John McGinn

[faraway saint]

38 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Oh to be so bitter over a democratic vote going against you. I hope for your family and friends sake you were a no voting brexit fan. 

Eh? 

 

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Eh? 

 

That was meant to be a response to Poz, my bad 

[TediousTom]

On 6/29/2018 at 7:05 AM, salmonbuddie said:

 

 

I usually enjoy your essays, TT, but this really is a pile of wanky pish ( 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.

 

Well you are entitled to your opinion as am I.

 

Your typed lambast of me has of course proven popular as one must never be allowed to type any form of critique of the Smisa overlords.  Any Smisa fanmail is fawned over by the deluded masses who have signed up to give hard earned money to an organisation who must be obeyed.  If I have read any of this correctly Smisa have taken money from  inverstors promising some sort of "ring fencing" for shares.  That is fine of course but it would appear that this "fence of steel" has been breached and Smisa appear wiling to use that once ring fenced money for another purpose.  Well that is theft and nothing more.  To take money promising it will be for a specific purpose and then to go back on that promise is, well very Labour government of them.    Of course Smisa followers will hear none of it, at the end of the day many of you have your name on a wall and that is great.

 

Anyway it is nice to hear that you regard yourself as financially secure, well done.  Is every Smisa follower financially secure?  Could perhaps some Smisa members families benefit from an investment with an actual return rather than a very expensive inscription a wall and a licence for a select few to play in the directors lounge?  Are Smisa some sort of elaborate fraudulent scheme?  I think it is cheeky as fcuk to ask any hard working fan to finance the jollies of a select few for a period of ten years but hey what would I know, I am just a lifelong fan who faithfullly bought shares, purchases a season book every year and loves the club dearly.  As unimportant as I am I will damn Smisa to hell if/when it unravels as a fraudulent scheme preying on the financial stupidity of men and women who were duped into thinking they were financing something great.  Lets just hope some family somewhere isnt struggling financially whilst Smisa carries out monthly raids  on the bank accounts of parents/grandparents who's only crime in life is being easily led.

 

I wonder how much Smisa would sell that wall for?  I wonder how long that wall will actually stand?  I wonder what other "ring fenced" promises will be made and broken?

 

Anyway well done my friend and I am glad you occasionally enjoy my contributions to this fine little forum of ours.  I am confident you will not enjoy my rantings/scribblings/well constructed thoughts/gibberish with regard to Smisa.  But hey lets hope Smisa is not a scam and these broken promises are being mis-reported.  Let us hope Smisa is not an elaborate fraud, let us hope indeed. 

Edited to add:- Oh and just to stay on topic, John McGinn is still a cracking player, lets hope for a big wedge of cash and we can "ring fence" it because once something is "ring fenced" it cannot be used for another purpose can it?

Edited June 30, 2018 by TediousTom

[salmonbuddie]

Well you are entitled to your opinion as am I.
 
Your typed lambast of me has of course proven popular as one must never be allowed to type any form of critique of the Smisa overlords.  Any Smisa fanmail is fawned over by the deluded masses who have signed up to give hard earned money to an organisation who must be obeyed.  If I have read any of this correctly Smisa have taken money from  inverstors promising some sort of "ring fencing" for shares.  That is fine of course but it would appear that this "fence of steel" has been breached and Smisa appear wiling to use that once ring fenced money for another purpose.  Well that is theft and nothing more.  To take money promising it will be for a specific purpose and then to go back on that promise is, well very Labour government of them.    Of course Smisa followers will hear none of it, at the end of the day many of you have your name on a wall and that is great.
 
Anyway it is nice to hear that you regard yourself as financially secure, well done.  Is every Smisa follower financially secure?  Could perhaps some Smisa members families benefit from an investment with an actual return rather than a very expensive inscription a wall and a licence for a select few to play in the directors lounge?  Are Smisa some sort of elaborate fraudulent scheme?  I think it is cheeky as fcuk to ask any hard working fan to finance the jollies of a select few for a period of ten years but hey what would I know, I am just a lifelong fan who faithfullly bought shares, purchases a season book every year and loves the club dearly.  As unimportant as I am I will damn Smisa to hell if/when it unravels as a fraudulent scheme preying on the financial stupidity of men and women who were duped into thinking they were financing something great.  Lets just hope some family somewhere isnt struggling financially whilst Smisa carries out monthly raids  on the bank accounts of parents/grandparents who's only crime in life is being easily led.
 
