The 3 Monthly Spend

[Lord Pityme]

In short i am going to take the money you were saving up to buy the controlling  interest in the club from me, and keep it,but i am happy for you to replace with more of your own money. Seems fair when you put it like that, can you help me buy the eiffel tower as well guv?

or....

Football Chairman... you agree to buy a football club off them, then they end up getting you to pay for some artificial grass instead....

Edited April 5, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[davidg]

1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

In short i am going to take the money you were saving up to buy the controlling  interest in the club from me, and keep it,but i am happy for you to replace with more of your own money. Seems fair when you put it like that, can you help me buy the eiffel tower as well guv?

Nonsense. 

They have put together a proposal for the members to consider and vote on. If the members vote against it then nothing happens. 

[Lord Pityme]

2 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

All?

Including the £2's that have already been spent in the discretionary spend pots?.

As others have suggested, I don't blame the club for chancing its arm with this and if a pot had been allowed to grow for a big ticket item, alarms wouldn't have been raised as the ring fenced money wasn't getting touched.

As an aside, 3g/4g pitches have a lifespan of approximately 10 years.

If, in 8 years time, SMISA become owners of the club, they'll have roughly 2 years before the astro will be due for renewal. Where will that money come from if, they are not making plans now for ongoing work, repairs and replacements.
I expect they'll need more than £150k then.
 

Given the committee want to use the £2's, to pay back our £50k ring-fenced funds then it also comes into question.

[Lord Pityme]

5 minutes ago, davidg said:

Nonsense. 

They have put together a proposal for the members to consider and vote on. If the members vote against it then nothing happens. 

They are asking members to participate in a vote that is contrary to the relevant legislation, the constitution and the agreement they were at pains to guarantee prospect members they would NEVER break. 

And we need to know if this is an additional free £50k on top of the arranged borrowing facility £50k. Or a work-round to avoid paying back that original borrowing???

i wonder how the proposed new committee member who is a Journo will respond if another Journo breaks this story of double cross against fans trying to buy their football club? Will he be available for comment?

Edited April 5, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[David Mc]

Hope Cambridge Analytica haven't influenced the vote.  That would be a thread and a half 

[TsuMirren]

16 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

They are asking members to participate in a vote that is contrary to the relevant legislation, the constitution and the agreement they were at pains to guarantee prospect members they would NEVER break. 

And we need to know if this is an additional free £50k on top of the arranged borrowing facility £50k. Or a work-round to avoid paying back that original borrowing???

i wonder how the proposed new committee member who is a Journo will respond if another Journo breaks this story of double cross against fans trying to buy their football club? Will he be available for comment?

It's additional Tony, the 50K overdraft facility has only just been finalised and is being built up in installments. 

[rea]

I’m confused 
surely when the club make a capital investment like the purchase of an all weather facility they factor in the depreciation cost and the cost to replace it ?
without knowing the details of how Ralston is funded or the associated cost for community groups - is there not a fund built into the finances of the organisation that already have covered this?
i can’t believe any business model would be short sighted to have not considered the long term implications of this
my gut feeling is although the replacement of a 4g pitch is important- it should not be at the cost to the fans ?
 

historically no set aside was made for depreciation and agms would alwaus report roughly break even excluding depreciation. something i was not happy with

[TsuMirren]

24 minutes ago, davidg said:

Nonsense. 

They have put together a proposal for the members to consider and vote on. If the members vote against it then nothing happens. 

When members voted against the Panda Club things got interesting, you then had the press release regarding the Glenvale option. All that will be like a children's picnic compared to what could happen if this doesn't go through. They've put together a proposal knowing the majority don't care about constitutions etc, but do care about the club. Vote against it and there will be pressure to revisit, they may even come out and run another vote with it as a loan. 

[Lord Pityme]

10 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

It's additional Tony, the 50K overdraft facility has only just been finalised and is being built up in installments. 

Thanks Kenny, so thats actually £100k coming out of the supposed Ring-Fenced fund.... hell mend them.

[pozbaird]

Edited due to the Masters coming back on telly.

Edited April 5, 2018 by pozbaird

[buddiecat]

8 hours ago, billyg said:

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 !

Yes Billy, i believe the wee clause added at the last AGM regarding the SMiSA board being able to do anything that benefits the club will be rolled out here, it was voted through without question - though not by me - and i believe this sort of proposal is exactly why it was added. One board member brought it up at a board meeting and it was voted through by him and his Cabal as something to be put to the membership at the AGM. I do not belive for one minute that the board member in question came up with this idea on his own, they work too closely with the club board for my liking.

