SMiSA's Latest Update

[Drew]

5 minutes ago, div said:

This. The constant threats of withdrawal of direct debits started almost as soon as the deal was done. It's absolutely no surprise to me or to anyone else who reads this forum regularly that the same voiciferous few who take every single possible opportunity to attack the club are the first ones to jump ship.

The vast majority of members are, I am sure, quite happy to know that their monthly contributions are making a positive difference to the club in the short term and in the longer term ensuring that the club will be owned by those that cherish it the most.

As I said earlier, look at the 5 months gone and what has been achieved.  Over £80K in funds raised by the supporters, helping fellow supporters, helping the football club, now possibly helping the manager. That's why I signed up to buy the buds, and speaking to many of my fellow buddies I know that's why they joined too.

 

 

I joined up in an effort to do my small bit towards securing the future of the club. Doing so, only to chuck it within a few months because I don't subscribe to absolutely everything that has happened since, would be the very antithesis of that, and would (quite justifiably) make me look more than a little foolish.

[bazil85]

This. The constant threats of withdrawal of direct debits started almost as soon as the deal was done. It's absolutely no surprise to me or to anyone else who reads this forum regularly that the same voiciferous few who take every single possible opportunity to attack the club are the first ones to jump ship.
The vast majority of members are, I am sure, quite happy to know that their monthly contributions are making a positive difference to the club in the short term and in the longer term ensuring that the club will be owned by those that cherish it the most.
As I said earlier, look at the 5 months gone and what has been achieved.  Over £80K in funds raised by the supporters, helping fellow supporters, helping the football club, now possibly helping the manager. That's why I signed up to buy the buds, and speaking to many of my fellow buddies I know that's why they joined too.
 
 

Very well said! Hopefully majority of the people signed up follow your sense and realise it's for the long term benefit of the club.

[HSS]

15 minutes ago, div said:

This. The constant threats of withdrawal of direct debits started almost as soon as the deal was done. It's absolutely no surprise to me or to anyone else who reads this forum regularly that the same voiciferous few who take every single possible opportunity to attack the club are the first ones to jump ship.

 

 

 

There are posters on here today celebrating that we have lost a £25 per month member.

Unbelievable.

[Stuart Dickson]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Very well said! Hopefully majority of the people signed up follow your sense and realise it's for the long term benefit of the club.

 

Long term benefit? Really? 

Fixing the undersoil heating appears to only be a priority because the board want to ensure a match against Morton goes ahead on Hogmany. Two weeks time is hardly long term. And any player signed by St Mirren in January is unlikely to get a contract that will last beyond the end of the season - quite simply because there is no guarantee that St Mirren will still be a First Division club next season. Five months is not long term. 

In comparison setting up community links with other sports clubs has a range of benefits from short term financial ones, to much longer term practical benefits too. But that kind of stuff isn't even being considered. SMiSA is not the organisation it promised to be. It's not open, it's not honest, it's not democratic, it's not committed to putting the club at the heart of the community and it's not focused on purchasing shares and getting fans a bigger voice on the football club board. Instead it's a con trick designed to extract more money in return for f**k all exploiting the naivety, stupidity and loyalty of some really gullible people. 

 

[bazil85]

There are posters on here today celebrating that we have lost a £25 per month member.

Unbelievable.

In the spirit of who that member is it's not surprising. He's mentioned dozens of times that he's a £25 member and threatened to cancel it pretty much from the second the deal went through. No way he had any intention of paying for full 10 years.

