bazil85 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 16 hours ago, pozbaird said: Oh, I do admire the cheek. Even before asking members IF they want their £10s to be used for anything other than what members signed up for, discussions clearly took place about those monies funding a specific need - in this case an astroturf pitch. If it isn’t sheer arrogance, I don’t know what it is. Me to Mrs Poz: Why don’t we stick £20 in a jar every month, save up for a new TV? Mrs Poz: Sounds good, count me in. (Fast forward a year) Me to Mrs Poz: I really need new golf clubs, the money in that jar should do it. Mrs Poz: Is that right? Mrs Poz is of course asked to vote on the golf clubs though Nothing arrogant about this proposal, it's asking fans and giving fans the choice for something to benefit our club. The thing that baffles me about fans thinking this is so terrible is... The irony, that the £10 is going straight to GS anyway to pay-off the money he put up himself in order to us to become fan owned. He's done an amazing job as a St Mirren fan to hand the club to the fans using his own wealth (and at no profit from the deal). A thing that no other St Mirren fan could do. Yet it's 'arrogance' for him to position a selfless proposal that is using money owed to him anyway? Mental Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Mrs Poz is of course asked to vote on the golf clubs though Nothing arrogant about this proposal, it's asking fans and giving fans the choice for something to benefit our club. No. Firstly Mrs Poz would be approached and asked if she would be happy for her monthly spend, which was ring-fenced to purchase a new TV, be used for anything else. There would be no assumption on my part that golf clubs, or an astroturf pitch for my back garden, could be a big ticket item that the TV fund money could be dipped into for. I simply would not have tossed around in my head items I thought our TV fund could buy. It would be extreme arrogance on my part, with a huge fcuking horse being placed squarely in front of the cart. I’m now finding this hard work - getting a simple point across. Would it be easier just to suggest that you read the dictionary definition of ring-fenced, or you read the blurb that SMiSA used to get folk to sign up? This shouldn’t be hard work. The point I, and others, are making, is a pretty simple one, yet is met with ‘but folk are being asked to vote on the astroturf’.... we know that, but..... Edited April 6, 2018 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 1 minute ago, pozbaird said: No. Firstly Mrs Poz would be approached and asked if she would be happy for her monthly spend, which was ring-fenced to purchase a new TV, be used for anything else. There would be no assumption on my part that golf clubs, or an astroturf pitch for my back garden, could be a big ticket item that the TV fund money could be dipped into for. I’m now finding this hard work - getting a simple point across. The argument seems to be met with denial, or just being ignored. Poz is of course right. A better process would be to vote on the change of use of the money and then on its use. This separates the issues as i am sure many will vote on the use without consideration of the more fundamental point first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, pozbaird said: No. Firstly Mrs Poz would be approached and asked if she would be happy for her monthly spend, which was ring-fenced to purchase a new TV, be used for anything else. There would be no assumption on my part that golf clubs, or an astroturf pitch for my back garden, could be a big ticket item that the TV fund money could be dipped into for. I’m now finding this hard work - getting a simple point across. The argument seems to be met with denial, or just being ignored. There is no denial and you're not being ignored. You're just being disagreed with that it's 'arrogant' for the reasons I said. Plus you can change the wording all you want Mrs P still has to put a big tick in a yes or no box for a spend she knows is being proposed. Would you let members of the local community use your clubs? That's the real question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E=Mc2 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 19 hours ago, faraway saint said: Meeting? What meeting? Not the fecking power point meeting? The next meeting in Arbroath please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 2 minutes ago, rea said: Poz is of course right. A better process would be to vote on the change of use of the money and then on its use. This separates the issues as i am sure many will vote on the use without consideration of the more fundamental point first. This 'better' process doesn't give St Mirren fans the credit they deserve. to think St Mirren fans don't know that voting yes to spend the £10 fund means... Spending the £10 fund is a very strange notion. It is also two very different things, giving SMISA the right to vote on future spends for the £10 fund and this one spend that is very clearly cost to replace the funds. Dare I say the outcome could be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 1 minute ago, E=Mc2 said: The next meeting in Arbroath please. Fecking right it looks like SMISA are now buying golf clubs and TV's, FFS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, bazil85 said: There is no denial and you're not being ignored. You're just being disagreed with that it's 'arrogant' for the reasons I said. Plus you can change the wording all you want Mrs P still has to put a big tick in a yes or no box for a spend she knows is being proposed. Would you let members of the local community use your clubs? That's the real question... This makes no