[TsuMirren]

Finally removing me from the Trello cards, well done lads! (I've not had the app since I resigned, but could see the text in the notification emails "!") You'll be contacting me to officially accept my resignation next then informing the membership. 

Oh and fantastic idea Poz, problem being Gordon wants his money back and our support didn't trust a single other one of the potential new owners. Seven years and the closest ones we know of were 10,000 Hours, the English group and the Argies. They'll do this, they'll do that etc and who knows how much of that was justified or would have been proved right. It'd need all sorts of constitutional changes, the asset lock also means the money collected for the purpose of the club purchase must be used for that purpose...wait, hang on, the asset lock states that..hmmmm...

[David Mc]

11 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Why don’t SMiSA forget about fan ownership. On the whole, St Mirren did pretty well under the stewardship of SG & Co. They came in, stuck around for the long haul, and over the piece, history will judge them kindly. GLS & Co are new blood, and so far, over the piece - so far so good. The old guard wanted out and needed out, new blood is in place. As far as I know, no supporters expect GLS (or anyone) to act like Uncle Roy at Ross C, Mileson at Gretna, or Jack Walker at Blackburn. Sugar daddy not required - forward thinking, fresh ideas and someone with St Mirren at heart and a safe pair of hands required.

Forget about SMiSA taking over, simply become a partner in the club. A seat on the BoD, a meaningful presence yes, but head honchos, no. Forget £2 pots and £10 ring-fenced (now clearly discredited) monies. Lump every monthly payment into one big transparent pot, and be open about it - it’s to be spent on stuff. Members get to vote on what it’s spent on, but it will be spent to all of our benefit, and gives St Mirren an edge over some rivals. Spend it on astroturf. Spend it on installing TVs at the pie stalls. Put it towards beating off interest from Motherwell for a quality signing. Spend it on a women’s team. Fixing the airdome. Upgrading toilet facilites. Hell, spend it on updating the fcuking HoF panels! Members get a say, see where their monies are being spent, get to vote on a range of spend projects that benefit everyone in the St Mirren community in one way or another. From what I’ve seen so far, SMiSA actually getting the keys to the car scares the shite out of me.

Hell, if it was upfront and clear, and everyone was at least transparent about where our money was going - I’d rejoin in a heartbeat.  I never wanted to own the club, I just want it to do well on and off the park.

That's the ideal solution as far I am concerned.  

[pozbaird]

5 minutes ago, David Mc said:

That's the ideal solution as far I am concerned.  

Could have spent monies this month on extra buses to Brechin.... now that’s what I call a hedge fund.

Boom! Boom!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

And on some bevy, to get reekin in Brechin [emoji482]

Additional cludgy fir keechin in Brechin

[buddiecat]

"Basic membership of SMISA has been set at £12 per month. Of that, £10 is ringfenced for the share purchase, and £2 goes into a pot for members to spend on club-related projects." This is from the SMiSA website and quite clearly shows that the promise here would be broken and anyone who paid in expecting the above to be what happened to their money can feel aggrieved and ask for refund, not something i would consider but is still a risk the board feel they can take.

A point to consider is that should SMiSA fail to have the funds to purchase the shares by 2026 and goes out of business then any existing funds can be transferred to another community body, this would mean our money can still be used as it was meant to be but  we would have no right to vote on how the club is run. Are there any wee set ups already present at our club who could form themselves into a suitable recipient of those funds. I know It is a far fetched point, but it does show we need to keep the funds ringfenced for our purposes and only use the £2 pot for club requirements, change the vote to "would you consider saving up £50k of the £2 pot to get a new astro turf pitch"

 

[buddiecat]

1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:

Finally removing me from the Trello cards, well done lads! (I've not had the app since I resigned, but could see the text in the notification emails "!") You'll be contacting me to officially accept my resignation next then informing the membership. 

Oh and fantastic idea Poz, problem being Gordon wants his money back and our support didn't trust a single other one of the potential new owners. Seven years and the closest ones we know of were 10,000 Hours, the English group and the Argies. They'll do this, they'll do that etc and who knows how much of that was justified or would have been proved right. It'd need all sorts of constitutional changes, the asset lock also means the money collected for the purpose of the club purchase must be used for that purpose...wait, hang on, the asset lock states that..hmmmm...

I still had limited Trello card access last time i looked last year, and never had contact accepting my resignation, wasn't thanked for my work either, some were thanked when they resigned at the last AGM but not all.

[linwood buddie]

Seems to be a few folk that have resigned from various SIMSA committees etc this last wee while.

[TsuMirren]

7 hours ago, linwood buddie said:

Seems to be a few folk that have resigned from various SIMSA committees etc this last wee while.

