The 3 Monthly Spend

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, garzo said:

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 :-)

I would say, yes very clear and very simple, if it was a business transaction and a company asking. But you've said it yourself we're fans of the team, it's our football club asking to use funds that we've already committed to give away anyway to benefit the team and community. To exploit that and think like shareholders isn't really for me. I can fully see your point though but for the gain that would have little to no impact on my life... Na 

Not exactly right in what you're saying. We are using the discretionary £2 fund for the £50k. Money that was always over and above and always going to be used as a wee bonus to the buyout. Because it'll take some time though for the £2 fund to reach £50k the proposal is to use cash in the bank already saved up from the £10 fund and then gradually replace from future £2 spends. For me it ticks a boxes 

The £50k will be getting next to no income in the bank, now a real benefit to the club - Tick

Big ticket item some fans have been crying out for - Tick 

Well costed to replace the funds over a set period of time - Tick 

Investment for SMISA when we invest in the club as they'll want to inherit the best possible facilities - Tick 

An extra £50k (potentially a player) for the SP budget next season - Tick

 

[BuddieinEK]

Can you elaborate on how a no to the vote will result in ring fenced funds being used?

Can you elaborate on how offering to spend ring-fenced money on something other than the purpose for which it is ring-fenced for respects those who signed up with assurances that the money was ring-fenced for one purpose?

[garzo]

20 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I would say, yes very clear and very simple, if it was a business transaction and a company asking. But you've said it yourself we're fans of the team, it's our football club asking to use funds that we've already committed to give away anyway to benefit the team and community. To exploit that and think like shareholders isn't really for me. I can fully see your point though but for the gain that would have little to no impact on my life... Na 

Not exactly right in what you're saying. We are using the discretionary £2 fund for the £50k. Money that was always over and above and always going to be used as a wee bonus to the buyout. Because it'll take some time though for the £2 fund to reach £50k the proposal is to use cash in the bank already saved up from the £10 fund and then gradually replace from future £2 spends. For me it ticks a boxes 

The £50k will be getting next to no income in the bank, now a real benefit to the club - Tick

Big ticket item some fans have been crying out for - Tick 

Well costed to replace the funds over a set period of time - Tick 

Investment for SMISA when we invest in the club as they'll want to inherit the best possible facilities - Tick 

An extra £50k (potentially a player) for the SP budget next season - Tick

 

Entitled to that view, respect it.

This however is a business transaction.

We are saving up to take control of a business - we should start acting like it.

[Lord Pityme]

Worth considering that if there was a drop off in members due disagreement over this shambolic vote being carried, or our general apathy should our time in the Prem be turgid. The £2 pot may never be able to repay money to the ring-fenced (apparently its an Open class ring-fence noo) fund, meaning the whole fan ownership aim is lost....

feckin big risk..!

[BuddieinEK]

Worth considering that if there was a drop off in members due disagreement over this shambolic vote being carried, or our general apathy should our time in the Prem be turgid. The £2 pot may never be able to repay money to the ring-fenced (apparently its an Open class ring-fence noo) fund, meaning the whole fan ownership aim is lost....
feckin big risk..!

Hence the reason it is rightly ring-fenced and should remain so. There is No guarantee the money can and will be replaced.

[bazil85]

17 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Can you elaborate on how a no to the vote will result in ring fenced funds being used?

Can you elaborate on how offering to spend ring-fenced money on something other than the purpose for which it is ring-fenced for respects those who signed up with assurances that the money was ring-fenced for one purpose?

Yes, easy, business models and purchase buyouts change and evolve. No one is saying THIS IS HAPPENING END OF.

The assurances are still 100% there, we are simply being given the right to ALLOW SMISA and GS to change that assurance. They haven't got the power to change it, it needs to be the people that pay their money every month. I'm sorry you don't want to give the paying members that right. 

 

[bazil85]

10 minutes ago, garzo said:

Entitled to that view, respect it.

This however is a business transaction.

We are saving up to take control of a business - we should start acting like it.

There's a POV that we are acting like it by one, safeguarding property we'll soon own and two, financially benefitting a player budget for what will be a very difficult league next season. Risk and reward is what all business is about. I think most people that have looked at the proposal would agree on is this risk is very small compared to the reqward we can potentially get. 

[bazil85]

12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Worth considering that if there was a drop off in members due disagreement over this shambolic vote being carried, or our general apathy should our time in the Prem be turgid. The £2 pot may never be able to repay money to the ring-fenced (apparently its an Open class ring-fence noo) fund, meaning the whole fan ownership aim is lost....

feckin big risk..!