sense, and once more completely ignores the fact that monies RING FENCED to buy shares have been discussed in regard to being dipped into for an astroturf pitch between the club and SMiSA, BEFORE anyone even bothered to ask the people who are paying the money if they would entertain the thought of it being used for anything else in the first place. Edited April 6, 2018 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 17 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Mrs Poz is of course asked to vote on the golf clubs though Nothing arrogant about this proposal, it's asking fans and giving fans the choice for something to benefit our club. The thing that baffles me about fans thinking this is so terrible is... The irony, that the £10 is going straight to GS anyway to pay-off the money he put up himself in order to us to become fan owned. He's done an amazing job as a St Mirren fan to hand the club to the fans using his own wealth (and at no profit from the deal). A thing that no other St Mirren fan could do. Yet it's 'arrogance' for him to position a selfless proposal that is using money owed to him anyway? Mental Fully support our chairman and what he's done to get the fan ownership model off and running. Full credit and respect to the team at SMISA too. As shareholders we should be saving up to purchase the shares - only once! That is the sole reason for SMISA existing and why we are saving up - nothing (barring catastrophe) should deflect us from that singular objective. This deal is OK if we are offered shares in return, otherwise we are paying for the shares twice! Just my view mind :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 Mrs Poz is of course asked to vote on the golf clubs though Nothing arrogant about this proposal, it's asking fans and giving fans the choice for something to benefit our club. The thing that baffles me about fans thinking this is so terrible is... The irony, that the £10 is going straight to GS anyway to pay-off the money he put up himself in order to us to become fan owned. He's done an amazing job as a St Mirren fan to hand the club to the fans using his own wealth (and at no profit from the deal). A thing that no other St Mirren fan could do. Yet it's 'arrogance' for him to position a selfless proposal that is using money owed to him anyway? Mental Several years ago the Local Authority decided to withdraw their contract with the charity vI work for and "reprovision the Service Users into their own centres"!I wrote and asked them, " In line with your own policies and procedures, what consultation will take place with Carers and Service Users?"From a very senior Council official came this stunning reply..."There will be no consultation until after the decision has been confirmed"!This is very similar. We are not part of a democratic decision to agree a fundemental change in how ring-fenced money is used...we are being told that now a decision has been made to change how the ring-fenced money is used, like it or not, is this how you would like it spent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 5 minutes ago, faraway saint said: Fecking right it looks like SMISA are now buying golf clubs and TV's, FFS! But the question is ........"Are the funds being used for these purchases from ring fenced money"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 1 minute ago, linwood buddie said: But the question is ........"Are the funds being used for these purchases from ring fenced money"? Mibbie aye, mibbie naw......................you decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, linwood buddie said: But the question is ........"Are the funds being used for these purchases from ring fenced money"? Yes, I want to buy new golf clubs from ring-fenced money. Next year it might be that Canon camera I have my eye on..... She’s never getting that telly....IMHO. Edited April 6, 2018 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 Just now, faraway saint said: Mibbie aye, mibbie naw......................you decide. Do I get the chance to decide or will the decision be made for me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Lothian Saint Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 The £23.7million prize money is distributed according to the percentages set out below, based on overall league standing at the end of the season. Premiership 1st - £3.18m (13.4%) 2nd - £2.28m (9.6%) 3rd - £1.96m (8.25%) 4th - £1.72m (7.25%) 5th - £1.6m (6.75%) 6th - £1.48m (6.25%) 7th - £1.36m (5.75%) 8th - £1.3m (5.5%) 9th - £1.24m (5.25%) 10th - £1.19m (5.0%) 11th - £1.13m (4.75%) 12th - £1.07m (4.5%) Championship 1st - £533,000 (2.25%) plus 50k from Smisa ring fenced fund. They will need a shit load more to compete with 11th placed premier club. 2nd - £450,000 (1.9%) 3rd - £379,000 (1.6%) 4th - £308,000 (1.3%) 5th - £237,000 (1.0%) 6th - £213,000 (0.9%) 7th - £201,000 (0.85%) 8th - £190,000 (0.80%) 9th - £178,000 (0.75%) 10th - £166,000 (0.7%) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 11 minutes ago, pozbaird said: This makes no sense, and once more completely ignores the fact that monies RING FENCED to buy shares have been discussed in regard to being dipped into for an astroturf pitch between the club and SMiSA, BEFORE anyone even bothered to ask the people who are paying the money if they would entertain the thought of it being used for anything else in the first place. Eh? talk about making absolutely no sense. Fans should be asked if it's alright for them to be asked to use the ring fenced funds? Come on, play the game here. Very poor argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Eh? talk about making absolutely no sense. Fans should be asked if it's alright for them to be asked