The 3 Monthly Spend

[melmac]

SMiSA's assets are protected by an asset lock, the club are not the community.

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I have. I can i did. You wont.

Okay then 

[bazil85]

Just now, melmac said:

SMiSA's assets are protected by an asset lock, the club are not the community.

The asset lock on the funds can be unlocked if there’s a direct or indirect benefit to the community. Said it on another thread there’s a direct benefit in that young people from the area use it and indirect in that it benefits St Mirren and a strong st Mirren is good for the community. 

There’s nothing wrong/ illegal in what they’re proposing. The only agreement they need is a majority vote. 

[melmac]

25 minutes ago, buddiecat said:

They put the proposal for unaudited accounts forward at the last AGM and had it passed. Everything gets passed because hardly anyone turns up at the AGM and board friendly voters are always there in sufficient numbers to pass what they wish.

Yes but was there a positive actual "hands up" vote? Was the resolution passed as below?

Power of certain societies to disapply section 83

(1)A registered society may by resolution disapply section 83 (duty to appoint auditors) in respect of a year of account if—

(a)the total value of its assets at the end of the preceding year of account did not exceed £2,800,000, and

(b)its turnover for that preceding year did not exceed £5,600,000.

(2)The resolution must be passed at a general meeting at which—

(a)less than 20% of the total votes cast are cast against the resolution, and

(b)less than 10% of the society's members for the time being entitled under its rules to vote cast their votes against the resolution.

 

[melmac]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The asset lock on the funds can be unlocked if there’s a direct or indirect benefit to the community. Said it on another thread there’s a direct benefit in that young people from the area use it and indirect in that it benefits St Mirren and a strong st Mirren is good for the community. 

There’s nothing wrong/ illegal in what they’re proposing. The only agreement they need is a majority vote. 

Paying a block booking for a team / teams from the area is benefiting the community,  paying for the pitch is stretching it too far. Again, the club are not the community.

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, melmac said:

Paying a block booking for a team / teams from the area is benefiting the community,  paying for the pitch is stretching it too far. Again, the club are not the community.

It’s not stretching it too far at all. Like I said youngsters from the community use the pitch. Without it they could be deprived from playing on a decent surface. It also clearly says direct/ indirect. No one can argue st Mirren benefit the community. 

Really baffles me the objection some fans have to helping St Mirren 

[salmonbuddie]

It was a fairly simple thought process for me:

 

1. Does this proposal affect the end result (fan ownership)?

 

2. Does this proposal benefit the community?

 

3. Does this proposal benefit St Mirren?

 

In my opinion (and I respect that others may not agree with it) the proposal answers these questions correctly. If the majority are in favour then let's do whatever's needed to ensure we aren't breaking any rules/constitution/laws.

 

ETA - just realised that this is post nr 666 - thought I'd get that in before anyone else did!

 

[emoji846]

 

 

[Kombibuddie]

You haven’t because you can’t. The £50k all gets replaced by £2 commitments over a set time period. No one is worse off, and st Mirren our team is better off. If membership numbers stay above target, we’re laughing with this proposal. Only risk is people cutting their nose off to spite their face. Very clear and no shafting whatsoever. 
The irony is a lot of the st moan fans on here are the ones that have been banging on about ‘the money should be used for larger items’ haha 

I am one that advocates "big ticket items" and put the proposal to SMISA that an option to "Save the pot" was put on each & every ballot to give the members the opportunity to vote on saving the money.

I think i used the term "instead of spunking it on balls for the 1st team" or words to that effect.

Now we have a big ticket item, an item that I would support paying for from a saved up £2 pot but I cannot support it being paid for by money ring fenced to achieve the goal of purchasing shares and ultimately the club.

You can argue till you are blue in the face and come back with a load of bollocks about the money will getting repaid. That is not the point.

Like Poz's wifes telly fund, he was only dipping into it once, but then he done it again & again and before long, there wasn't enough money for the telly.

Bazil, as far as I can see, you are about the only forumster arguing it's a good thing to spend from the ringfenced pot.
That in itself speaks volumes.
Hopefully, the members vote to reject this ludicrous proposal.

[salmonbuddie]

I am one that advocates "big ticket items" and put the proposal to SMISA that an option to "Save the pot" was put on each & every ballot to give the members the opportunity to vote on saving the money.

I think i used the term "instead of spunking it on balls for the 1st team" or words to that effect.

Now we have a big ticket item, an item that I would support paying for from a saved up £2 pot but I cannot support it being paid for by money ring fenced to achieve the goal of purchasing shares and ultimately the club.

You can argue till you are blue in the face and come back with a load of bollocks about the money will getting repaid. That is not the point.

Like Poz's wifes telly fund, he was only dipping into it once, but then he done it again & again and before long, there wasn't enough money for the telly.

Bazil, as far as I can see, you are about the only forumster arguing it's a good thing to spend from the ringfenced pot.
That in itself speaks volumes.
Hopefully, the members vote to reject this ludicrous proposal.

You didn't read my previous post, did you?

I respect and understand your view, Graeme, and if the vote's in favour then we need to find a way to ensure that the primary objective of BtB is never compromised by any similar proposals in the future. Personally, I don't think that check would be beyond the capability of the members.

