The 3 Monthly Spend

[Kombibuddie]

Aye, you said. [emoji38]

I thought it wad groundhog day [emoji16]

[rea]

3 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? 

You are missing the issue that SMISA is not a normal company.

It is a Community Benefit Society.

The members cannot simply decide to spend money on whatever the majority vote for, it has to be "competent" within the rules of a CBS.....

 

....from what i can see (i have not seen a copy of the actual documentation), this idea certainly has issues

 

[Lord Pityme]

I get that not every smisa member wants to know the ins and outs of a cats arse every time there is something to consider. But please, if you will, consider this.

Scott asked Smisa to make £50k borrowing facility available from its ring-fenced funds not long after takeover, initially that was to be drawn from the subs of the premium £2500 members. However when smisa decided not to pursue a loan and grant that £50k was needed to pay the selling consortium.

then because Scott still wanted it Smisa agreed to still make the £50k available from all members ring-fenced fund, but without balloting, or consulting the members first. In a long drawn out process that seperate account with £50k in was set up, however as of now I am unsure if its ever been drawn down???

so this means  either, this is an additional £50k Scott wants from Smisa ring-fenced funds, and doesnt want to pay it back! Or they have realised creating the original £50k borrowing facility was indeed illeagal without consulting the members first, and this is a work round to try and legitimise that folly, or Scott doesn't want to draw down and have to pay £50k back, so this shambles enables him to get the original £50k of members ring-fenced funds, and not need to pay it back..?

serious credibility issues are setting off alarm bells here, the Smisa committee seem to be facilitating either a £100k cash grab from tne ring-fenced fund, or indeed helping Scott get £50k he doesnt have to pay back. I dare say the FCA will be interested to know which?

[Lord Pityme]

1 minute ago, rea said:

You are missing the issue that SMISA is not a normal company.

It is a Community Benefit Society.

The members cannot simply decide to spend money on whatever the majority vote for, it has to be "competent" within the rules of a CBS.....

 

....from what i can see (i have not seen a copy of the actual documentation), this idea certainly has issues

 

Well i never thought i would see the day..... Rea getting onside..!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Some differing views but I'm sure we can all agree that BuddieinEK went to a meeting.

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

Some differing views but I'm sure we can all agree that BuddieinEK went to a meeting.

Meeting? What meeting? 

Not the fecking power point meeting? 

Edited April 5, 2018 by faraway saint

[Sonny]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

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. 

 

I get that maybe the £2 spend had a wider remit but supporters and community are my priorities  for the £2 which I maybe naively thought would leave the Club a bit more money to spend on players eg fans funding the platform for disabled supporters meant the Club did not have to do it. If the new pitch also has extensive use by local people that changes things a bit but if the first team are now going to use it as well as the academy does that not reduce local use?

I want the £2 spend to be used to improve the overall Club  infrastructure and matchday experience and to generate potentially more fans. You ask about choosing options the Club wants well I think we have done that quite a lot to date. As I said I would now like to see a little more being done to improve the matchday experience for fans. Some options I consider to be relatively cheap like bins and a few TVs. Another option is to subsidise the 'buy a brick' for anyone taking out a season ticket.  Fans are what will keep this Club going and we should do what we can to make them feel part of the setup and for them to spread the word to increase support. I asked a couple of times about murals and was told to go away and cost it.  Do proposals from fans have to be costed by those fans that make the proposal but proposals by the Club are added to the list automatically?

Of course I, like every Buddie, wants to see a successful team but if we spend most of the £2 money on facilities then surely more fans = greater income and less money being used from the Club budget on other initiatives? When the £2 dries up, in what 8 years time, then there won't be any money for murals etc. I would like to see tangible benefits now while the money is available.

[bazil85]

23 minutes ago, rea said:

You are missing the issue that SMISA is not a normal company.

It is a Community Benefit Society.

The members cannot simply decide to spend money on whatever the majority vote for, it has to be "competent" within the rules of a CBS.....

 

....from what i can see (i have not seen a copy of the actual documentation), this idea certainly has issues

 

It does adhere to the activities of a CBS. St Mirren are a community club and it benefits the communities of Paisley/ Renfrewhshire.

There's two different issues here. One 'is it legal?' other 'is it ethical?' the ethical one is up for debate and people have different opinions on this ask and canvasing members but the legal one is categorically without question. 

[bazil85]

27 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I get that not every smisa member wants to know the ins and outs of a cats arse every time there is something to consider. But please, if you will, consider this.