to use the ring fenced funds? Come on, play the game here. Very poor argument. I don’t even know how to respond to this one... I’ll just bow out, as I am no longer a SMiSA member anyway, and can remember why I am no longer one.... Had my tuppenceworth on an open forum, fair do’s... will bow out and go pack for Brechin. Car keys, money, party poppers and a bottle of champers. Tick. Job’s a good un’. Edited April 6, 2018 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 11 minutes ago, garzo said: Fully support our chairman and what he's done to get the fan ownership model off and running. Full credit and respect to the team at SMISA too. As shareholders we should be saving up to purchase the shares - only once! That is the sole reason for SMISA existing and why we are saving up - nothing (barring catastrophe) should deflect us from that singular objective. This deal is OK if we are offered shares in return, otherwise we are paying for the shares twice! Just my view mind :-) I don't get how that is? Why should we get shares for giving £50k of money going to GS? Everyone will still commit the same amount a month for the same period of time regardless of this being a yes or no vote. The money that does come out of the £10 a month is replaced by the discretionary funds over the next couple years, funds that don't go towards the buyout. I'm not sure why people are so concerned with using money that is just sitting in an account, would be going to GS anyway and is very well costed to be replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 15 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Several years ago the Local Authority decided to withdraw their contract with the charity vI work for and "reprovision the Service Users into their own centres"! I wrote and asked them, " In line with your own policies and procedures, what consultation will take place with Carers and Service Users?" From a very senior Council official came this stunning reply... "There will be no consultation until after the decision has been confirmed"!This is very similar. We are not part of a democratic decision to agree a fundemental change in how ring-fenced money is used... we are being told that now a decision has been made to change how the ring-fenced money is used, like it or not, is this how you would like it spent? Just completely untrue. SMISA members are voting on this as we speak. They vote no, the ring fenced funds aren't touched and using them is not allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, pozbaird said: I don’t even know how to respond to this one... I’ll just bow out, as I am no longer a SMiSA member, and can remember why I am no longer one.... Had my tuppenceworth on an open forum, will bow out and go pack for Brechin. Cool story bro. toys/ pram sounds like to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSS Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 We are just about to collect £533k for winning the League.Can't some of that be used to replace the pitch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 Just completely untrue. SMISA members are voting on this as we speak. They vote no, the ring fenced funds aren't touched and using them is not allowed. There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said: There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know! Can you elaborate on how a no to the vote will result in ring fenced funds being used? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 12 minutes ago, HSS said: We are just about to collect £533k for winning the League.Can't some of that be used to replace the pitch? Yes it could, the club have already answered that if the vote is no the club will fund it but it'll come out of next seasons budget. Of which that money will contribute to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted April 6, 2018 Report Share Posted April 6, 2018 29 minutes ago, bazil85 said: I don't get how that is? Why should we get shares for giving £50k of money going to GS? Everyone will still commit the same amount a month for the same period of time regardless of this being a yes or no vote. The money that does come out of the £10 a month is replaced by the discretionary funds over the next couple years, funds that don't go towards the buyout. I'm not sure why people are so concerned with using money that is just sitting in an account, would be going to GS anyway and is very well costed to be replaced. Quite simple really. I think its a fair deal, if only 1 shareholder is investing, that the shareholder is compensated in proportion by the other. That's my point - we can vote to be a cash cow if we like, for no return - that's what's being asked of us I think. As fans, we might say - yes that's fine. But in this context and for such a large some of money we should think like shareholders. Shareholders should be compensated. I'm not aware of the deal and relations between all parties so I'm commenting from a distance on this... Here's what I see about to happen. We give the money we are saving to buy shares in the club, direct to the club, on our own as shareholders and for little or no return. We then save up again to purchase shares from another shareholder later on. Is this what we are voting on? If other shareholders are doing the same and in proportion then that is OK . If we get the money back by agreement as a loan, than that's OK too. Otherwise its a gift, donation - call it sponsorship if you like. But it's not what the money was intended for - it was intended to buy shares - that's its sole purpose and it should be ring fenced for that purpose. Just my view mind and I'm open to be convinced otherwise :-) 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.