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I am one that advocates "big ticket items" and put the proposal to SMISA that an option to "Save the pot" was put on each & every ballot to give the members the opportunity to vote on saving the money.

I think i used the term "instead of spunking it on balls for the 1st team" or words to that effect.

Now we have a big ticket item, an item that I would support paying for from a saved up £2 pot but I cannot support it being paid for by money ring fenced to achieve the goal of purchasing shares and ultimately the club.

You can argue till you are blue in the face and come back with a load of bollocks about the money will getting repaid. That is not the point.

Like Poz's wifes telly fund, he was only dipping into it once, but then he done it again & again and before long, there wasn't enough money for the telly.

Bazil, as far as I can see, you are about the only forumster arguing it's a good thing to spend from the ringfenced pot.
That in itself speaks volumes.
Hopefully, the members vote to reject this ludicrous proposal.
 

Ifs and buts. If they come in again and but what if this happens. We vote in isolation. What harm is there in approving this one when it’s clearly costed to be paid back? Approving this one doesn’t mean there’s a god given right for them to ask and be approved again. Typical skeptics from a St Moan fan. 

As for me being the only one. There is a very vocal minority on here, maybe 4/5 people. Not all are even in SMISA because they’ve never signed up or they’ve already spat the dummy at the detriment of their football club and no one else. we have about 1,300 members. My hope is the silent (and dare I say it more sensible and less doom and gloom) majority will shine through. 

[TsuMirren]

7 hours ago, billyg said:

 

I just can't stand someone like you trying to make my mind up for me , I pay my Smisa dues and have a vote , I'll decide what I vote for no matter what pish you and others post. The 50k for the pitch is ok by me and I'm pretty sure it'll be carried whatever happens , even if the constitution has to be altered.We're entering an important part of the clubs progress and silly greeting faced side shows from people with agendas aren't required.

 

Someone like me? Someone with a varying opinion you mean? I'm not trying to make anyone's mind up for them, just having a discussion and raising some views based on or built around facts/my experiences. "Agendas", you've got an agenda, you've got to have an agenda, just accept stuff and move on, etc. Of course it'll be carried, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT ALREADY! 

Just so I know, let's make this a learning tree and sit under the branches of your wisdom, what do you perceive my agenda to be? I've no intention of joining again, don't want back on the committee,  don't want the deal to fall apart, feel no need to bask in praise and certainly don't want the club to struggle. So, let's say I'm intrigued by this side show you've created. Or do you, like so many people in society today, just not know?

Anyway,  come on Morton!

[BuddieinEK]

Ifs and buts. If they come in again and but what if this happens. We vote in isolation. What harm is there in approving this one when it’s clearly costed to be paid back? Approving this one doesn’t mean there’s a god given right for them to ask and be approved again. Typical skeptics from a St Moan fan. 

As for me being the only one. There is a very vocal minority on here, maybe 4/5 people. Not all are even in SMISA because they’ve never signed up or they’ve already spat the dummy at the detriment of their football club and no one else. we have about 1,300 members. My hope is the silent (and dare I say it more sensible and less doom and gloom) majority will shine through. 

According to you there is a god given right to ask this time, so why not again in future?

 

FWIW I have never once commented on the merits of what the money will be spent on... Purely on how that money will be sourced.

 

Regardless of what you say, there can be NO guarantee that it will be repaid.

 

I say again... Ring-fenced should be just that.

 

As Tsu has rightly said, a bit of creative thought and Saints fans would willingly have come together to support this project without even discussing the use of ring-fenced cash.

 

[TsuMirren]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

spat the dummy at the detriment of their football club.

There's no detriment of any great concern coming from SMISA not having my £25 a month. It's also been highlighted, by a vocal minority,  that I'm not needed and SMISA is stronger without me. Fair enough, makes them happy I'd imagine.

[Kombibuddie]

Ifs and buts. If they come in again and but what if this happens. We vote in isolation. What harm is there in approving this one when it’s clearly costed to be paid back? Approving this one doesn’t mean there’s a god given right for them to ask and be approved again. Typical skeptics from a St Moan fan. 
As for me being the only one. There is a very vocal minority on here, maybe 4/5 people. Not all are even in SMISA because they’ve never signed up or they’ve already spat the dummy at the detriment of their football club and no one else. we have about 1,300 members. My hope is the silent (and dare I say it more sensible and less doom and gloom) majority will shine through. 

I see it similarly regarding the sensible ones voting accordingly & voting no.

[davidg]

1 hour ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I am one that advocates "big ticket items" and put the proposal to SMISA that an option to "Save the pot" was put on each & every ballot to give the members the opportunity to vote on saving the money.

I think i used the term "instead of spunking it on balls for the 1st team" or words to that effect.

Now we have a big ticket item, an item that I would support paying for from a saved up £2 pot but I cannot support it being paid for by money ring fenced to achieve the goal of purchasing shares and ultimately the club.

You can argue till you are blue in the face and come back with a load of bollocks about the money will getting repaid. That is not the point.

