go then please pay me my contract in full NOW then pay someone else to take my place in the squad or I sit the contract out after all I am ageing player who will not get another club.

You then ask the Directors to match the SMISA payment. For the record and avoidance of doubt Directors run a company Shareholders own a company. It’s the shareholders that should be matching the SMISA contribution not the Directors.  Oh wait you keep telling us SMISA own 29% of the shares with an intent to buy a further 51% therefore the money is being spent on the very item that SMISA will have to deal with in the future.

If your not happy with the way the club is being run you should be asking for the Directors to be replaced. There is an AGM on Monday go along and propose a vote. Problem is GLS owns 51% of the shares therefore he has the control of the vote and decides what happens to the club. SMISA knew that when they went into bed with him.

There is an undertone to you email that suggests that you have either an issue with GLS or members of the board put in place by GLS.

[Stuart Dickson]

33 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

Crazy! 10 year plan cancelled after 6 months. Hurting no one but your clubs long term plan because some fans have a different opinion from you.

Wait and I'll get my violin out for you!

 

I've cancelled mine too. The people hurting the club are the people who decided the members of SMiSA were their cash cow, there to be used to cover their inabilities to manage. 

[bazil85]

Daft as a brush. 

Well what you worried about now? You don't have a say or a vote anymore on matters like this.

Daft? Says the person that thinks investing in a player budget for a team bottom of the league is a bad idea. Hahaha you actually can't script it. Oh massive £6 per person gamble, so dangerous [emoji23]

[bazil85]

What? SMiSA is a fan club? FFS
SMiSA, incase you missed it, is an organisation set up within the Independent Supporters Association to buy shares in their football club to give members an influence in their own clubs boardroom and within football in general. SMiSA launched a fan ownership to buy outright control of the club. It's supposed to be using the money to buy shares in the club. Yet we learn last night that without any consent from any of the membership at all the committee has taken it on itself to give the club an interest free loan of £15,000 to put the undersoil heating back on - plant which we are told cost £4k to run every time the club wants to use it. This £15,000 soft loan comes directly from the funds banked to be used to purchase the said shares in the club. And then on top of that, and just to prove that Gordon Scott see's SMISA members as a cash cow to be milked as often as possible, there's a further request for SMiSA funds to be used to pay wages. 
Yep....too stupid to run a football club. 

Remember as well you pay £25 a month.

[Lord Pityme]

1 minute ago, Gruffalo said:

For a guy that is a self-proclaimed business guru your post questions you knowledge of business.

 

If you are so against this proposal as a Committee Member of SMISA why did you allow the vote to be put to the members in the first place. Why was the club not told to go and do one ? Or was it a SMISA idea in the first place?

 

What evidence do you have that the club has abandoned their well-established business model of living within their means. Where have they squandered money. Oh they paid off the management team because we were heading to the bottom of the league.

 

Next you allude to the club rolling in money as there was cash in the bank at the end of the accounts. You well know that annual accounts are a snap shot on time they do not really reflect the true balance of a company. Accounts can be manipulated to say what you want. Your statement does not take in to account that last week I had a £100 in the bank. Therefore I am loaded. However on Monday I got a £500 electricity bill, 3 £80 parking tickets and SMISA took my £12 now I am declaring myself bankrupt.

 

Your next masterpiece to save money is to get rid of the ageing players from the squad by settling up their contracts. Firstly your cast offs were signed by the manager that you did not want paid off. Secondly to pay off their contracts does not save the club money. If I have a 2 year contract and you want me to go then please pay me my contract in full NOW then pay someone else to take my place in the squad or I sit the contract out after all I am ageing player who will not get another club.

 

You then ask the Directors to match the SMISA payment. For the record and avoidance of doubt Directors run a company Shareholders own a company. It’s the shareholders that should be matching the SMISA contribution not the Directors.  Oh wait you keep telling us SMISA own 29% of the shares with an intent to buy a further 51% therefore the money is being spent on the very item that SMISA will have to deal with in the future.

 

If your not happy with the way the club is being run you should be asking for the Directors to be replaced. There is an AGM on Monday go along and propose a vote. Problem is GLS owns 51% of the shares therefore he has the control of the vote and decides what happens to the club. SMISA knew that when they went into bed with him.

 

There is an undertone to you email that suggests that you have either an issue with GLS or members of the board put in place by GLS.

 

Where to start with this personal attack?

i actually thought this was a thread to discuss:

A - a smisa vote in how the £2 pot should be spent

B - The smisa committee electing to loan the club £15k without consulting its members (quite a decision to take given the objects of the smisa constitution)

lets tackle A first, I will respect the outcome of the vote, whatever the members decide, it will be so. The wording and inference of the vote is highly evocative, and non-rational, suggesting only the Smisa members can save the season. Again complete rot! It was widely considered on here to be a squad capable of being competitive in this league even before we had outstanding youngsters stepping up to strengthen the first team squad.

the votes so far, and it would seem those to come are based solely on what the club is asking for at any given time, there is no plan being followed, no list of club-v-community competing priorities etc just whatever fire needs putting out. Many others on here are dissapointed, yet again there is no choice, just a highly evocative Yes/No.

B - Given the infancy of Smisa as is, the hope, expectation and desires of its members there is no good reason to take decisions to hand out substantial loans to businesses that appear to have a cash flow issue without first consulting those whose contributions, and interests you are responsible for representing. 

smisa, like it or not is a democratic, constitution led, independent trust, whose objects dictate that it should serve, involve and empower the community, whilst infuencing the sustainable and ethical running of the club.