Scott asked Smisa to make £50k borrowing facility available from its ring-fenced funds not long after takeover, initially that was to be drawn from the subs of the premium £2500 members. However when smisa decided not to pursue a loan and grant that £50k was needed to pay the selling consortium.

then because Scott still wanted it Smisa agreed to still make the £50k available from all members ring-fenced fund, but without balloting, or consulting the members first. In a long drawn out process that seperate account with £50k in was set up, however as of now I am unsure if its ever been drawn down???

so this means  either, this is an additional £50k Scott wants from Smisa ring-fenced funds, and doesnt want to pay it back! Or they have realised creating the original £50k borrowing facility was indeed illeagal without consulting the members first, and this is a work round to try and legitimise that folly, or Scott doesn't want to draw down and have to pay £50k back, so this shambles enables him to get the original £50k of members ring-fenced funds, and not need to pay it back..?

serious credibility issues are setting off alarm bells here, the Smisa committee seem to be facilitating either a £100k cash grab from tne ring-fenced fund, or indeed helping Scott get £50k he doesnt have to pay back. I dare say the FCA will be interested to know which?

ffs what a load of rubbish.

Really they are the only two options that's happened here? There is zero chances of anything else that's happened... Say that's perfectly ethical, legal and beneficial to St Mirren football club? One of these two things has 100% happened and not one person has blown the whistle or seen a shred of evidence of wrong doing? Sounds likely 

[Lord Pityme]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It does adhere to the activities of a CBS. St Mirren are a community club and it benefits the communities of Paisley/ Renfrewhshire.

There's two different issues here. One 'is it legal?' other 'is it ethical?' the ethical one is up for debate and people have different opinions on this ask and canvasing members but the legal one is categorically without question. 

Can i ask again, have you read the share agreement and sale agreement..? If not you need to read these in conjunction with the Smisa constitution and the legal framework set out by the FCA that smisa has to operate within..... then you can carry on ignoring the facts and supporting an illeagal proposal regardless.

[Lord Pityme]

Just now, bazil85 said:

ffs what a load of rubbish.

Really they are the only two options that's happened here? There is zero chances of anything else that's happened... Say that's perfectly ethical, legal and beneficial to St Mirren football club? One of these two things has 100% happened and not one person has blown the whistle or seen a shred of evidence of wrong doing? Sounds likely 

Now you are just being funny for tbe sake of it... tatty bye!

[rea]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It does adhere to the activities of a CBS. St Mirren are a community club and it benefits the communities of Paisley/ Renfrewhshire.

There's two different issues here. One 'is it legal?' other 'is it ethical?' the ethical one is up for debate and people have different opinions on this ask and canvasing members but the legal one is categorically without question. 

St Mirren are a ltd Company. There is no such legal thing as a "Community Club" it is a turn of phrase.

 

I suggest you read SMISA mems and arts and then go and have a wee think.

[bazil85]

25 minutes ago, Sonny said:

I get that maybe the £2 spend had a wider remit but supporters and community are my priorities  for the £2 which I maybe naively thought would leave the Club a bit more money to spend on players eg fans funding the platform for disabled supporters meant the Club did not have to do it. If the new pitch also has extensive use by local people that changes things a bit but if the first team are now going to use it as well as the academy does that not reduce local use?

I want the £2 spend to be used to improve the overall Club  infrastructure and matchday experience and to generate potentially more fans. You ask about choosing options the Club wants well I think we have done that quite a lot to date. As I said I would now like to see a little more being done to improve the matchday experience for fans. Some options I consider to be relatively cheap like bins and a few TVs. Another option is to subsidise the 'buy a brick' for anyone taking out a season ticket.  Fans are what will keep this Club going and we should do what we can to make them feel part of the setup and for them to spread the word to increase support. I asked a couple of times about murals and was told to go away and cost it.  Do proposals from fans have to be costed by those fans that make the proposal but proposals by the Club are added to the list automatically?

Of course I, like every Buddie, wants to see a successful team but if we spend most of the £2 money on facilities then surely more fans = greater income and less money being used from the Club budget on other initiatives? When the £2 dries up, in what 8 years time, then there won't be any money for murals etc. I would like to see tangible benefits now while the money is available.

Yeah it might do, but at the benefit of an extra area for the first team to train on. It could be very important given the AstroTurf pitches for some SP games. 

