John McGinn

[Drew]

4 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Oh shoosh! Not to mention, you can save your disappointment. The deal is a ten year commitment, individuals can make their own choice regaring theirs. 

Paul is a good mate of mine (we're in a clique, FFS), but I think it is fine to be disappointed when people pull out. As fine as it is for folk to exercise their prerogative to do just that.

I've already indicated that I'm pretty laid back about how things are administered. Maybe that's just me, but this seems like a potential once in a lifetime opportunity (warts and all) to achieve something special for our club, and to achieve that together. As long as the long term goal isn't lost, and the good of the club is at the centre of what we do, I hope that folk will stick it out.

[TsuMirren]

2 minutes ago, Drew said:

Paul is a good mate of mine (we're in a clique, FFS), but I think it is fine to be disappointed when people pull out. As fine as it is for folk to exercise their prerogative to do just that.

I've already indicated that I'm pretty laid back about how things are administered. Maybe that's just me, but this seems like a potential once in a lifetime opportunity (warts and all) to achieve something special for our club, and to achieve that together. As long as the long term goal isn't lost, and the good of the club is at the centre of what we do, I hope that folk will stick it out.

Which they will. Tony and Dicko's monumental bull aside, there's nothing that I can see which will lead to numbers dropping below 1,000. A committee of 2 could facilitate that, especially as it's obvious the drive is to fund the club prior to actually buying the club and be genuinely fan owned. 

[pozbaird]

44 minutes ago, div said:

 

Genuinely puzzled by this and anyone else who has chucked Buy The Buds for any other reason than personal finance situation changing, or death.

I saw it as a ten year commitment and hopefully the vast majority did too.

Disappointed to see this!!

 

If you thnk it’s disappointing, fair enough. That is your right, you are perfectly entitled to it. Equally, I am perfectly entitled to feel that the scheme is no longer something I wish to be part of. I haven’t hid the fact, I posted ages ago that I was no longer a member of SMiSA. No toys were hurled anywhere either, it was a calculated decision.

As I said, hope it succeeds, to wish anything else for it would be more than churlish, it would be downright twisted.

[div]

Pretty sure people that have put their money in are entitled to feel aggrieved at how it’s being managed and therefore subsequently cancel their £12 DD.
 
We find ourselves in a situation where money that was ring fenced for the sole purpose of purchasing shares and nothing other than the purchase of shares is now being eaten up to pay for a new surface at Ralston, I personally feel this should be at the clubs expense and not the fans. Hence why people feel the need to pull the plug.
 
I still pay my £12 but have been seriously considering cancelling. Frustrated at the fact every single quarterly spend gets thrown away at a handful pointless projects.
 
Understandably this has all been put through via a democratic vote but frustrated nonetheless.

Well yeah but we all signed up on the basis that our commitment was to deliver fan ownership of the club.

We all signed up on the basis that there would be some decisions taken, by a democratic vote, along the way. It does without saying that we might not agree with the majority on said votes.

If folk are cancelling because a vote or decision was taken that they don’t agree with, then I assume they no longer agree with the concept of fan ownership?

If everyone f**ked off out of this thing then what would happen? The fans would have no say at all in the running of the club?

Seems pretty bonkers to sign up for fan ownership, then to walk away from fan ownership because you don’t like a decision that’s taken by the club during the period it isn’t under fan ownership!!

I’m glad you’re still on board buddie, and hope you remain so.

[div]

Oh shoosh! Not to mention, you can save your disappointment. The deal is a ten year commitment, individuals can make their own choice regaring theirs. 

Sure they can, doesn’t mean I can’t be disappointed in fellow buddies walking away from fan ownership.

You’re either behind it or you’re not.

[pozbaird]

6 minutes ago, div said:

 

Well yeah but we all signed up on the basis that our commitment was to deliver fan ownership of the club.

We all signed up on the basis that there would be some decisions taken, by a democratic vote, along the way. It does without saying that we might not agree with the majority on said votes.

If folk are cancelling because a vote or decision was taken that they don’t agree with, then I assume they no longer agree with the concept of fan ownership?

If everyone f**ked off out of this thing then what would happen? The fans would have no say at all in the running of the club?

Seems pretty bonkers to sign up for fan ownership, then to walk away from fan ownership because you don’t like a decision that’s taken by the club during the period it isn’t under fan ownership!!

I’m glad you’re still on board buddie, and hope you remain so.

 

Maybe if enough folk fcuked off out of the thing, they might think about skewed voting processes that perhaps veered towards emotional blackmail, or think twice about money ring-fenced for share purchase being used for ANYTHING else. I have never once urged anyone else to withdraw from the scheme, nor would I. It’s my call mate, and I made it, and I stand by it 100%. Bonkers.... wasn’t that a hip hop crap single? 