I wonder how much Smisa would sell that wall for?  I wonder how long that wall will actually stand?  I wonder what other "ring fenced" promises will be made and broken?
 
Anyway well done my friend and I am glad you occasionally enjoy my contributions to this fine little forum of ours.  I am confident you will not enjoy my rantings/scribblings/well constructed thoughts/gibberish with regard to Smisa.  But hey lets hope Smisa is not a scam and these broken promises are being mis-reported.  Let us hope Smisa is not an elaborate fraud, let us hope indeed. 
Edited to add:- Oh and just to stay on topic, John McGinn is still a cracking player, lets hope for a big wedge of cash and we can "ring fence" it because once something is "ring fenced" it cannot be used for another purpose can it?

Lambast? Hardly, it was a measured response to the wanky pish you came out with and countered every point you raised. You're entitled to your opinions, Tom, equally others are entitled to theirs.

If people find themselves struggling to make the payment then they stop making the payment. It's not hard.

Let's agree to disagree about the ring fencing issue, you're not directly affected by it anyway, and a majority of those who are directly affected are content with the decision.

As someone said elsewhere, SMISA's a means to ensure that the majority shareholding can never be held by any individual or group who may want to exploit the club's assets, it's a means to ensure a healthy future for the club we all love. From the inside, I will do my utmost to make sure that this is what happens. From the outside, you're powerless.

On topic, we could use the cash from selling the wall to buy the wheelbarrows for the McGinn cash?

[stlucifer]

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 10:51 AM, pozbaird said:

SMiSA members can vote for any option presented to them, and whatever the result is, the result is. I am not disagreeing with any of that. For the one millionth time, can you understand that my personal opinion, and it is only that, is that I found it unpalatable that before even asking if it was OK to access certain monies for any purpose other than what they were clearly ring-fenced for, a specific project had been discussed, and that project fast-tracked itself to the vote, completely bypassing what (again my opinion) should have been the first thing asked.

I’m not asking you to agree, and I’m certainly hoping you do not respond (for the millionth time) by saying ‘but there was a vote, do you want two votes?’.... clearly, YES, I expected two votes. First, ask if members would sanction use of monies in such a way, then, and only then, put their proposals for specific spend on the table....

All I’m asking is that even if you don’t agree with me, can you at least understand my view on it. That’s all.

I am asking this with no animosity Poz. I observe by your contributions that you are no fool.

How could a recommendation be put forward if no one knew what was wanted/needed? Surely prior discussions with the parties would need to take place before any question could have been put to the members. Or is it your opinion that the committee should have come to the membership and asked if it was ok to talk to the club IF they came to them to ask for assistance before knowing the club would ask the question?

[rabuddies]

Are we talking here about the same John McGinn that used to play for us?

[pozbaird]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

I am asking this with no animosity Poz. I observe by your contributions that you are no fool.

How could a recommendation be put forward if no one knew what was wanted/needed? Surely prior discussions with the parties would need to take place before any question could have been put to the members. Or is it your opinion that the committee should have come to the membership and asked if it was ok to talk to the club IF they came to them to ask for assistance before knowing the club would ask the question?

No animosity taken. I disagree with Div and my mate Drew on this, but there’s absolutely no animosity and the next time I see them at a game, we will most likely discuss events ON the park and won’t even mention off the field stuff.

I genuinely think my position on this is crystal clear. As I have said many times, I don’t expect or ask anyone to agree, and I wish the scheme all the best in my absence. I really do not know how clear I can make it, but here it is again.