[Eaglesham saint]

7 hours ago, Drew said:

Ach well, the harmony was nice while it lasted

I didn't like it last week when we were all pals 

[bazil85]

Long term benefit? Really? 
Fixing the undersoil heating appears to only be a priority because the board want to ensure a match against Morton goes ahead on Hogmany. Two weeks time is hardly long term. And any player signed by St Mirren in January is unlikely to get a contract that will last beyond the end of the season - quite simply because there is no guarantee that St Mirren will still be a First Division club next season. Five months is not long term. 
In comparison setting up community links with other sports clubs has a range of benefits from short term financial ones, to much longer term practical benefits too. But that kind of stuff isn't even being considered. SMiSA is not the organisation it promised to be. It's not open, it's not honest, it's not democratic, it's not committed to putting the club at the heart of the community and it's not focused on purchasing shares and getting fans a bigger voice on the football club board. Instead it's a con trick designed to extract more money in return for f**k all exploiting the naivety, stupidity and loyalty of some really gullible people. 
 

I'm not talking about the undersoil heating or the wage fund. I'm talking about the long term goal to bring St Mirren football club into fan ownership. That will only be achieved by people sticking at this and realising that hard choices have to be made now but these choices are completely separate from the long term goal to have St Mirren as a fan owned team, appointing our own chairman and managing the club to the will of the majority of fans.

Scott and the board are doing their best and I completely agree that having to spend funds on players and undersoil heating isn't ideal it's the situation we find ourselves in. They can only do what they do with the hand we've been dealt now. Fans can democratically say no to the money going to Ross in January and the undersoil heating is only a loan.

Scott will make mistakes the board will make mistakes but it's all very short term, a decade is nothing in the grand scheme and I for one am willing to push through the hard times and help deliver what I think is best for my club. I'm not getting put off by someone who has said themselves won't be there after 10 years.

We are in a potentially fantastic position to deliver this in 6/7 years, there will be more funds to vote on or in April if the vote is a no there will be funds to vote on from this three months. I don't see your rational for cancelling for such short term problems at all.

[div]

17 minutes ago, HSS said:

There are posters on here today celebrating that we have lost a £25 per month member.

Unbelievable.

We lose and gain members every month. Most of those just leave and join without creating a massive fucking hoo-hah about it shouting LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME.

[stlucifer]

7 hours ago, Stu said:

Yeah, seems fair enough to me. If SMiSA are putting £20k or so into the club then the directors should be doing the same. Perhaps someone can raise this point at the AGM on Monday.

A million times this. Ultimately it's a loan, not as if this is money SMiSA are putting in that they won't see again. It's also going on infrastructure, rather than a gamble on the playing budget. I seem to remember from the last SMiSA AGM that the financial reserves are fairly healthy so the money might as well be used rather than sitting in a bank somewhere. Interesting though that the one man band in Hull can suddenly fit in some repairs in the last two weeks of the year.

The committee need to be given some discretion to make decisions. Where does it stop? If they want to sponsor a player should we be consulted? Perhaps we should be asked which player's shirt to sponsor.

While I am not going to argue with that statement, I would like to point out I am not you were not talking about me and my lawyers are taking a keen interest

Not in favour of the money going to the playing budget so will be voting against it. Not comfortable with the money being used in that way and I don't see £10k or whatever making a big difference over half a season. If others vote in favour of it then it goes through then fine. I won't be throwing my toys out the pram and cancelling my direct debit. Folk need to accept that on some occasions the decisions will go against you.

People are upset that this is the only option on the table, which is fair enough. It's clearly a divisive issue, which makes me wonder if that's why it's a yes or no question. If you put four or five other things on the table then you could see a transfer budget boost coming out on top despite only getting 30 or 40 per cent of the vote - fine if it's something not controversial like money for the disabled platform, however a bit of a nightmare for something like this. Having it a straight yes or no means they'll have a clear remit from members either way.

 

My bad. I forgot the D for head,... StuD. May I make it entirely clear that I was NOT talking about Stu without the D for head?

[Stuart Dickson]

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

In the spirit of who that member is it's not surprising. He's mentioned dozens of times that he's a £25 member and threatened to cancel it pretty much from the second the deal went through. No way he had any intention of paying for full 10 years.

I would have done if the vision that had been promised at the start was being delivered. I said all along the community element was absolutely vital to me remaining a member, and I warned that if the club targeted SMiSA funds for the repair of the under soil heating or for this ridiculous proposal of paying for players I would be out. 