There have been Board, Committee and Secretary resignations over the past 12 months or so. Basically leading up to the last AGM and since. To be honest, I was elected without an actual election and there wasn't even a show of hands at the last AGM. So I'm fully aware of the malaise around involvement beyond voting and just accepting stuff.  

[Lord Pityme]

7 hours ago, linwood buddie said:

Seems to be a few folk that have resigned from various SIMSA committees etc this last wee while.

The Smisa committee obviously didnt want a kaffufal to kick off with the slew of resignations, trying to play down the bad news. I resigned over a year ago and its only just appeared on an official smisa statement.

although the committee members who have resigned did so for their own reasons, the common theme amongst most of them was a growing concern over how the finances were managed, and the possible legal implications going forward.

for me having spent the best part of two decades in the co-operative movement working first and foremost for the benefit of the members, I couldnt believe how much of a total disregard occured for the relevant legislation and our own constitution, as soon as the majority SMFC shareholder wanted something! Knowing the possible consequences that would befall the type of organisation smisa is, when it is held to account by its governing body, and ultimately its members, I had to with a heavy heart walk away.

there will be a time in the not too distant future when smisa's actions will be called in, and the inevitable fall out that follows will require ordinary members to step up and insist and ensure the society is run within the governing legislation, and not at the behest of SMFC's majority shareholder. What the Smisa committee seem unable to grasp, (inspite of my attempts to inform & educate) is that it is they! Not any outsider or ordinary member who will be held to account if the Society is held to be in breach of legislation and operating outside its constitution.

theres always a reckoning.

[Bud the Baker]

Seems par for the course for a bunch of dudes who gave the outgoing BoD £1M for their shares after they lost £266k the previous year.

Once again glad I decided against signing up.

Doubleplusglad!

[FTOF]

12 hours ago, pozbaird said:

I respect your view, but I'd be lying if I said I understand it. I could understand it with the £2 discretionary pot spend, I wouldn't have strong views on what they really spent it on, as long as it wasn't scud magazines... but not the money being set aside to buy the shares.

Edit: Can you actually still buy scud mags' or is it all online these days?

I'll do some research.

I'll get back to you, if I can still see my keyboard.

Edited April 6, 2018 by FTOF

[bazil85]

16 hours ago, rea said:

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

 

 

Possibly the difference between us I'd say. You seem to come from the angle of making sure it's right with concern it's wrong (and illegal). I come from the angle, of course make sure it's right but with faith that they've got it right and completely legal.

Neither of us can fully know every single aspect because it wouldn't be prudent to have every St Mirren football fan involved in every step of what will be a complex transaction (Very few company's have full stakeholder transparency like this if any) but based on all the facts, information and the proposal we have there is nothing that suggests it's illegal. If you have any 'proof' or something highly suspect then feel free to present it. I'd go to the FCA for you because I guarantee they would be interested in it and it would jepordise my football club. 

[bazil85]

17 hours ago, Sonny said:

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.

I didn't say you did, my point was more if it's' one or the other' which is what it is right now and always will be. Regardless of this being extra money SMISA are still asking fans do you want small comforts or the money to go benefit the St Mirren budget. There will only ever be one winner for the majority of fans as the votes have shown. I personally would of been perfectly happy if the BTB scheme saw every penny of the £2 fund spent as our club sees fit. They are my priority in football and always will be, I also have full faith in the decision makers at our club to use the money wisely. But that's me.  

As you say it's a democracy, each to their own, you're entitled to your opinion and what you'd want the money spent on.  A bit disappointed you'd be 'out' though if other fans didn't vote your way. 

[rea]

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Possibly the difference between us I'd say. You seem to come from the angle of making sure it's right with concern it's wrong (and illegal). I come from the angle, of course make sure it's right but with faith that they've got it right and completely legal.

Neither of us can fully know every single aspect because it wouldn't be prudent to have every St Mirren football fan involved in every step of what will be a complex transaction (Very few company's have full stakeholder transparency like this if any) but based on all the facts, information and the proposal we have there is nothing that suggests it's illegal. If you have any 'proof' or something highly suspect then feel free to present it. I'd go to the FCA for you because I guarantee they would be interested in it and it would jepordise my football club. 

You clearly have not had any dealings with the FCA regarding Football Clubs.

 

I dont think i have suggested anything is illegal, you should know if you are in Financial Services that that is not how this world works, it is not "black and white"  (sorry) 

It is clear that there are some issues, even if these are only perceptions, otherwise there would not be pages already on this issue.

If this costs SMISA just 1 member leaving or not signing up than that would be a real shame if it could be prevented by just going through the full transparent process.