The 3 Monthly Spend

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

They haven't

So why is this money from SMISA needed then?

Again, I'm seriously not trying to get into this mud slinging, genuinely interested that we have had a considerable influx from transfers yet still need to be asking for money from a source that, at least,is causing some serious questions to be asked. 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

So why is this money from SMISA needed then?

Again, I'm seriously not trying to get into this mud slinging, genuinely interested that we have had a considerable influx from transfers yet still need to be asking for money from a source that, at least,is causing some serious questions to be asked. 

It's not needed, the club can fund it themselves (they've said that). The logic in it is if we use £50k sitting in an account earning next to no interest then that's £50k the club don't use, in other words £50k in our budget for next season which will include transfer income and extra crowd income (for a club like St Mirren that can be a player) St Mirren haven't overspent this year by close to £1 million. 

Och we're all St Mirren fans, we all have different opinions. I just like to see SMISA utilising funds for our club. 

[BuddieinEK]

Have a look at who the mutual agreement is between and the people that have made the proposal... Have a goooood look. 

I was at a meeting with a braw PowerPoint presentation in which I was assured that if I signed up then £10 of my monthly donation would be ring-fenced to purchase the shares.
Were you there too?
Did you interperate the assurance differently?

SMISA board members are elected to represent the membership working withib an agreed framework.

I have no interest in micro-management and in general have been willing to support their proposals.

This has crossed a line which if supported, cannot be uncrossed.

That is a very dangerous principle indeed.

[BuddieinEK]

Have a look at who the mutual agreement is between and the people that have made the proposal... Have a goooood look. 

I was at a meeting with a braw PowerPoint presentation in which I was assured that if I signed up then £10 of my monthly donation would be ring-fenced to purchase the shares.
Were you there too?
Did you interperate the assurance differently?

SMISA board members are elected to represent the membership working withib an agreed framework.

I have no interest in micro-management and in general have been willing to support their proposals.

This has crossed a line which if supported, cannot be uncrossed.

That is a very dangerous principle indeed.

[BuddieinEK]

Have a look at who the mutual agreement is between and the people that have made the proposal... Have a goooood look. 

I was at a meeting with a braw PowerPoint presentation in which I was assured that if I signed up then £10 of my monthly donation would be ring-fenced to purchase the shares.
Were you there too?
Did you interperate the assurance differently?

SMISA board members are elected to represent the membership working withib an agreed framework.

I have no interest in micro-management and in general have been willing to support their proposals.

This has crossed a line which if supported, cannot be uncrossed.

That is a very dangerous principle indeed.

[BuddieinEK]

I was at a meeting with a braw PowerPoint presentation in which I was assured that if I signed up then £10 of my monthly donation would be ring-fenced to purchase the shares.
Were you there too?
Did you interperate the assurance differently?

SMISA board members are elected to represent the membership working within an agreed framework.

I have no interest in micro-management and in general have been willing to support their proposals.

This has crossed a line which if supported, cannot be uncrossed.

That is a very dangerous principle indeed.

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I was at a meeting with a braw PowerPoint presentation in which I was assured that if I signed up then £10 of my monthly donation would be ring-fenced to purchase the shares.
Were you there too?
Did you interperate the assurance differently?

SMISA board members are elected to represent the membership working within an agreed framework.

I have no interest in micro-management and in general have been willing to support their proposals.

This has crossed a line which if supported, cannot be uncrossed.

That is a very dangerous principle indeed.

Aye, you said. 

[dumbarton_bud]

41 minutes ago, garzo said:

If this money is paid for this purpose, which on principle I don't agree with at the moment but lets go with this for now - a share transfer agreement should be drawn up to download (in proportion) in favour of SMISA. 
This is the only way this deal should be taken forward.
Shareholders investment should be in proportion to share holding.
Otherwise money is in gift, loan or sponsorship with benefits gained.
We need to start thinking business like, shareholders first, not as fans.