Before the first vote I made a suggestion to SMiSA of one method of how the funds could be spent. The proposal would have seen a small outlay - not anywhere near the full £8k, a large engagement within the local community, and ultimately a return of the initial investment along with some profit that could be distributed to local good causes as SMiSA saw fit. The proposal didn't make it on to the ballot paper - and there was no explanation why not. 

Don't get me wrong I was and am delighted that the wheelchair users got their platform. I personally believe that should have been funded by the football club and not SMiSA members, but at least the money was going to a decent cause. But this months events are the last straw for me. It's a return to the last time I cancelled my SMiSA membership and the ridiculous and farcical wasting of membership money that was the t-shirts and towels saga. 

 

 

[shull]

59 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

So if every fan cancelled their membership today that wouldn't impact our club. My god I'm the thick one... really.

 

No it wouldn't. 

Why would it? 

The Club belongs to Gordon. 

He and his Board will set the agenda to keep St Mirren Football Club in business. 

SMISA are totally irrelevant presently as are all their members and super dooper uber fans who seem to think they are superior supporters than anybody else. 

Understand Dafty? 

[Stuart Dickson]

15 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

I'm not talking about the undersoil heating or the wage fund. I'm talking about the long term goal to bring St Mirren football club into fan ownership. That will only be achieved by people sticking at this and realising that hard choices have to be made now but these choices are completely separate from the long term goal to have St Mirren as a fan owned team, appointing our own chairman and managing the club to the will of the majority of fans.

Scott and the board are doing their best and I completely agree that having to spend funds on players and undersoil heating isn't ideal it's the situation we find ourselves in. They can only do what they do with the hand we've been dealt now. Fans can democratically say no to the money going to Ross in January and the undersoil heating is only a loan.

Scott will make mistakes the board will make mistakes but it's all very short term, a decade is nothing in the grand scheme and I for one am willing to push through the hard times and help deliver what I think is best for my club. I'm not getting put off by someone who has said themselves won't be there after 10 years.

We are in a potentially fantastic position to deliver this in 6/7 years, there will be more funds to vote on or in April if the vote is a no there will be funds to vote on from this three months. I don't see your rational for cancelling for such short term problems at all.

 

I don't think I would want my football club to be owned and run by the kind of people who are heading up SMiSA right now. 

Good luck to you and all that but you're going to be ridden hard and fast for a good number of years. 

[shull]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Can someone also remind Shull what the fans are trying to achieve over the next decade. I think he's forgot with his 'fans' can't hurt the club chat. Someone please go over fan ownership with him... slowly

Only Management can hurt the Club, not the fans. 

That's the third time I have telt you that, Bazil Daft As A Brush. 

Boom boom 

[saint in exile]

3 hours 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. 

Good.  Now f*ck off and leave the Forum to St Mirren fans.

[TsuMirren]

No it wouldn't. 
Why would it? 
The Club belongs to Gordon. 
He and his Board will set the agenda to keep St Mirren Football Club in business. 
SMISA are totally irrelevant presently as are all their members and super dooper uber fans who seem to think they are superior supporters than anybody else. 
Understand Dafty? 

You have absolutely lost it shull. Without SMISA and it's members there would have been no takeover. Without SMISA members there'd have been no disabled platform, for the simple reason that there'd have been no takeover. Stewart didn't approach Gordon, he approached SMISA and Gordon came on board after that. (You can read the full story in the Saint newspaper, available Saturday)

To go back a bit, to the demands that Stuart felt so important that he put them on an unofficial forum. Its my view that David Nicol is now attending committee meetings as a St Mirren director and that there are 12 committee members. The latest update has covered everything discussed, excluding information that has been deemed sensitive (that will happen from time to time). I have raised the issue of the minutes. The comment about not being democratic is mischievous as we have been democratic, albeit with the USH loan vote being amongst the committee. I also gave an open and factual update on the process there, which involved the information we had at the time and the knowledge/experience in the room.

