Lord Pityme Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, St.Ricky said: It's healthy to have debates which are open to others. It would help however to answer questions seeking facts. How many paying members are there? How much do these contribute monthly? Any chance someone can give a definitive answer? Youre gonna have to email smisa direct for any communication on those questions Ricky. As a rule They dont respond to anything on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 On 30/01/2018 at 7:24 PM, Lord Pityme said: Youre gonna have to email smisa direct for any communication on those questions Ricky. As a rule They dont respond to anything on here. They used to........................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted February 6, 2018 Report Share Posted February 6, 2018 I see St Mirren Women’s team have a just giving page, looking for £3k to help buy kit, secure training / playing facilities. Is this not what we just gave them money for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted February 7, 2018 Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 One less member, plus a vacancy amongst the sausage roll brigade............................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted February 7, 2018 Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 12 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said: One less member, plus a vacancy amongst the sausage roll brigade............................. Just seen the other post........................clearing up the "mystery" above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted February 7, 2018 Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 Steak bakes instead of sausage rolls and I may show an interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 7, 2018 Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 21 hours ago, melmac said: I see St Mirren Women’s team have a just giving page, looking for £3k to help buy kit, secure training / playing facilities. Is this not what we just gave them money for? I think this is some additional stuff. They'll likely need a good bit of funding to hit the ground running. Best of luck to them and hopefully they get some success on the park Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted February 7, 2018 Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 49 minutes ago, shull said: Steak bakes instead of sausage rolls and I may show an interest. Steak bakes! As in plural? Crazy talk. I'd say one a quarter taking out of the discretionary fund should do it. I'll email to add it to the next vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 On 06/02/2018 at 1:00 PM, melmac said: I see St Mirren Women’s team have a just giving page, looking for £3k to help buy kit, secure training / playing facilities. Is this not what we just gave them money for? Not really Neil. The women's team have a 2 season budget of approximately 25K, it'd be more had they not assumed kit would last two years. The proposal I worked with them on for the £2,055 in the recent poll was for kit, training gear, equipment and some registration fees. The 3K requested through justgiving will plug a little more of the gap. I don't think it's breaking confidentiality to reveal the club informed them there was no money available. I imagine they may have hit their 3K target had there been a bit more transparency about it all. As it was they had to come to SMISA and it was agreed to be £2 pot only and not a stand alone vote of any sort. Thus, they waited from November until January for an answer. Right, that'll do. Just felt the whole women's team debate needed a few answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted April 4, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2018 On 25/07/2017 at 6:48 PM, TsuMirren said: Graeme, If we suspend the vote then we aren't offering what members were sold, From a personal viewpoint, I really don't see many big ticket items outside the obvious such as safe standing or filling a corner. For me the club should take a lead on items like that. There is no doubt we need to develop a fund for the future, but it needs to be practical. We need to understand cashflow, not to mention the effect firing a Manager or releasing a player could have (among other things). It took only 9 months for a big ticket item to present itself. Kenny, Hopefully your ex colleagues on the committee share your viewpoint about offering members what they were sold and get this ludicrous vote for £50000 from the share purchase pot as a 33% share in replacing the astro at Ralston off the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 6 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said: It took only 9 months for a big ticket item to present itself. Kenny, Hopefully your ex colleagues on the committee share your viewpoint about offering members what they were sold and get this ludicrous vote for £50000 from the share purchase pot as a 33% share in replacing the astro at Ralston off the table. They won't, simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 They won't, simple as that. That greatly concerns me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyg Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 I don't see what everyone's getting their knickers in a twist for , if the SMISA subscribers don't think it's a good idea it'll be thrown out . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted April 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 I don't see what everyone's getting their knickers in a twist for , if the SMISA subscribers don't think it's a good idea it'll be thrown out . There's a clue in the "ring fenced"The proposal to use the purchase pot removes that security.Turns out 'Buy the Buds' was sold on a false promise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 I don't see what everyone's getting their knickers in a twist for , if the SMISA subscribers don't think it's a good idea it'll be thrown out . Not necessarily. I fear many will just go with the flow because it us being sold as something good for the club and we all want what is best for the club. If this is voted through we are essentially giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want with money set aside specifically to purchase the shares in the club. This is a very dangerous precedence indeed. No twisted knickers... Just a desire for people to look carefully at the proposal before voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyg Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 There's a clue in the "ring fenced"The proposal to use the purchase pot removes that security.Turns out 'Buy the Buds' was sold on a false promise I haven't decided either way yet , but you can always withdraw your support for Buy the Buds , if enough people do that then there would have to be a rethink. In effect , they are actually asking to temporarily tap in to the ring fenced money to help with a major club project , I don't see many seeing that as a big problem . We'll find out soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 8 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said: It took only 9 months for a big ticket item to present itself. Kenny, Hopefully your ex colleagues on the committee share your viewpoint about offering members what they were sold and get this ludicrous vote for £50000 from the share purchase pot as a 33% share in replacing the astro at Ralston off the table. 2 hours ago, TsuMirren said: They won't, simple as that. 1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said: 2 hours ago, TsuMirren said: They won't, simple as that. That greatly concerns me. 11 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said: There's a clue in the "ring fenced" The proposal to use the purchase pot removes that security. Turns out 'Buy the Buds' was sold on a false promise 2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Not necessarily. I fear many will just go with the flow because it us being sold as something good for the club and we all want what is best for the club. If this is voted through we are essentially giving a small group of people a mandate to di whatever they want with money set aside specifically to purchase the shares in the club. This is a very dangerous precedence indeed. No twisted knickers... Just a desire for people to look carefully at the proposal before voting. It ŵas obvious from the outset Scott saw Smisa as his personal Cash-Cow, interfered in elections, spat the dummy out on what members chose to spend THEIR money on and insisted that Smisa was no longer independent. this spending proposal comes as no surprise, after spending £65k of members money on loans/cash facilities for the club WITHOUT consulting with the membership.. this is just another blatant cash grab on funds that the membership got a written, legally binding assurance from the Smisa committee that this sort of thing would never happen. i am sure the campaign and written assurances we all signed up to were to 'Buy The Buds'... not to 'Buy Gordon's Furniture'..? the other, hidden and much more sinister issue here is the delay, or even attempt to stop Smisa members taking over the club when we have accumulated the funds to buy Scott's shares. We have the legal right to buy these shares as soon as we have the funds, soon after takeover Scott let it be known he didnt want to sell for ten years, regardless of if smisa members had ammassed the required amount earlier. (Which on current projections we are on track to do) if this proposal goes through it will delay and possibly end the written assurances the Smisa committee made to manage the purchase of the majority shareholding of SMFC on the members behalf. It seems this committee have lost any perspective on even trying to appear independent, and are happy to do Scott's bidding, even if it means breaking the very promise made to the members that your money is Ring-Fenced to Buy The Buds. shameless.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted April 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 I haven't decided either way yet , but you can always withdraw your support for Buy the Buds , if enough people do that then there would have to be a rethink. In effect , they are actually asking to temporarily tap in to the ring fenced money to help with a major club project , I don't see many seeing that as a big problem . We'll find out soon enough.Withdraw support??I'd prefer SMISA manage the funds like they presented. They gave assurrances of what the £10 would be used for.Could this be a misappropriation of funds? As they are not being used for what they are intended for.& £25000 a season to get the SMISA name on 1 (yes one) youth teams shirts. They are having a laugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyg Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 Withdraw support??I'd prefer SMISA manage the funds like they presented. They gave assurrances of what the £10 would be used for.Could this be a misappropriation of funds? As they are not being used for what they are intended for.& £25000 a season to get the SMISA name on 1 (yes one) youth teams shirts. They are having a laugh I doubt a few having a strop about it on a supporters forum is going to make them change their minds , it'll go to the democratic vote of current members , end of . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: It ŵas obvious from the outset Scott saw Smisa as his personal Cash-Cow, interfered in elections, spat the dummy out on what members chose to spend THEIR money on and insisted that Smisa was no longer independent. this spending proposal comes as no surprise, after spending £65k of members money on loans/cash facilities for the club WITHOUT consulting with the membership.. this is just another blatant cash grab on funds that the membership got a written, legally binding assurance from the Smisa committee that this sort of thing would never happen. i am sure the campaign and written assurances we all signed up to were to 'Buy The Buds'... not to 'Buy Gordon's Furniture'..? the other, hidden and much more sinister issue here is the delay, or even attempt to stop Smisa members taking over the club when we have accumulated the funds to buy Scott's shares. We have the legal right to buy these shares as soon as we have the funds, soon after takeover Scott let it be known he didnt want to sell for ten years, regardless of if smisa members had ammassed the required amount earlier. (Which on current projections we are on track to do) if this proposal goes through it will delay and possibly end the written assurances the Smisa committee made to manage the purchase of the majority shareholding of SMFC on the members behalf. It seems this committee have lost any perspective on even trying to appear independent, and are happy to do Scott's bidding, even if it means breaking the very promise made to the members that your money is Ring-Fenced to Buy The Buds. shameless.... The usual Boo brigade doom and gloom without any substance crowd are back out already #usualsuspects. Hammering what is nothing but a very positive use of the SMISA money in a proposal that in no way jeopardises buy the buds (assuming membership numbers don't fall below target which if they did it would be in jeopardy anyway) 1. New pitch at Ralston would be a great benefit to OUR football club 2. The funds are to be taken from the £2 spend over a timescale that will very likely not see the buy the buds deal concluded barring a massive increase in members meaning there is very very very little risk in this impacting any aspect of the deal negatively. 3. In the short-term the £10 fund is just gathering dust and getting a very small interest rate, makes so much sense to use this for something that benefits OUR club and minimises external borrowing 4. How does fixing a pitch benefit GS anymore than it would OUR football team? 5. We're still in a democracy, this proposal going through regardless of it changing any mandates previously agreed will be on the will of the members, plans change, we're on a learning curve 6. The £65k fund was a very short-term decision that had to be made that based on all previous votes WOULD easily of passed. We have the money back now, no harm no foul and the money we'd of lost in revenue had the Morton game been moved more than justifies the decision (also it wasn't from the members £2 pot) 7. 'If the proposal goes through we're giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want' em do you mean anything like getting a new pitch at OUR training ground that benefits OUR football club? Also no they don't it's still a vote and to suggest members won't vote for what they think is best for OUR football club is a tiny bit patronising. Sorry I've highlighted OUR so often but there are a lot of people that clearly miss the point in supporting a club and funding a buyout. I'm certainly not in this for any personal game, I'm in it to give OUR club the best possible financial backing we possibly can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 10 minutes ago, bazil85 said: The usual Boo brigade doom and gloom without any substance crowd are back out already #usualsuspects. Hammering what is nothing but a very positive use of the SMISA money in a proposal that in no way jeopardises buy the buds (assuming membership numbers don't fall below target which if they did it would be in jeopardy anyway) 1. New pitch at Ralston would be a great benefit to OUR football club 2. The funds are to be taken from the £2 spend over a timescale that will very likely not see the buy the buds deal concluded barring a massive increase in members meaning there is very very very little risk in this impacting any aspect of the deal negatively. 3. In the short-term the £10 fund is just gathering dust and getting a very small interest rate, makes so much sense to use this for something that benefits OUR club and minimises external borrowing 4. How does fixing a pitch benefit GS anymore than it would OUR football team? 5. We're still in a democracy, this proposal going through regardless of it changing any mandates previously agreed will be on the will of the members, plans change, we're on a learning curve 6. The £65k fund was a very short-term decision that had to be made that based on all previous votes WOULD easily of passed. We have the money back now, no harm no foul and the money we'd of lost in revenue had the Morton game been moved more than justifies the decision (also it wasn't from the members £2 pot) 7. 