[pozbaird]

8 minutes ago, div said:

 

Sure they can, doesn’t mean I can’t be disappointed in fellow buddies walking away from fan ownership.

You’re either behind it or you’re not.
 

 

It just cannot be as black and white as that. No matter what the club BoD or SMiSA do, you’re either behind it or you’re not?

[div]

Maybe if enough folk fcuked off out of the thing, they might think about skewed voting processes that perhaps veered towards emotional blackmail, or think twice about money ring-fenced for share purchase being used for ANYTHING else. I have never once urged anyone else to withdraw from the scheme, nor would I. It’s my call mate, and I made it, and I stand by it 100%. Bonkers.... wasn’t that a hip hop crap single? 

That’s the point mate, the ring fenced funds ARENT being used for anything else. We can’t buy any more shares at the moment so £50K that would otherwise have sat in the Bank is being used as a loan to the club, and will be paid back in FULL through the discretionary spend fund.

I genuinely don’t really see why this became such an enormous issue for some folk.

Hopefully sensible people like you will in time reconsider as it worries me greatly to see good people abandoning ship.

[pozbaird]

8 minutes ago, div said:

 

That’s the point mate, the ring fenced funds ARENT being used for anything else. We can’t buy any more shares at the moment so £50K that would otherwise have sat in the Bank is being used as a loan to the club, and will be paid back in FULL through the discretionary spend fund.

I genuinely don’t really see why this became such an enormous issue for some folk.

Hopefully sensible people like you will in time reconsider as it worries me greatly to see good people abandoning ship.

 

......and my point is that being left sat in the bank is exactly where that 50k should be. At the very, very least, the question asked should have been ‘Do you agree in principle for these funds to be used for other purposes, those purposes will be put to the members to vote yes or no as they see fit’.

The whole thing was deliberately skewed. To think that even before asking members if it was OK to dip into their momey, the club, SMiSA, and one must assume, Jack Ross, had all discussed behind closed doors a specific item that they wanted it for?

You’re disappointed I withdrew from the scheme, and I’m disapponted that you think I’m bonkers for feeling the way I did.

Let’s call it a 1-1 draw then and decide it on yellow cards. You go Senegal and I’ll go Japan.

Edited June 28, 2018 by pozbaird

[pozbaird]

Annyywayy... have Hibs not sold meatball heid’ yet? 

[TediousTom]

24 minutes ago, div said:



Sure they can, doesn’t mean I can’t be disappointed in fellow buddies walking away from fan ownership.

You’re either behind it or you’re not.
 

Correct and I am not

 

Any working  class person investing in something for ten years that will offer no financial return is an idiot.  Gordon Scott clearly agrees hence why he would appear to be such a canny investor (that American fund management company sponsoring our clubs shirt is for no benefit at all is it?).  Not to mention him bringing Alan Wardrop onto the board (who appears to run some sort of investment management company). ...people like Gordon look after money and thats why they have it, many of us just want our name on a wall!!!!!

 

Just my opinion though, Smisa can milk the working class man for his cash (and childrens futures, at least in part) with promises of grandeur etc whilst pissing money that really doesnt belong to them on stadium repairs.   Undoubtedly they will continue  swooning over the more wealthy premium members amongst them and I wont criticise anyone for pissing money away in such a stupid manner.  Yes your name is on a wall whilst your children inherit nothing from you except a zero hours contract because you once voted Labour but hey I would never pass judgement.   You manage your money how you like, you drink what you want, smoke if you want and spend your cash how you want.  You have nothing to worry about, you will live forever, you will win tte lottery one day and pensions will be massive before long (not that you will need it)....or your children will have to accept a council house in Greenock because you died, left them nothing except an ongoing direct debit payment to Smisa who really are brilliant and not dishonest at all.

 

Jog on Smisa, jog on indeed.

 

PS  Some John McGinn money would be lovely, just to keep it on topic y'all

Edited June 28, 2018 by TediousTom

[div]

2 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

......and my point is that being left sat in the bank is exactly where that 50k should be. At the very, very least, the question asked should have been ‘Do you agree in principle for these funds to be used for other purposes, those purposes will be put to the members to vote yes or no as they see fit’.

The whole thing was deliberately skewed. To think that even before asking members if it was OK to dip into their momey, the club, SMiSA, and one must assume, Jack Ross, had all discussed behind closed doors a specific item that they wanted it for?

You’re disappointed I withdrew from the scheme, and I’m disapponted that you think I’m bonkers for feeling the way I did.

Let’s call it a 1-1 draw then and decide it on yellow cards. You go Senegal and I’ll go Japan.

Yeah we will need to agree to disagree on this one. The asset we are investing in is the football club.

The club wanted help, asked for help, and SMiSA were in a position to help.