If that happened the fans that pulled out would only have themselves to blame for screwing up a massive chance for the club to be brought into fan ownership.

Would have to be exceptionally shortsighted and dimwitted. I have faith (majority of) paying members will see that though and therfore a smaller risk than you say. 

[dumbarton_bud]

2 hours 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. 

It's a members organisation so yes, this is exactly how this should have gone. This is restricted funds, not unrestricted. 

If I was working at an organisation that took charitable donations, and a donor specified a donation for a particular use; these funds are restricted to that exact use. 

If I wanted to use those funds for something else,  I would need to check with said donor and get their permission before planning the other project. There is a due process that needs to be followed and it appears SMISA are skipping a step in that process. 

Misread the original quote, but my point stands.... Asking to be asked etc

Edited April 6, 2018 by dumbarton_bud

[garzo]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

There's a POV that we are acting like it by one, safeguarding property we'll soon own and two, financially benefitting a player budget for what will be a very difficult league next season. Risk and reward is what all business is about. I think most people that have looked at the proposal would agree on is this risk is very small compared to the reqward we can potentially get. 

It's not what the money is for.
We don't own it yet. 
SMISA are not a business.
We're saving up to own a business - that is the deal.

I'm sorry you don't understand this.

[pozbaird]

RBS: Ringfenced Bank of SMiSA.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, dumbarton_bud said:

It's a members organisation so yes, this is exactly how this should have gone. This is restricted funds, not unrestricted. 

If I was working at an organisation that took charitable donations, and a donor specified a donation for a particular use; these funds are restricted to that exact use. 

If I wanted to use those funds for something else,  I would need to check with said donor and get their permission before planning the other project. There is a due process that needs to be followed and it appears SMISA are skipping a step in that process. 

Mate come on seriously? Do people really give their fellow buddies this little credit that they want two votes? 'Can we use ring fenced funds - Yes Are you sure - Oh wait no' 

Putting barriers up that are really not required. 

[dumbarton_bud]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Mate come on seriously? Do people really give their fellow buddies this little credit that they want two votes? 'Can we use ring fenced funds - Yes Are you sure - Oh wait no' 

Putting barriers up that are really not required. 

That's not what I said, and I have edited that I misread your quote so I apologise for the confusion in that sense. 

However, whether Saints fans deserve the credit is neither here nor there. The question needs to be put in its own right over accessing the restricted funds. Yes/No question. If yes, then what to do with the funds can be asked of the membership. If no, then carry on as you were. 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, garzo said:

It's not what the money is for.
We don't own it yet. 
SMISA are not a business.
We're saving up to own a business - that is the deal.

I'm sorry you don't understand this.

The money is for GS (to buy his shares), GS is the one making the request, the money is sitting doing nothing right now, the money will be replaced. I think I understand it perfectly well.

What's your suggestion? We demand a financial gain from our football club (Forgetting clearly that we'll own in a few years) that will need to come out the budget? So all 1,300 members get maybe £20 in shares and our club take a financial hit. Aye good one.

With some of these comments I can actually see a few fans cancelling their subscription. Cutting their nose off to spite their face. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, dumbarton_bud said:

That's not what I said, and I have edited that I misread your quote so I apologise for the confusion in that sense. 

However, whether Saints fans deserve the credit is neither here nor there. The question needs to be put in its own right over accessing the restricted funds. Yes/No question. If yes, then what to do with the funds can be asked of the membership. If no, then carry on as you were. 

I said about this point earlier, the Yes/ no question for me opens up a can of worms about future spending. I think it's a very different ask for this costed pitch and future use of the £10 pot. I'm happy for it to be decided in a vote. I just hope other members recognise the gravity of a mass drop in membership numbers. 

[faraway saint]

Didn't someone think that this decision would be contentious, at least?

Without trawling over the umpteen "aye/naw" opinions, to use this money WASN'T necessary. 

There's plenty funds available from transfers and promotion money, both  sources that wouldn't have been budgeted. 

It's, at least, done some damage to the whole SMISA image and for what is in the bigger scheme of things, a small amount of money.

As I've said, who made this decision and didn't they thing of the possible consequences? 

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by faraway saint

[linwood buddie]

Even the idea of using SIMSA members own contributions to repay its own money.

[garzo]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The money is for GS (to buy his shares), GS is the one making the request, the money is sitting doing nothing right now, the money will be replaced. I think I understand it perfectly well.

What's your suggestion? We demand a financial gain from our football club (Forgetting clearly that we'll own in a few years) that will need to come out the budget? So all 1,300 members get maybe £20 in shares and our club take a financial hit. Aye good one.