'If the proposal goes through we're giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want' em do you mean anything like getting a new pitch at OUR training ground that benefits OUR football club? Also no they don't it's still a vote and to suggest members won't vote for what they think is best for OUR football club is a tiny bit patronising. Sorry I've highlighted OUR so often but there are a lot of people that clearly miss the point in supporting a club and funding a buyout. I'm certainly not in this for any personal game, I'm in it to give OUR club the best possible financial backing we possibly can. I get the feeling I've sat in meetings with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 11 minutes ago, bazil85 said: The usual Boo brigade doom and gloom without any substance crowd are back out already #usualsuspects. Hammering what is nothing but a very positive use of the SMISA money in a proposal that in no way jeopardises buy the buds (assuming membership numbers don't fall below target which if they did it would be in jeopardy anyway) 1. New pitch at Ralston would be a great benefit to OUR football club 2. The funds are to be taken from the £2 spend over a timescale that will very likely not see the buy the buds deal concluded barring a massive increase in members meaning there is very very very little risk in this impacting any aspect of the deal negatively. 3. In the short-term the £10 fund is just gathering dust and getting a very small interest rate, makes so much sense to use this for something that benefits OUR club and minimises external borrowing 4. How does fixing a pitch benefit GS anymore than it would OUR football team? 5. We're still in a democracy, this proposal going through regardless of it changing any mandates previously agreed will be on the will of the members, plans change, we're on a learning curve 6. The £65k fund was a very short-term decision that had to be made that based on all previous votes WOULD easily of passed. We have the money back now, no harm no foul and the money we'd of lost in revenue had the Morton game been moved more than justifies the decision (also it wasn't from the members £2 pot) 7. 'If the proposal goes through we're giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want' em do you mean anything like getting a new pitch at OUR training ground that benefits OUR football club? Also no they don't it's still a vote and to suggest members won't vote for what they think is best for OUR football club is a tiny bit patronising. Sorry I've highlighted OUR so often but there are a lot of people that clearly miss the point in supporting a club and funding a buyout. I'm certainly not in this for any personal game, I'm in it to give OUR club the best possible financial backing we possibly can. Simple question? Do you not also wonder why a Championship club, we are told that lives within its means, and that has pulled in around £1million pounds in transfer fees in a year needs to syphon £50k of The memberships money from a pot that was GUARANTEED to be ring-fenced..? wheres the million quid gone..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 I have far more faith in Scott running the Club than SMiSA. The difference in the Club over the last 15 months has been remarkable and long may it continue. But as SMiSA will take over some day then of course they have to work very closely with the current BOD. It should not be 'them and 'us' but 'we'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, TsuMirren said: I get the feeling I've sat in meetings with you. He's no very clever at hiding his i.d.... ha, ha... looks like his response was pre-written..? Edited April 5, 2018 by Lord Pityme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted April 5, 2018 Report Share Posted April 5, 2018 [emoji38][emoji38][emoji38] The usual Boo brigade doom and gloom without any substance crowd are back out already #usualsuspects. Hammering what is nothing but a very positive use of the SMISA money in a proposal that in no way jeopardises buy the buds (assuming membership numbers don't fall below target which if they did it would be in jeopardy anyway) 1. New pitch at Ralston would be a great benefit to OUR football club 2. The funds are to be taken from the £2 spend over a timescale that will very likely not see the buy the buds deal concluded barring a massive increase in members meaning there is very very very little risk in this impacting any aspect of the deal negatively. 3. In the short-term the £10 fund is just gathering dust and getting a very small interest rate, makes so much sense to use this for something that benefits OUR club and minimises external borrowing 4. How does fixing a pitch benefit GS anymore than it would OUR football team? 5. We're still in a democracy, this proposal going through regardless of it changing any mandates previously agreed will be on the will of the members, plans change, we're on a learning curve 6. The £65k fund was a very short-term decision that had to be made that based on all previous votes WOULD easily of passed. We have the money back now, no harm no foul and the money we'd of lost in revenue had the Morton game been moved more than justifies the decision (also it wasn't from the members £2 pot) 7. 'If the proposal goes through we're giving a small group of people a mandate to do whatever they want' em do you mean anything like getting a new pitch at OUR training ground that benefits OUR football club? Also no they don't it's still a vote and to suggest members won't vote for what they think is best for OUR football club is a tiny bit patronising. Sorry I've highlighted OUR so often but there are a lot of people that clearly miss the point in supporting a club and funding a buyout. I'm certainly not in this for any personal game, I'm in it to give OUR club the best possible financial backing we possibly can. You never disappoint.If only bet365 had offered odds on you being the first and this party line being your response.We get it.You are a true fan.We are knicker wetters and boo boys for daring to show concern about the legal complexities being brushed aside here!Well said number one fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.