I take all the other points you mention about fan experience and they are all 100% valid. I do think you fall into a tiny bit of a trap though thinking that the majority of paying members would rather their match day experience was enhanced through TVs and  murals etc over the performance on the park. Fans are what keeps the fans going but performances are what will keep a fan happy over everything else, I'd hang upside down from my feet at the games to watch the buddies do well on that park and I think if the voting history has shown us anything the majority of paying members priorities items that are better for the team than for the fans. Not a bad thing IMO, just the demographic. 

I think this vote will pass, I could be wrong but it's my gut feel and if it doesn't fine, that's democracy. What I would say to you, do you think if there was a third options about bins, TVs and murals it would genuinely beat out this vote? I don't think so. 

[bazil85]

10 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Can i ask again, have you read the share agreement and sale agreement..? If not you need to read these in conjunction with the Smisa constitution and the legal framework set out by the FCA that smisa has to operate within..... then you can carry on ignoring the facts and supporting an illeagal proposal regardless.

I have read and reviewed every available aspect of BTB, I also work in Financial Risk and I'm in regular contact with the FCA in my career choice. I have absolutely no concerns that we are doing anything illegal. 

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Now you are just being funny for tbe sake of it... tatty bye!

From the guy that has said there are only two options of what's happening and both of them negative... nae bother. 

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, rea said:

St Mirren are a ltd Company. There is no such legal thing as a "Community Club" it is a turn of phrase.

 

I suggest you read SMISA mems and arts and then go and have a wee think.

We are a community club (I'm not talking about our company status I'm talking about what St Mirren stand for) in that we serve the people of Paisley (our community) this proposal has a community benefit in it = Nothing illegal. 

[Lord Pityme]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

From the guy that has said there are only two options of what's happening and both of them negative... nae bother. 

Schoolboy Error...... now i know you dont read stuff! There were four possible scenarios, and given they were all contrary to the Smisa constitution they are negative because the proposers created them such!

you're officially on the naughty step now, have a good life.

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Schoolboy Error...... now i know you dont read stuff! There were four possible scenarios, and given they were all contrary to the Smisa constitution they are negative because the proposers created them such!

you're officially on the naughty step now, have a good life.

Is it aye? I think you should re-read your waffle. I think I did well to get through it without laughing. 

Would expect nothing else from Mr SMISA can do no right. Fortunately there are a vast majority of people that don't jump to wrong assumptions that St Mirren football club soon to be owners are likely doing something illegal. 

Why don't you go report it to the FCA? Mind how well that worked for Mr D?  

[rea]

42 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We are a community club (I'm not talking about our company status I'm talking about what St Mirren stand for) in that we serve the people of Paisley (our community) this proposal has a community benefit in it = Nothing illegal. 

Except that the funds are being used to support the asset/balance sheet of what is still a private company, with many thousands of shareholders who are also members

 

Funds are not allowed to be used for the profit of members

 

As you work in financial risk etc etc...i invite you to join the legal dots between the above and the below, and you will see the issue that needs clarified...let me make it clear i do not think there is some grand conspiracy but just concerned every i and t is dotted and crossed to ensure any transaction is done properly.

 

3. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PURPOSE The Society’s purpose is to be the vehicle through which a healthy, balanced and constructive relationship between the Club and its supporters and the communities it serves is encouraged and developed. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members.

Edited April 5, 2018 by rea

[pozbaird]

I’m not a SMiSA member so have no bias towards either side of the argument here, but just out of interest. Trying to cut through everything - have I got this right.... punters who signed up were told that their £10 payment portion would be ring-fenced for the purchase of the shares.... now SMiSA want to use this money to fund a pitch at Ralston.

A simple yes/no would suffice to enlighten me if I’ve read this correctly.

Edited April 5, 2018 by pozbaird

[bazil85]

41 minutes ago, rea said:

Except that the funds are being used to support the asset/balance sheet of what is still a private company, with many thousands of shareholders who are also members

 

Funds are not allowed to be used for the profit of members

 

As you work in financial risk etc etc...i invite you to join the legal dots between the above and the below, and you will see the issue that needs clarified...let me make it clear i do not think there is some grand conspiracy but just concerned every i and t is dotted and crossed to ensure any transaction is done properly.

 

3. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PURPOSE The Society’s purpose is to be the vehicle through which a healthy, balanced and constructive relationship between the Club and its supporters and the communities it serves is encouraged and developed. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members.

I would say if you have such concerns take them to the FCA, blow the whistle on your football club. You'll be told the same as the last person that did it. There is nothing illegal about what SMISA/ St Mirren are doing. 