With some of these comments I can actually see a few fans cancelling their subscription. Cutting their nose off to spite their face. 

I've not made any specific suggestion and suggesting I have suggested our club take a financial hit is off the mark - I say the club operate within its means.

here's the options, correct me if you see otherwise.

1. SMISA ring-fence the monies as intended and the club operate within its means,

2. SMISA members vote to transfer ring fenced monies as a donation/ sponsorship to the club and the club operate within its means with little or no return to SMISA,
SMISA save up to replace this ring fenced money.

3. SMISA members vote to transfer ring fenced monies as an investment in lieu of other shareholders investment - shares transfer in proportion between shareholders.

As far as I read this, option 3 is not on the table, so I voted for 1.

And as I've also said I'm commenting from afar - 1 and 2 may be the essence of the deal and a shareholder agreement, who knows?

[Gruffalo]

33 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

If that happened the fans that pulled out would only have themselves to blame for screwing up a massive chance for the club to be brought into fan ownership.

Would have to be exceptionally shortsighted and dimwitted. I have faith (majority of) paying members will see that though and therfore a smaller risk than you say. 

With an attitude like that you should be on the SMISA marketing team. 

 

[E=Mc2]

2 hours ago, pozbaird said:

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.

Mine is 55" perhaps she would like to come over and have a wee look at mine.  

And it is HD almost all the time.  

Edited April 6, 2018 by E=Mc2

[Lord Pityme]

Is basil85 even in smisa..?

i guess i might not give a toss too, if it was somebody else's money!

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Worth considering that if there was a drop off in members due disagreement over this shambolic vote being carried, or our general apathy should our time in the Prem be turgid. The £2 pot may never be able to repay money to the ring-fenced (apparently its an Open class ring-fence noo) fund, meaning the whole fan ownership aim is lost....
feckin big risk..!

Hence the reason it is rightly ring-fenced and should remain so. There is No guarantee the money can and will be replaced.

The deeper worrying issue is that around a million additional transfer money, the £50k they already got from smisa and £533k for winning the league (not to mention better recent matchday revenue) is seemingly still not enough to live within their means..?

on top of that the majority shareholder wants us to give him £50k we set aside to buy his shares, and replace it (mibbaes) with our own money so we can still buy his shares..!

[Sonny]

54 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

There's a POV that we are acting like it by one, safeguarding property we'll soon own and two, financially benefitting a player budget for what will be a very difficult league next season. Risk and reward is what all business is about. I think most people that have looked at the proposal would agree on is this risk is very small compared to the reqward we can potentially get. 

You have mentioned several times about benefiting the player budget. That gives me a few concerns. 1 Is it the role of SMiSA to pay players' wages? 2 If SMiSA is playing players' wages then we are living beyond our means. 3 This had not been made clear to the members.

And secondly there does not appear to be any transparency on making proposals for the £2 spend. You said you are happy for the Club to decide but its not your decision to make. How do ordinary members get to put forward a proposal that will be considered or is it only proposals that come from the Club that can be considered. Again this is not clear.

[bazil85]

26 minutes ago, garzo said:

I've not made any specific suggestion and suggesting I have suggested our club take a financial hit is off the mark - I say the club operate within its means.

here's the options, correct me if you see otherwise.

1. SMISA ring-fence the monies as intended and the club operate within its means,

2. SMISA members vote to transfer ring fenced monies as a donation/ sponsorship to the club and the club operate within its means with little or no return to SMISA,
SMISA save up to replace this ring fenced money.

3. SMISA members vote to transfer ring fenced monies as an investment in lieu of other shareholders investment - shares transfer in proportion between shareholders.

As far as I read this, option 3 is not on the table, so I voted for 1.

And as I've also said I'm commenting from afar - 1 and 2 may be the essence of the deal and a shareholder agreement, who knows?

It's a fair breakdown. 1 and 2 are the No/ Yes (more or less) and 3 isn't on the table. I'm just saying my opinion differs from you in that the only investment for me as far as St Mirren is concerned is the product on the park. Personally speaking and from my take on the situation, 2 maximises that. 

I also think it's important to note that the club wouldn't be paying outside it's means, it's simply saving £50k from the already existing budget. Financially we're in a great position based on this year but we're going into a very tough league with a majority of teams that can outspend us regardless of how well we do. We need all the help we can get. 

[bazil85]

31 minutes ago, Gruffalo said:

With an attitude like that you should be on the SMISA marketing team. 

 

God you're right, I'm forgetting how delicate people have to be nowadays to protect the feelings.