The majority voted in favour of them helping and the nett result is that the club is in a healthier state and there will be no impact whatsoever on the share purchase plan.

Anyway, McGinn windfall comes in, I agree we should get our £50K back earlier.

[pozbaird]

3 minutes ago, div said:

Yeah we will need to agree to disagree on this one. The asset we are investing in is the football club.

The club wanted help, asked for help, and SMiSA were in a position to help.

The majority voted in favour of them helping and the nett result is that the club is in a healthier state and there will be no impact whatsoever on the share purchase plan.

Anyway, McGinn windfall comes in, I agree we should get our £50K back earlier.

If there’s a McGinn windfall, use 50k of it for the threadbare astroturf, split the rest between Stubbsy’s transfer warchest and any stadium improvement GLS has in mind. My suggestion would be towards replacing the clearly unfit for purpose burst balloon that resides behind the North Stand.

[TsuMirren]

2 minutes ago, div said:

Yeah we will need to agree to disagree on this one. The asset we are investing in is the football club.

The club wanted help, asked for help, and SMiSA were in a position to help.

The majority voted in favour of them helping and the nett result is that the club is in a healthier state and there will be no impact whatsoever on the share purchase plan.

Anyway, McGinn windfall comes in, I agree we should get our £50K back earlier.

You, of course, have failed to understand the definition of impact. What you mean is no detrimental impact whatsoever. The plan is ahead of schedule, there is no will to complete early and memhers should be pushing for either early completion or the implementation of a float fund for use post-completion...communication by e-mail of course.

[div]

23 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

You, of course, have failed to understand the definition of impact. What you mean is no detrimental impact whatsoever. The plan is ahead of schedule, there is no will to complete early and memhers should be pushing for either early completion or the implementation of a float fund for use post-completion...communication by e-mail of course.

"Of course"

I'm just plain old stupid, but I do know one thing, and that's when fan ownership is delivered I'll be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other 1200 or so of us who saw it through!

[salmonbuddie]

Correct and I am not
 
Any working  class person investing in something for ten years that will offer no financial return is an idiot.  Gordon Scott clearly agrees hence why he would appear to be such a canny investor (that American fund management company sponsoring our clubs shirt is for no benefit at all is it?).  Not to mention him bringing Alan Wardrop onto the board (who appears to run some sort of investment management company). ...people like Gordon look after money and thats why they have it, many of us just want our name on a wall!!!!!
 
Just my opinion though, Smisa can milk the working class man for his cash (and childrens futures, at least in part) with promises of grandeur etc whilst pissing money that really doesnt belong to them on stadium repairs.   Undoubtedly they will continue  swooning over the more wealthy premium members amongst them and I wont criticise anyone for pissing money away in such a stupid manner.  Yes your name is on a wall whilst your children inherit nothing from you except a zero hours contract because you once voted Labour but hey I would never pass judgement.   You manage your money how you like, you drink what you want, smoke if you want and spend your cash how you want.  You have nothing to worry about, you will live forever, you will win tte lottery one day and pensions will be massive before long (not that you will need it)....or your children will have to accept a council house in Greenock because you died, left them nothing except an ongoing direct debit payment to Smisa who really are brilliant and not dishonest at all.
 
Jog on Smisa, jog on indeed.
 
PS  Some John McGinn money would be lovely, just to keep it on topic y'all

I usually enjoy your essays, TT, but this really is a pile of wanky pish ([emoji767] sandman iirc).

Am I working class? I think so, smart, well educated and well paid but still working class. A financial return isn't everything, you know, my son and grandson will inherit the ability to have a love of the club from me and that's a legacy right there. Imo, in part anyway, because I've chosen to pay for it via SMISA.

Have I ever voted Labour? Nope, I'm a socialist who realised 40 years ago that we would never have a socialist government in the UK and has voted for the only way we in Scotland can ever have one since then.

Will I live forever? Nope, hopefully long enough to see a successful buy out, though.

Will I win the lottery? Nope, I'd need to start buying a ticket first.

A massive pension? Nope, and my son will be 70 before he gets one.

A council house in Greenock? Nope. Just nope.

SMISA could be described as many things, dishonest is most definitely not one of those things. Brilliant? In theory, yes, in practice, like all of us, it has its faults. I'd rather be inside trying to fix the faults than outside pointing them out, though.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

14 hours ago, pod said:

Why, is the stadium needing redeveloped. 

That's very easy answered.  Send a e-mail to Gordon Scott. 

[beyond our ken]

14 hours ago, oaksoft said:

This might not be a sexy use of money but it is an excellent idea.

Anything which "sweats the asset" of our stadium and surrounding land should be a very high priority. We cannot be dependent on fan numbers or TV revenue.