Re: your first question and various other bits of your post, just to reiterate Smisa, committe and membership is a democratic, one member, one vote orginisation. i hope that is clear.

great to see you back trying to get a rise with all that GLS guff, for the record anyone that puts money into a scottish (at present) championship club needs their head examining, thats GLS, me and all the Smisa members, and wider fan base. KTF Gruffs!

[bazil85]

You could put that to a vote. SMISA members only though !

I know what I'd vote for, cancel your membership. Hopefully then he'd pipe down with his nonsense and slagging off other fans that want the best for this club.

[beyond our ken]

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

To state there would be challenges along the way on our journey to fan ownership seems already like a dim and distant little small print add on. I went into this with crystal clear vision and understanding that football clubs dont make money, they spend it, and the worst offenders spend their own and anyone elses money they can get their hands on, when it is obviously incapable of balancing its books.

So I believed and still do we could/can run the club differently, whilst meeting the challenges of cost, budget, turnover whilst involving the whole community to lift the club, town, team, and people

First thing that appealed to me in our current journey is to "live within our means", a phrase used time and again during "Buy The Buds" so I was pleasently surprised to see we had inherited a surplus at takeover with money in the bank, that I thought would be there for the unaccounted for expenses like USH repair, strengthening the squad in January, and actually building the disabled platform the previous owners abandoned after many promises.

within weeks though it seems the club board have totally abandoned the concept of "living within their means" and see whatever bank balance Smisa has as 'fair game' to plunder. First question is what happened to the surplus on the accounts?

does it currently reside in the bank accounts of messrs Rae & Farrell? Are they paid off in full, or is the club still paying them up in instalments. If ever there was a truly contradictory action to a commitment, then surely it was to say we have to live within our means, but then rack up the expense of paying off a management team, and hiring a new one after SIX league games.

Surely that was an act of folly, naivety, petulance, ego etc this club evidentially cannot afford?

Now it seems whatever the club ask for Smisa to fund... (which is bizarre when you think Smisa owes over £200k but is seen as an ethical choice to lend and seek funding from) they feel onliged to do. The whole concept of this ownership model to me was to put and keep the club on a sound financial footing, without throwing money down a pit, but it seems collectively most of us are doing, asking, suggesting that is what we do.

the club made profit in the last accounts, given where we are in the financial year a projection of end of year accounts would now be a fairly true reflection of the actuals at year end, so before we start throwing all sorts of money sticking plasters at it, should we not be asking for a full prognosis? What are the projected figures for year end, then a prudently run business can take decisions to cut costs if it is projected to miss target, or develop revenue streams to get back on track. Not pour petrol on the flames.

As a rule of thumb take a bankers approach to the club and finances, would they get a loan off a high street bank for the money they want from Smisa after full disclosure in their application???

Now the club need money seemingly just to pay wages, fix equipment etc. The Smisa members are in my opinion unfairly put in a yes/no postion in a highly evocative scenario, suggesting only their vote can "save our season"... what rot!

if Jack Ross was as billed a better manager than we sacked we would not be bottom feeding in a league with part time teams, if we need to free up funds lets start with the ageing goalkeeper who apparently is not going to play anymore, ditto the ageing centre back and the midfielder on a two year contract out on loan. Settle with them, and back the savings for essential needs. These things could 'Save our Season'...

however its a lot more easy to spend someone else's funds especially if you tweak that little think with the heart and not the head button of football fans. The vote and reasons why there even needs to be one are driven by failed business acumen, naivety, incompetence or a darker quest to control. 

The vote will be what it will be, the majority will decide, I and I suspect just about everyone lese will still be Fully paid up Smisa members, but the innocence, hope and lost belief that we are doing it differently will be damaged, and as sure as eggs are eggs they will be back for more, C'mon... why wouldn't they? The money as we are told is just sitting there.

I actully thought it was in bank acounts to pay off our debts, and buy a majority shareholding in SMFC, not to make up the wage and maintenance bill of a multi million business! Still I am sure the directors will be matching everything Smisa funds?

But you are on the SMISA committee, we're you not party to this proposal's development?

[shull]

47 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

Crazy! 10 year plan cancelled after 6 months. Hurting no one but your clubs long term plan because some fans have a different opinion from you.

Wait and I'll get my violin out for you!

 

Management hurt Clubs. 

Not fans. 

Dinnae need violins. 

Absolutely delighted not to be throwing any more money away. 

Fans buy Season Tickets. 

Managers spend the cash on the likes of Gow and other shit players. 

Stop pulling rank as a super dooper fan. 

We are all just fans. 

Albeit, you're a Dafty. 

[rebella15]

The bottom line is with the 2pound vote and the loan for the USH,  We the supporters , through SMiSA are investing in our club to maintain and improve the facilities so when we take over its not in the mess the previous board left it in .

[bazil85]

16 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

I've cancelled mine too. The people hurting the club are the people who decided the members of SMiSA were their cash cow, there to be used to cover their inabilities to manage. 

Joining the, I'm sure growing number of fans that are throwing St Mirren Football Club under the bus by cancelling their memberships.  All because you don't agree with the short term vision of the people in charge of the club in the short term. Good job!

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, shull said:

Management hurt Clubs. 

Not fans. 

Dinnae need violins. 

Absolutely delighted not to be throwing any more money away. 

Fans buy Season Tickets. 

Managers spend the cash on the likes of Gow and other shit players. 

Stop pulling rank as a super dooper fan. 

We are all just fans. 

Albeit, you're a Dafty. 

And if everyone followed your actions and cancelled memberships? Throwing your club under the bus because you're all upset that other fans might not vote the way you'd want them to. Boohoo, hope the teacher doesn't catch you on the internet during school time.