You'd be hard pushed to show a direct profit between SMISA members and a new training pitch. You'll find it a lot simpler prove a community benefit in a pitch that's used by many youth teams in the local community.

You can consider that me 'joining of dots' but if you still don't believe me, the FCA details are on their website to report illegal regulatory activity. 

[rea]

Just now, bazil85 said:

I would say if you have such concerns take them to the FCA, blow the whistle on your football club. You'll be told the same as the last person that did it. There is nothing illegal about what SMISA/ St Mirren are doing. 

You'd be hard pushed to show a direct profit between SMISA members and a new training pitch. You'll find it a lot simpler prove a community benefit in a pitch that's used by many youth teams in the local community.

You can consider that me 'joining of dots' but if you still don't believe me, the FCA details are on their website to report illegal regulatory activity. 

The FCA will have zero interest in this, and i have no interest in reporting it.

My interest is in making sure for future issues that the transaction (which will almost certainly be approved, i would think ) is water tight, these things can come back and bit you hard in future if not done correctly.

As for the issue proof, take me for example. I am not a SMISA member anymore, I am however a Shareholder in St Mirren. SMISA spending money on something i own a share of notionally supports/boosts the value of my shares, great for me.....thanks SMISA members

 

 

[Sonny]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Yeah it might do, but at the benefit of an extra area for the first team to train on. It could be very important given the AstroTurf pitches for some SP games. 

I take all the other points you mention about fan experience and they are all 100% valid. I do think you fall into a tiny bit of a trap though thinking that the majority of paying members would rather their match day experience was enhanced through TVs and  murals etc over the performance on the park. Fans are what keeps the fans going but performances are what will keep a fan happy over everything else, I'd hang upside down from my feet at the games to watch the buddies do well on that park and I think if the voting history has shown us anything the majority of paying members priorities items that are better for the team than for the fans. Not a bad thing IMO, just the demographic. 

I think this vote will pass, I could be wrong but it's my gut feel and if it doesn't fine, that's democracy. What I would say to you, do you think if there was a third options about bins, TVs and murals it would genuinely beat out this vote? I don't think so. 

You are making that up as I never said that anywhere.

Of course a last minute goal beats a mural but the Club pays players' wages and not the fans. Fans have been treated like shit for generations and its not just St Mirren I am talking about. Even today at some stadiums there is no covered terracing or hot (or cold) water, and at Ayr you are still peeing up against a wall. The 1877 Club is a good example of providing facilities for fans even though there is a flaw in that not every fan can afford to join. For a small time-frame we have a chance to do something  to improve the experience at no cost to the Club and with some initiatives we are saving the Club money that can be used for player budgets.  That source will dry up soon and the chance gone.

It is a democracy and everyone will vote as they see fit. But if this proposal is effectively to pay a player's wage then I am out.

[pozbaird]

19 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

I’m not a SMiSA member so have no bias towards either side of the argument here, but just out of interest. Trying to cut through everything - have I got this right.... punters who signed up were told that their £10 payment portion would be ring-fenced for the purchase of the shares.... now SMiSA want to use this money to fund a pitch at Ralston.

A simple yes/no would suffice to enlighten me if I’ve read this correctly.

Bump.... if the answer is ‘yes’, shouldn’t SMiSA’s first action have been to ask members to vote on something along these lines.....’We are proposing that the £10s ring-fenced for share purchase be made available for club spending on items which will be put to a members vote’. Do you agree with this proposal to allow these funds to be used in this manner.

There should have been no mention of what the monies may be used for until such times as members agreed in principle to allow their £10 money to be used for anything other than share purchase.

Unless I’m missing something?

[TsuMirren]

18 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I would say if you have such concerns take them to the FCA, blow the whistle on your football club. You'll be told the same as the last person that did it. There is nothing illegal about what SMISA/ St Mirren are doing. 

You'd be hard pushed to show a direct profit between SMISA members and a new training pitch. You'll find it a lot simpler prove a community benefit in a pitch that's used by many youth teams in the local community.

You can consider that me 'joining of dots' but if you still don't believe me, the FCA details are on their website to report illegal regulatory activity. 

I'd have thought your SMISA board contact would have told you how it actually works. If you contact the FCA, they'll send you to Supporters Direct Scotland. They'll do nothing as SMISA are their flagship trust. Andrew Jenkins may ask David Nicol, David will fix his glasses with his right hand, smile and say "it's fine...I can't really get too worked up about it".