This internal SMISA loan (without being 100% knowledgeable on constitution) does not seem constitutional and contains elements of risk we should resist.
Might not be a popular view but is my view and I'll vote accordingly.

 

This. Why can't SMISA pay forward the 50k in return for the equivalent number of shares early? Are we tied into using the funds to buy out GS in a lump sum? I can't say I'm a big fan of balloting the members to change what was an fairly important condition (at least, to me) during the sign-up process. 

Also, whoever agreed that sponsorship package should be shot - 50k to rename Ralston for two seasons, sponsor one of the youth teams, a youth team shirt and a tour of the training ground?!? We renamed our stadium - something that gets a ton more exposure than our training facility - for approx £60k. Someone needs to get their head out their arse.

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I was at a meeting with a braw PowerPoint presentation in which I was assured that if I signed up then £10 of my monthly donation would be ring-fenced to purchase the shares.
Were you there too?
Did you interperate the assurance differently?

SMISA board members are elected to represent the membership working withib an agreed framework.

I have no interest in micro-management and in general have been willing to support their proposals.

This has crossed a line which if supported, cannot be uncrossed.

That is a very dangerous principle indeed.

Still not sure what you have against a democratic vote to ask members if they would be happy to change this. If the majority want it changed why shouldn't it happen? 

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Trust is in no way gone. It would be gone if they came out and said 'we're doing this end of.' I'm not sure why you don't support about a democratic vote on changing something that will benefit the club.

I'd also love to see your evidence that it 'jeopardises' BTB when the plan is very clear about re-paying the money to the £10 pot. 

Also the committee has a full mandate to ask the members to spend the funds. No paying member has signed legal documents retracting this right.

On issues relating to Smisa, the share purchase agreement with Scott, the legally binding agreement approved by the membership to ring-fence £10 payments you are wrong..! I have read, questioned and signed approval of the agreements with Scott and the selling consortium. Have you read, commented, questioned, amended them..?

To change how the £10 ring fenced in the agreement to BTB then as EK saint has said an EGM and vote would have to be called to firstly seek majority membership approval to remove the ring-fence around those funds, then if that vote was carried carry out another vote to seek members approval to spend any thing over £500. This is all in the agreements and constitution.

the fact that in other posts you state the club does have the funds, but diesnt want to spend them but sees the Smisa ring-fenced BTB as money just 'gathering dust' speaks volumes of the club's total disregard of maintaining a healthy relationship with smisa members....

why arent SMFC directors committing funds to the club? Where has the £1million transfer money gone? Why doesn't the club fund this?

The shameless suggestion that £50k of the ring-fenced fund to buy the majority shareholding be used, and then repaid out of the members own £2 discretionary money is beneath contempt, and runs contrary to every rule on how a Community Benefit society should legally operate. It is in essence an illegal misappropriation of the memberships funds.

[BuddieinEK]

Still not sure what you have against a democratic vote to ask members if they would be happy to change this. If the majority want it changed why shouldn't it happen? 

If there is a democratic vote to ask mrmbers if they would be happy to change this then I would have nothing against that.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Sonny]

For me the £2 monthly pot was to improve the experience for supporters and to help the Community. I was happy last season to use the money towards a player budget as we were in dire straits and regarded that as exceptional circumstances. However I am reluctant to keep using the money to fund projects which I see are the responsibility of the Club. The problem there lies when SMiSA eventually takes over - where do they go to get money? Spending money on Club responsibilities seems to me like we are living beyond our means. I know we are all in this together but I would prefer the money to be used to install more murals around the stadium; a few TV sets for the vormitories for fans to maybe catch a live game before our kick off; a segregation gate in the North Stand to allow Home supporters there if required: and rubbish bins (!), to name a few examples. I also support buying seats and letting groups use them or other community suggestions that may attract more fans or give us publicity.