Monies were ring-fenced for share purchase. The club, instead of allowing this ring-fenced money to ‘gather dust in the bank’, wanted to use it for something other than the purpose it was intended. IMHO the chain of events then should have been to inform members that this was their intention, and have a vote to see the percentage of SMiSA members who sanctioned using their money for any other purpose. At this point, NO specific project should even have been put out there. IF the club received a ‘yes’ vote allowing that money to be used, THEN the club had a mandate to sit down and say ‘astroturf, fixing the airdome, upgrading the cookers in hospitality, signing Lionel Messi....’ what do we want to put to the members now that we’ve got their OK to do something with that money.

In my opinion, the way they went about it was not the way I think people in their position should go about their business. I think discussing astroturf before even asking for members permission to even TOUCH their money was at best poor form. I think it skewed the vote. It was, in my opnion, a foregone conclusion that the vote was a ‘yes’ vote. The fact that it was a benefit to Jack Ross who wanted it made it a shoe-in. Of course, the club need to do what they can to help Jack Ross, or Sir Stubbsy, but IMHO using money ring-fenced for share purchase is not the way they should have went about it. Not even borrowing it, dipping into it, or doing a single thing with it rather than what it was meant for. I find the fact they all talked about the astroturf in regard to this money rather distasteful and disrespectful to those who had paid that portion of their monies for one clear purpose. Clearly, many SMiSA members do not find it disrespectful, or poor form, or anything. That’s entirely their perogative and I respect that.

No-one needs to agree with it, but I firmly believe I have made a crystal clear case of why I absolutely disagreed with the way the club acted in this regard. No-one need follow me in leaving, no-one need agree, no animosity.

Gie’s a signing.

Edited June 30, 2018 by pozbaird

[BuddieinEK]

No animosity taken. I disagree with Div and my mate Drew on this, but there’s absolutely no animosity and the next time I see them at a game, we will most likely discuss events ON the park and won’t even mention off the field stuff.
I genuinely think my position on this is crystal clear. As I have said many times, I don’t expect or ask anyone to agree, and I wish the scheme all the best in my absence. I really do not know how clear I can make it, but here it is again.
Monies were ring-fenced for share purchase. The club, instead of allowing this ring-fenced money to ‘gather dust in the bank’, wanted to use it for something other than the purpose it was intended. IMHO the chain of events then should have been to inform members that this was their intention, and have a vote to see the percentage of SMiSA members who sanctioned using their money for any other purpose. At this point, NO specific project should even have been put out there. IF the club received a ‘yes’ vote allowing that money to be used, THEN the club had a mandate to sit down and say ‘astroturf, fixing the airdome, upgrading the cookers in hospitality, signing Lionel Messi....’ what do we want to put to the members now that we’ve got their OK to do something with that money.
In my opinion, the way they went about it was not the way I think people in their position should go about their business. I think discussing astroturf before even asking for members permission to even TOUCH their money was at best poor form. I think it skewed the vote. It was, in my opnion, a foregone conclusion that the vote was a ‘yes’ vote. The fact that it was a benefit to Jack Ross who wanted it made it a shoe-in. Of course, the club need to do what they can to help Jack Ross, or Sir Stubbsy, but IMHO using money ring-fenced for share purchase is not the way they should have went about it. Not even borrowing it, dipping into it, or doing a single thing with it rather than what it was meant for. I find the fact they all talked about the astroturf in regard to this money rather distasteful and disrespectful to those who had paid that portion of their monies for one clear purpose. Clearly, many SMiSA members do not find it disrespectful, or poor form, or anything. That’s entirely their perogative and I respect that.
No-one needs to agree with it, but I firmly believe I have made a crystal clear case of why I absolutely disagreed with the way the club acted in this regard. No-one need follow me in leaving, no-one need agree, no animosity.
Gie’s a signing.

Amen to that.
Common sense.

[doonhamer]

2 hours ago, pozbaird said:

No animosity taken. I disagree with Div and my mate Drew on this, but there’s absolutely no animosity and the next time I see them at a game, we will most likely discuss events ON the park and won’t even mention off the field stuff.

I genuinely think my position on this is crystal clear. As I have said many times, I don’t expect or ask anyone to agree, and I wish the scheme all the best in my absence. I really do not know how clear I can make it, but here it is again.