Like Poz's wifes telly fund, he was only dipping into it once, but then he done it again & again and before long, there wasn't enough money for the telly.

Bazil, as far as I can see, you are about the only forumster arguing it's a good thing to spend from the ringfenced pot.
That in itself speaks volumes.
Hopefully, the members vote to reject this ludicrous proposal.
 

Just vote no then and no matter what the outcome we should all respect the results. 

[Kombibuddie]

Just vote no then and no matter what the outcome we should all respect the results. 

What a great idea. Think i will

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

According to you there is a god given right to ask this time, so why not again in future?

 

FWIW I have never once commented on the merits of what the money will be spent on... Purely on how that money will be sourced.

 

Regardless of what you say, there can be NO guarantee that it will be repaid.

 

I say again... Ring-fenced should be just that.

 

As Tsu has rightly said, a bit of creative thought and Saints fans would willingly have come together to support this project without even discussing the use of ring-fenced cash.

 

If you think ring fenced should remain ring fenced then vote that way. That’s an opinion, it’s not a legality. 

There is full assurance it’ll be repaid if membership numbers stay above the requirement of which we’re over 30% ahead of already. If membership numbers fall below it presents the same risk (btb fails) no additional risk. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

According to you there is a god given right to ask this time, so why not again in future?

 

FWIW I have never once commented on the merits of what the money will be spent on... Purely on how that money will be sourced.

 

Regardless of what you say, there can be NO guarantee that it will be repaid.

 

I say again... Ring-fenced should be just that.

 

As Tsu has rightly said, a bit of creative thought and Saints fans would willingly have come together to support this project without even discussing the use of ring-fenced cash.

 

Also a right to ask and a right to get are two different things. I can go ask Gordon Scott for £10k right now as could you. I could ask Livi to role over today. Part of the job SMISA has given itself is to communicate with fans, if they ask and a majority of fans want this there is nothing wrong with that. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:

There's no detriment of any great concern coming from SMISA not having my £25 a month. It's also been highlighted, by a vocal minority,  that I'm not needed and SMISA is stronger without me. Fair enough, makes them happy I'd imagine.

Everyone has a choice when it comes to signing up and staying committed. You’ve made yours and that’s fine I respect that.

I also pay £25 and bar something happening that will mean btb will be bad for my club (looking right now at alternatives I don’t think that’s close to being the care) i’ll Continue to pay. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Graeme Aitken said:

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Ifs and buts. If they come in again and but what if this happens. We vote in isolation. What harm is there in approving this one when it’s clearly costed to be paid back? Approving this one doesn’t mean there’s a god given right for them to ask and be approved again. Typical skeptics from a St Moan fan. 
As for me being the only one. There is a very vocal minority on here, maybe 4/5 people. Not all are even in SMISA because they’ve never signed up or they’ve already spat the dummy at the detriment of their football club and no one else. we have about 1,300 members. My hope is the silent (and dare I say it more sensible and less doom and gloom) majority will shine through. 

I see it similarly regarding the sensible ones voting accordingly & voting no.

I know you do, the difference is I don’t see it being backed up by anything apart from unnecessary worry over what is a relatively small small in the overall by out getting paid. A yes vote is backed up with sound finance and several benefits to our football club. 

[BuddieinEK]

If you think ring fenced should remain ring fenced then vote that way. That’s an opinion, it’s not a legality. 
There is full assurance it’ll be repaid if membership numbers stay above the requirement of which we’re over 30% ahead of already. If membership numbers fall below it presents the same risk (btb fails) no additional risk. 

But by offering to spend it at all the decision has already been made to remove the ring-fencing!

Without consultation.

[bazil85]

27 minutes ago, davidg said:

Just vote no then and no matter what the outcome we should all respect the results. 

Well said, I just hope everyone has their eyes on the end goal. In seven/ eight years this money will be repaid and it’ll be a distant memory. Bringing St Mirren into fan ownership is the big goal. Don’t lose sight. Coys. 

[bazil85]

Just now, BuddieinEK said:

But by offering to spend it at all the decision has already been made to remove the ring-fencing!

Without consultation.

I really don’t know how I can put this any different. I’m seriously struggling.

The consultation is happening right now, all members have the proposal to vote on. Voting yes is agreeing, voting no is not removing the ring fencing and continuing as plan.

In what way shape or form has anyone made the decision to remove the ring fencing already? You know the difference between a proposal and a decision right?

[Kombibuddie]

Well said, I just hope everyone has their eyes on the end goal. In seven/ eight years this money will be repaid and it’ll be a distant memory. Bringing St Mirren into fan ownership is the big goal. Don’t lose sight. Coys. 

Just out of interest, how do you see fan ownership working at StMirren?

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

16 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Well said, I just hope everyone has their eyes on the end goal. In seven/ eight years this money will be repaid and it’ll be a distant memory. Bringing St Mirren into fan ownership is the big goal. Don’t lose sight. Coys. 

Just out of interest, how do you see fan ownership working at StMirren?

Similar to the way other ownership models work for clubs with the difference that the main decisions will be from fans and there won’t be a chairman/ majority stakeholders that are in it to turn a profit. Will mean all of the income st Mirren raised being invested back into our football club.