However funding a pitch doesn't fit my view. I have supported almost all the proposals so far but probably not this one.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Sonny

[billyg]

34 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

 It is in essence an illegal misappropriation of the memberships funds.

Unless the membership democratically votes otherwise Tony ! There's nothing underhand about this , if the proposal is outvoted , so be it !

[Lord Pityme]

10 minutes ago, billyg said:

Unless the membership democratically votes otherwise Tony ! There's nothing underhand about this , if the proposal is outvoted , so be it !

I disagree Billy, there would first have to be an EGM and vote to undo the ring-fence to maintain any sort of constitutional process. And then if thats passed a vote is required to spend anything above £500 that is outwith the £2 discretionary pot.

the bit that appears to contravene the society accounting process is the proposal that Members spend the £50k out of one fund, then pay themselves the money back out of another, whilst a third party benefits by £50k of membership funds.

it looks like this shabby proposal will come back to haunt the proposers.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[billyg]

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I disagree Billy, there would first have to be an EGM and vote to undo the ring-fence to maintain any sort of constitutional process.

Having sat on several committees , I believe that is correct , unless there is something in the small print of the constitution which allows for it !

[bazil85]

16 minutes ago, Sonny said:

For me the £2 monthly pot was to improve the experience for supporters and to help the Community. I was happy last season to use the money towards a player budget as we were in dire straits and regarded that as exceptional circumstances. However I am reluctant to keep using the money to fund projects which I see are the responsibility of the Club. The problem there lies when SMiSA eventually takes over - where do they go to get money? Spending money on Club responsibilities seems to me like we are living beyond our means. I know we are all in this together but I would prefer the money to be used to install more murals around the stadium; a few TV sets for the vormitories for fans to maybe catch a live game before our kick off; a segregation gate in the North Stand to allow Home supporters there if required: and rubbish bins (!), to name a few examples. I also support buying seats and letting groups use them or other community suggestions that may attract more fans or give us publicity.

However funding a pitch doesn't fit my view. I have supported almost all the proposals so far but probably not this one.

I think these have all been fair points in the past however SMISA/ St Mirren have more than adequately answered them IMO. From the comms issued last night, it felt a bit like they were doing too much to re-address some of these points given some fans just don't seem to want to accept they've been answered. Such as below

The £2 pot was never put over as a way to only benefit the community and supporters, the plan always included feedback from the club and to meet appropriate costs based on a member vote. Members/ supporters might have interpreted the £2 in different ways but there has never been anything underhanded about the actual use. Besides in this specific example, the pitch has a lot of kids using it at a lot of different times so there's a community benefit and the fan benefit is if we improve the quality of our produced players. 

Funding the training ground improvements is 100% the clubs responsibility, no question. This is a suggestion to how we can spend funds available to support our club and allow £50k to remain in the budget for other needs. Brings me onto the 'spend within our needs' St Mirren are not asking to do something outwith their funding ability. They could fully fund this from available funds if required but like the vast majority of other clubs operating at our level, the money would come from budget. Realistically how many clubs in Scotland do you think have substantial cash in the bank to fund such things? Very few I assure you. 

The point of 'what happens when SMISA takeover where do they get the money?' Same again as other clubs, income and outgoings. Very few clubs have a sugar daddy at this level that meets costs like this and the money will come out of budgeting or potential borrowing. Same as more or less any other time in our history. 

Your points about where else you'd rather see the money are all valid ones but as nice as some of these things would be, realistically would you choose them over something the club wants that seems like it'll have much more of a real benefit to the players? Don't know about you but as a St Mirren fan my priorities will always sit with the team on the park over a wee matchday perk. 

I'd also ask fans as well, when you think about £50k for St Mirren how much do you think that represents? For me it's substantial, if that's coming out of next seasons player budget would you be comfortable if that was the difference between one or two extra players in the team next season in the SP? I certainly wouldn't. 

 

[Wilbur]

Maybe SMISA needs a name change as well. The organisation's status as "Independent" from the club no longer seems appropriate IMO.