Monies were ring-fenced for share purchase. The club, instead of allowing this ring-fenced money to ‘gather dust in the bank’, wanted to use it for something other than the purpose it was intended. IMHO the chain of events then should have been to inform members that this was their intention, and have a vote to see the percentage of SMiSA members who sanctioned using their money for any other purpose. At this point, NO specific project should even have been put out there. IF the club received a ‘yes’ vote allowing that money to be used, THEN the club had a mandate to sit down and say ‘astroturf, fixing the airdome, upgrading the cookers in hospitality, signing Lionel Messi....’ what do we want to put to the members now that we’ve got their OK to do something with that money.

In my opinion, the way they went about it was not the way I think people in their position should go about their business. I think discussing astroturf before even asking for members permission to even TOUCH their money was at best poor form. I think it skewed the vote. It was, in my opnion, a foregone conclusion that the vote was a ‘yes’ vote. The fact that it was a benefit to Jack Ross who wanted it made it a shoe-in. Of course, the club need to do what they can to help Jack Ross, or Sir Stubbsy, but IMHO using money ring-fenced for share purchase is not the way they should have went about it. Not even borrowing it, dipping into it, or doing a single thing with it rather than what it was meant for. I find the fact they all talked about the astroturf in regard to this money rather distasteful and disrespectful to those who had paid that portion of their monies for one clear purpose. Clearly, many SMiSA members do not find it disrespectful, or poor form, or anything. That’s entirely their perogative and I respect that.

No-one needs to agree with it, but I firmly believe I have made a crystal clear case of why I absolutely disagreed with the way the club acted in this regard. No-one need follow me in leaving, no-one need agree, no animosity.

Gie’s a signing.

Thanks Poz. I’ve been uncomfortable about the way monies have been diverted from the original purpose for some time, you have articulated my thoughts much better than I could. 

I am cancelling my DD tonight.  Still, and always will be, a dyed in the wool Buddie but something ain’t right.  My only regret is I now find myself falling into step with a certain pipe fitter. 

[bazil85]

5 hours ago, TediousTom said:

Well you are entitled to your opinion as am I.

 

Your typed lambast of me has of course proven popular as one must never be allowed to type any form of critique of the Smisa overlords.  Any Smisa fanmail is fawned over by the deluded masses who have signed up to give hard earned money to an organisation who must be obeyed.  If I have read any of this correctly Smisa have taken money from  inverstors promising some sort of "ring fencing" for shares.  That is fine of course but it would appear that this "fence of steel" has been breached and Smisa appear wiling to use that once ring fenced money for another purpose.  Well that is theft and nothing more.  To take money promising it will be for a specific purpose and then to go back on that promise is, well very Labour government of them.    Of course Smisa followers will hear none of it, at the end of the day many of you have your name on a wall and that is great.

 

Anyway it is nice to hear that you regard yourself as financially secure, well done.  Is every Smisa follower financially secure?  Could perhaps some Smisa members families benefit from an investment with an actual return rather than a very expensive inscription a wall and a licence for a select few to play in the directors lounge?  Are Smisa some sort of elaborate fraudulent scheme?  I think it is cheeky as fcuk to ask any hard working fan to finance the jollies of a select few for a period of ten years but hey what would I know, I am just a lifelong fan who faithfullly bought shares, purchases a season book every year and loves the club dearly.  As unimportant as I am I will damn Smisa to hell if/when it unravels as a fraudulent scheme preying on the financial stupidity of men and women who were duped into thinking they were financing something great.  Lets just hope some family somewhere isnt struggling financially whilst Smisa carries out monthly raids  on the bank accounts of parents/grandparents who's only crime in life is being easily led.

 

I wonder how much Smisa would sell that wall for?  I wonder how long that wall will actually stand?  I wonder what other "ring fenced" promises will be made and broken?

 

Anyway well done my friend and I am glad you occasionally enjoy my contributions to this fine little forum of ours.  I am confident you will not enjoy my rantings/scribblings/well constructed thoughts/gibberish with regard to Smisa.  But hey lets hope Smisa is not a scam and these broken promises are being mis-reported.  Let us hope Smisa is not an elaborate fraud, let us hope indeed. 