Sweating the asset means working it in to the ground without investing in or maintaining it.

 

[pozbaird]

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I would say that death is the ultimate change in your personal finance situation.

 

Indeed. I’m off next week to change my name by deed poll to Elvis Bowie... take care of the family no sweat.

[Soctty]

I pay my money every month to SMiSA to help fund the buyout in time. I vote for what I see fit for spending on every three months. I don't see the need to moan about what the money is spent on if it's not spent the way I want it, because I'm only putting in £12 a month, and realise that the majority will see their wishes adhered to.

In my humble opinion, you either want to help fund the buyout of the club or you don't. Too many want a wee moan, and pull out their money at the first sign of the SMiSA doing something they don't agree with, from what I've seen over the past two years. It's tiresome, but like everyone else on the forum, their voices deserve to be heard - unless  I stick them on ignore, which I have done on several occasions...

[pozbaird]

16 minutes ago, Soctty said:

I pay my money every month to SMiSA to help fund the buyout in time. I vote for what I see fit for spending on every three months. I don't see the need to moan about what the money is spent on if it's not spent the way I want it, because I'm only putting in £12 a month, and realise that the majority will see their wishes adhered to.

In my humble opinion, you either want to help fund the buyout of the club or you don't. Too many want a wee moan, and pull out their money at the first sign of the SMiSA doing something they don't agree with, from what I've seen over the past two years. It's tiresome, but like everyone else on the forum, their voices deserve to be heard - unless  I stick them on ignore, which I have done on several occasions...

There does seem to be a view that if you decide to withdraw from the scheme, then you’re a moaner who chucked it at the first sign that you weren’t getting things your own way. If that’s the way I am personally being looked at, frankly, I will not be losing one iota of sleep over it. Anyway, I thought having a seat-specific ST made me a better fan than the next guy, apparently not. There’s some in the Buy the Buds scheme way above me, by the looks of things.  

Edited June 29, 2018 by pozbaird

[bazil85]

16 hours ago, pozbaird said:

Any substantial ‘windfall’ from a McGinn transfer would surely negate the need to pilfer SMiSA money, ring-fenced for share purchase purpose, to fund astroturf repairs at Ralston. If we receive (hypothetically) one million quid, it would surely amount to a disgrace to still use SMiSA funds for such a purpose.

SMISA funds should be used for the purposes the paying members want them to be used for. All votes have suggested aspects that benefit SMFC are the most popular. 

[madball]

12 hours ago, div said:

Well yeah but we all signed up on the basis that our commitment was to deliver fan ownership of the club.

 

 

 

My sign-up was a bit more nuanced than the end game of fan ownership being the driver. My sign-up was on the initial basis of acquiring significant block of shares becoming fan-controlled to prohibit someone having ability to own 75% outright, following that I always had the intention of reviewing my contribution and evaluating whether fan ownership, in the model proposed, is something I wished to continue with.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

33 minutes ago, Soctty said:

I pay my money every month to SMiSA to help fund the buyout in time. I vote for what I see fit for spending on every three months. I don't see the need to moan about what the money is spent on if it's not spent the way I want it, because I'm only putting in £12 a month, and realise that the majority will see their wishes adhered to.

In my humble opinion, you either want to help fund the buyout of the club or you don't. Too many want a wee moan, and pull out their money at the first sign of the SMiSA doing something they don't agree with, from what I've seen over the past two years. It's tiresome, but like everyone else on the forum, their voices deserve to be heard - unless  I stick them on ignore, which I have done on several occasions...

This. It's less than 1 pint a week to get the club handed over to fan ownership. Like some have said this will pass on to my daughter and hopefully her children. As for squabbling over where 25p a week goes really ? 

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, madball said:

My sign-up was a bit more nuanced than the end game of fan ownership being the driver. My sign-up was on the initial basis of acquiring significant block of shares becoming fan-controlled to prohibit someone having ability to own 75% outright, following that I always had the intention of reviewing my contribution and evaluating whether fan ownership, in the model proposed, is something I wished to continue with.

I've had this from a few people before. The nature of this POV is not understanding the contractual terms. It makes very little sense for two reasons: 

1. You would need everyone else or at least a substantial majority to bail out with you at the same time to actually stop BTB from happening at the point over 25% (in your theory) are controlled. Stopping memberships for this reason if a majority didn't join you would just weaken the finances, slow fan ownership down slightly and ultimately imapct St Mirren more than any other stakeholder. It won't deliver any goal that stops BTB

2. More importantly, even if everyone pulls out at the last minute it wouldn't mean 25% or above of shares were owned by fans. The contractual terms would not be fulfilled and there would be nothing to stop a controlling party pulling the plug on the whole thing, refund SMISA the money and sell the shares to another party. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by bazil85