[stlucifer]

7 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

 

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.

 

To translate.

 

Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, my "mate, me, me.

[bazil85]

No it wouldn't. 
Why would it? 
The Club belongs to Gordon. 
He and his Board will set the agenda to keep St Mirren Football Club in business. 
SMISA are totally irrelevant presently as are all their members and super dooper uber fans who seem to think they are superior supporters than anybody else. 
Understand Dafty? 

Aw so that's what you want Gordon Scott to own the club, this fan ownership thing to be completely scrapped. So in other words you want to hand the club to the person behind the request that made you cancel your fan ownership subscription? And I'm the daffy, turn it up.

[bazil85]

I don't think I would want my football club to be owned and run by the kind of people who are heading up SMiSA right now. 
Good luck to you and all that but you're going to be ridden hard and fast for a good number of years. 

Alternative?

[bazil85]

Anyone else starting to think Shull and Stuart are the same person? Complete and utter clueless trolls.

Would love to hear what they think would be a better alternative to fan ownership now that they no longer support it. I'll give them a minute to think about it (mumble into the mirror to himself)

[oaksoft]

6 hours ago, shull said:

Hallelujah. 

Got it at last. 

You're correct. 

THIS ISN'T A RAINY DAY

So keep the funds in the SMISA Bank till it's pishing cats n dugs. 

PLEASE DO NOT GAMBLE THE FANS MONEY. 

Ross will save the Team with ease without spending. 

Sorry for my tone, but you deserve it. 

FFS 

Dont you think that the minute you cancelled your direct debit you lost the right to have a say about how SMISA spends money?

[oaksoft]

5 hours 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. 

Ah Dicko, Dicko, you were ALWAYS going to cancel your direct debit.

Going for the £25 option allowed you to blow smoke up your own arse about your committment to the club. It allowed you to feel justified in making very public attempts at trying to control the agenda. This was a no lose for you. You knew that if people at the club listened to you that you could claim to have influence. If they ignored you, you could through a strop, cancel your direct debit and get attention that way. Now the problem is that, like shull, you have lost the right to have a voice over what SMISA now do.

[Stuart Dickson]

17 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 

You have absolutely lost it shull. Without SMISA and it's members there would have been no takeover. Without SMISA members there'd have been no disabled platform, for the simple reason that there'd have been no takeover. Stewart didn't approach Gordon, he approached SMISA and Gordon came on board after that. (You can read the full story in the Saint newspaper, available Saturday)

To go back a bit, to the demands that Stuart felt so important that he put them on an unofficial forum. Its my view that David Nicol is now attending committee meetings as a St Mirren director and that there are 12 committee members. The latest update has covered everything discussed, excluding information that has been deemed sensitive (that will happen from time to time). I have raised the issue of the minutes. The comment about not being democratic is mischievous as we have been democratic, albeit with the USH loan vote being amongst the committee. I also gave an open and factual update on the process there, which involved the information we had at the time and the knowledge/experience in the room.

 

So 13 committee members then - I read the job description. In breach of their own constitution. 

Can you tell me how many members of the commitee were co-opted on and how many are there having been elected? 

[bazil85]

So 13 committee members then - I read the job description. In breach of their own constitution. 
Can you tell me how many members of the commitee were co-opted on and how many are there having been elected? 

It's none of your concern you aren't a member anymore. Hey wait I know you, were you not that guy that paid £25 a month?

[TsuMirren]

So 13 committee members then - I read the job description. In breach of their own constitution. 
Can you tell me how many members of the commitee were co-opted on and how many are there having been elected? 

12 and David being there as the link. 2 co-opted, the others having been voted on at the last AGM is my understanding.

[oaksoft]

7 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

So 13 committee members then - I read the job description. In breach of their own constitution. 

Can you tell me how many members of the commitee were co-opted on and how many are there having been elected? 

Too late for all this Stuart. You have no right to question any of this now as you are no longer a paid up member.