Edited to add:- Oh and just to stay on topic, John McGinn is still a cracking player, lets hope for a big wedge of cash and we can "ring fence" it because once something is "ring fenced" it cannot be used for another purpose can it?

This guy hahahaha what complete unfounded garbage . 

If you were a St Mirren ‘fan’ as you claim, you’d likely see that fans could be interested in paying the equivalent of roughly 40p a day to secure fan ownership for the club within 10 years. And that there might be a wee benefit in doing that. Maybe have a look at the history of Rangers, Dundee, Livi, Clydebank among many other football clubs then come back to me on how ‘stupid’ fan ownership is.

The rest of your post is even more laughable and ill informed. If you’d done a tiny bit of research you’d see that the money from the ring fence was voted for by paying members and is very well costed back at £0 more expense to members. 

[bazil85]

5 hours ago, TediousTom said:

Well you are entitled to your opinion as am I.

 

Your typed lambast of me has of course proven popular as one must never be allowed to type any form of critique of the Smisa overlords.  Any Smisa fanmail is fawned over by the deluded masses who have signed up to give hard earned money to an organisation who must be obeyed.  If I have read any of this correctly Smisa have taken money from  inverstors promising some sort of "ring fencing" for shares.  That is fine of course but it would appear that this "fence of steel" has been breached and Smisa appear wiling to use that once ring fenced money for another purpose.  Well that is theft and nothing more.  To take money promising it will be for a specific purpose and then to go back on that promise is, well very Labour government of them.    Of course Smisa followers will hear none of it, at the end of the day many of you have your name on a wall and that is great.

 

Anyway it is nice to hear that you regard yourself as financially secure, well done.  Is every Smisa follower financially secure?  Could perhaps some Smisa members families benefit from an investment with an actual return rather than a very expensive inscription a wall and a licence for a select few to play in the directors lounge?  Are Smisa some sort of elaborate fraudulent scheme?  I think it is cheeky as fcuk to ask any hard working fan to finance the jollies of a select few for a period of ten years but hey what would I know, I am just a lifelong fan who faithfullly bought shares, purchases a season book every year and loves the club dearly.  As unimportant as I am I will damn Smisa to hell if/when it unravels as a fraudulent scheme preying on the financial stupidity of men and women who were duped into thinking they were financing something great.  Lets just hope some family somewhere isnt struggling financially whilst Smisa carries out monthly raids  on the bank accounts of parents/grandparents who's only crime in life is being easily led.

 

I wonder how much Smisa would sell that wall for?  I wonder how long that wall will actually stand?  I wonder what other "ring fenced" promises will be made and broken?

 

Anyway well done my friend and I am glad you occasionally enjoy my contributions to this fine little forum of ours.  I am confident you will not enjoy my rantings/scribblings/well constructed thoughts/gibberish with regard to Smisa.  But hey lets hope Smisa is not a scam and these broken promises are being mis-reported.  Let us hope Smisa is not an elaborate fraud, let us hope indeed. 

Edited to add:- Oh and just to stay on topic, John McGinn is still a cracking player, lets hope for a big wedge of cash and we can "ring fence" it because once something is "ring fenced" it cannot be used for another purpose can it?

This guy hahahaha what complete unfounded garbage . 

If you were a St Mirren ‘fan’ as you claim, you’d likely see that fans could be interested in paying the equivalent of roughly 40p a day to secure fan ownership for the club within 10 years. And that there might be a wee benefit in doing that. Maybe have a look at the history of Rangers, Dundee, Livi, Clydebank among many other football clubs then come back to me on how ‘stupid’ fan ownership is.

The rest of your post is even more laughable and ill informed. If you’d done a tiny bit of research you’d see that the money from the ring fence was voted for by paying members and is very well costed back at £0 more expense to members. 

[Drew]

1 hour ago, doonhamer said:

Thanks Poz. I’ve been uncomfortable about the way monies have been diverted from the original purpose for some time, you have articulated my thoughts much better than I could. 