[bazil85]

Just now, Wilbur said:

Maybe SMISA needs a name change as well. The organisation's status as "Independent" from the club no longer seems appropriate IMO.

How much more independent were you expecting for an organisation set-up specifically to buy St Mirren and ran by St Mirren fans? Of course they're going to work in partnership, whole thing would fall apart if they didn't. 

[Drew]

I voted in favour of this without - I willingly confess - having considered the full ramifications.

I read that the current surface isn't fit for purpose, so needs replacing, and that monies would be ring-fenced to contribute to an upgrade.

I've no doubt failed to fully digest the proposal, and regret hitting the YES option quite so readily.

That said, I was given an option. If I failed to consider the broader implications, that sits at my door.

I admit to being somewhat blinded by my hopes and aspirations for successful fan ownership in due course. I'm probably being a bit unquestioning and, potentially, a little naive. On the flip side, the (occasionally petty) politics is something I find tiresome, albeit I understand that it is important to consider.

In due course, I'll no doubt devote a bit more time and attention to the whys and wherefores of what is happening with SMiSA, etc, but, for now, I'm just enjoying what is occurring on the pitch. It is a welcome distraction, frankly.

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Drew

[Vambo57]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Still not sure what you have against a democratic vote to ask members if they would be happy to change this. If the majority want it changed why shouldn't it happen? 

 

40 minutes ago, billyg said:

Unless the membership democratically votes otherwise Tony ! There's nothing underhand about this , if the proposal is outvoted , so be it !

The vote would initially have to be at a General meeting, as it is changing the terms of the agreement to buy.  Not an online vote initially.

Surely this could be put on the Agenda of the upcoming AGM?  If not possible then an EGM would need to be called.

[St.Ricky]

I have  no say in this as I am not a SMISA member. 

I really do like the idea of supporting people to enable them to come to games. 

More like that please. 

[TsuMirren]

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I have been praised for my logic and attention to facts in meetings I have to say. 

Ah, probably not then.

[melmac]

37 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

On issues relating to Smisa, the share purchase agreement with Scott, the legally binding agreement approved by the membership to ring-fence £10 payments you are wrong..! I have read, questioned and signed approval of the agreements with Scott and the selling consortium. Have you read, commented, questioned, amended them..?

To change how the £10 ring fenced in the agreement to BTB then as EK saint has said an EGM and vote would have to be called to firstly seek majority membership approval to remove the ring-fence around those funds, then if that vote was carried carry out another vote to seek members approval to spend any thing over £500. This is all in the agreements and constitution.

the fact that in other posts you state the club does have the funds, but diesnt want to spend them but sees the Smisa ring-fenced BTB as money just 'gathering dust' speaks volumes of the club's total disregard of maintaining a healthy relationship with smisa members....

why arent SMFC directors committing funds to the club? Where has the £1million transfer money gone? Why doesn't the club fund this?

The shameless suggestion that £50k of the ring-fenced fund to buy the majority shareholding be used, and then repaid out of the members own £2 discretionary money is beneath contempt, and runs contrary to every rule on how a Community Benefit society should legally operate. It is in essence an illegal misappropriation of the memberships funds.

Ask yourself why SMISA want to disapply the requirement to appoint an auditor. Would it be because the auditor may look a bit more closely at money being spent; do they have the proper authority for the spends, was it spent in accordance with the Rules etc etc.

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, melmac said:

Ask yourself why SMISA want to disapply the requirement to appoint an auditor. Would it be because the auditor may look a bit more closely at money being spent; do they have the proper authority for the spends, was it spent in accordance with the Rules etc etc.

No, absolutely not. It's because of the turnover and there's no legal requirement for it (cost saving). They have independent people that have looked at their accounts and proposals and everything's above board. 

[TsuMirren]

I suppose this means the SMISA committee will now drop any proposal to only have two £2 votes a year instead of four.