I am cancelling my DD tonight.  Still, and always will be, a dyed in the wool Buddie but something ain’t right.  My only regret is I now find myself falling into step with a certain pipe fitter. 

Oh well, this thread is going well.

FFS

[Drew]

1 hour ago, doonhamer said:

Thanks Poz. I’ve been uncomfortable about the way monies have been diverted from the original purpose for some time, you have articulated my thoughts much better than I could. 

I am cancelling my DD tonight.  Still, and always will be, a dyed in the wool Buddie but something ain’t right.  My only regret is I now find myself falling into step with a certain pipe fitter. 

Genuine question, as you cancel.

As a member of SMiSA, did you ever put your concerns to them?

[faraway saint]

18 minutes ago, Drew said:

Genuine question, as you cancel.

As a member of SMiSA, did you ever put your concerns to them?

Genuine question, is it really any of your business what people decide to do with their money? 

You should know people have an immeasurable amount of reasons and thoughts which are very personal. 

Also, do you really believe if he had concerns they would have changed anything...........................

[Dan Is The Man]

No animosity taken. I disagree with Div and my mate Drew on this, but there’s absolutely no animosity and the next time I see them at a game, we will most likely discuss events ON the park and won’t even mention off the field stuff.
I genuinely think my position on this is crystal clear. As I have said many times, I don’t expect or ask anyone to agree, and I wish the scheme all the best in my absence. I really do not know how clear I can make it, but here it is again.
Monies were ring-fenced for share purchase. The club, instead of allowing this ring-fenced money to ‘gather dust in the bank’, wanted to use it for something other than the purpose it was intended. IMHO the chain of events then should have been to inform members that this was their intention, and have a vote to see the percentage of SMiSA members who sanctioned using their money for any other purpose. At this point, NO specific project should even have been put out there. IF the club received a ‘yes’ vote allowing that money to be used, THEN the club had a mandate to sit down and say ‘astroturf, fixing the airdome, upgrading the cookers in hospitality, signing Lionel Messi....’ what do we want to put to the members now that we’ve got their OK to do something with that money.
In my opinion, the way they went about it was not the way I think people in their position should go about their business. I think discussing astroturf before even asking for members permission to even TOUCH their money was at best poor form. I think it skewed the vote. It was, in my opnion, a foregone conclusion that the vote was a ‘yes’ vote. The fact that it was a benefit to Jack Ross who wanted it made it a shoe-in. Of course, the club need to do what they can to help Jack Ross, or Sir Stubbsy, but IMHO using money ring-fenced for share purchase is not the way they should have went about it. Not even borrowing it, dipping into it, or doing a single thing with it rather than what it was meant for. I find the fact they all talked about the astroturf in regard to this money rather distasteful and disrespectful to those who had paid that portion of their monies for one clear purpose. Clearly, many SMiSA members do not find it disrespectful, or poor form, or anything. That’s entirely their perogative and I respect that.
No-one needs to agree with it, but I firmly believe I have made a crystal clear case of why I absolutely disagreed with the way the club acted in this regard. No-one need follow me in leaving, no-one need agree, no animosity.
Gie’s a signing.

On the money.

[FTOF]

1 minute ago, Dan Is The Man said:

On the money.

Or not on the money, depending on your opinion.

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

This guy hahahaha what complete unfounded garbage . 

If you were a St Mirren ‘fan’ as you claim, you’d likely see that fans could be interested in paying the equivalent of roughly 40p a day to secure fan ownership for the club within 10 years. And that there might be a wee benefit in doing that. Maybe have a look at the history of Rangers, Dundee, Livi, Clydebank among many other football clubs then come back to me on how ‘stupid’ fan ownership is.

The rest of your post is even more laughable and ill informed. If you’d done a tiny bit of research you’d see that the money from the ring fence was voted for by paying members and is very well costed back at £0 more expense to members. 

Yet again your dismissive attitude to anyone who disagrees is, frankly, very  counter productive to the whole SMISA aim.

While you are prepared to stick to your belief, no matter what, can be sen as as strength, your ability to take on board ANY points supporters have, shows your limitations. 

I happen to think you have been a parrot in a previous life, and you are more tedious than Tom, 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by faraway saint

[shull]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

This guy hahahaha what complete unfounded garbage . 

If you were a St Mirren ‘fan’ as you claim, you’d likely see that fans could be interested in paying the equivalent of roughly 40p a day to secure fan ownership for the club within 10 years. And that there might be a wee benefit in doing that. Maybe have a look at the history of Rangers, Dundee, Livi, Clydebank among many other football clubs then come back to me on how ‘stupid’ fan ownership is.

The rest of your post is even more laughable and ill informed. If you’d done a tiny bit of research you’d see that the money from the ring fence was voted for by paying members and is very well costed back at £0 more expense to members. 

We have Fan Ownership now with St Mirren Supporter, Gordon in charge.

And what do you mean " IF YOU WERE A ST MIRREN FAN "

We all are and all on equal measure.

SMISA could be take over in 10 years time and within a short period they could have us in administration then dead.

Edited June 30, 2018 by shull

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, shull said:

We have Fan Ownership now with St Mirren Supporter, Gordon in charge.

And what do you mean " IF YOU WERE A ST MIRREN FAN "

We all are and all on equal measure.

SMISA could be take over in 10 years time and within a short period they could have us in administration then dead.

I fail to see how a St Mirren fan can’t see the concept of people having an emotional attachment to fan ownership and thinking purely about what’s in it for us financially. Question any ‘fan’ of any club with that outlook. 

Edited June 30, 2018 by bazil85

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, shull said:

We have Fan Ownership now with St Mirren Supporter, Gordon in charge.

And what do you mean " IF YOU WERE A ST MIRREN FAN "

We all are and all on equal measure.

SMISA could be take over in 10 years time and within a short period they could have us in administration then dead.

Also they ‘could’ but not very likely is it?

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

I'm not getting into the argument on the rights and wrongs of borrowing the money but I hope you realise that fan ownership is no guarantee of not ending up like any of the clubs you mention - it is no guarantee of financial security.

 

Didn’t say it was. It’s not a means of guaranteed financial security, it’s a means to limit the chances of the club falling into people like this hands, bar an absolute extreme event. 

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Yet again your dismissive attitude to anyone who disagrees is, frankly, very  counter productive to the whole SMISA aim.

While you are prepared to stick to your belief, no matter what, can be sen as as strength, your ability to take on board ANY points supporters have, shows your limitations. 

I happen to think you have been a parrot in a previous life, and you are more tedious than Tom, 

 

 

I don’t have a dismissive attitude to anyone that disagrees with BTB.

As I’ve said dozens of times  (yep maybe I was a parrot but we still get ‘fans’ doing the following) I have a dismissive attitude to people against democracy, that think the team I support/ SMISA have done anything illegal and certainly to anyone that thinks there has to be a financial game to ever want to bring a football club we apparently all support into fan ownership. Oh I’m also pretty dismissive to people that call a large number of st Mirren fans ‘stupid’ 

[shull]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I fail to see how a St Mirren fan can’t see the concept of people having an emotional attachment to fan ownership and thinking purely about what’s in it for us financially. Question any ‘fan’ of any club with that outlook. 

We are already under fan ownership.

What don't you get ?

[shull]

The bottom line and real scary thing is.................

If the vast majority of members vote to spend ringfenced money now, what the feck is it going to be like in 10 years time when t all those members are in charge of the Club ?

God fecking help us.

[faraway saint]

14 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I don’t have a dismissive attitude to anyone that disagrees with BTB.

As I’ve said dozens of times  (yep maybe I was a parrot but we still get ‘fans’ doing the following) I have a dismissive attitude to people against democracy, that think the team I support/ SMISA have done anything illegal and certainly to anyone that thinks there has to be a financial game to ever want to bring a football club we apparently all support into fan ownership. Oh I’m also pretty dismissive to people that call a large number of st Mirren fans ‘stupid’ 

Oh, you do and it's like trying to debate with Smarty Farty, a fecking brick, or thick, wall.

Disappointed in myself, wasting my fecking time engaging with you.