The 3 Monthly Spend

[Lord Pityme]

8 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

For the umpteenth time... Voting on the use of ring-fenced money bypasses a vote on ring-fenced money being used at all and is therefore NOT a democratic vote on whether ring-fenced money can be freed up and used gor sny other purpose.

You seem to have the same idea of democracy as America who think it is appropriate to impose democracy on other nations!

Your wasting your time trying to get him to concede the very fact the vote is taking place is breaking the promise to ring fence OUR money until we are in a position to take the controlling interest. Anyway should be quiet tomorrow night when that particular cowboy is back at the ranch house meeting..?

Hi ho Silver...!

[BuddieinEK]

For the umpteenth time, that is utter rubbish and you show no faith in your fellow St Mirren fans to know what a yes vote means. Do you genuinely think we have dribbling idiots voting yes to using the ring fenced funds that will turn round and go ‘oh does that mean we’re using the ring fenced money?’ 
Oh my days mate, someone have a word. Haha 

At no point has anyone been asked IF they think ring-fenced money should be spent.

We HAVE been asked if a particular project is worth spending ring-fenced money on.

That assumes the first point has already been passed... Without consultation.

It is a completely separate issue.

(I typed that last bit as slowly as possible!)

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Your wasting your time trying to get him to concede the very fact the vote is taking place is breaking the promise to ring fence OUR money until we are in a position to take the controlling interest. Anyway should be quiet tomorrow night when that particular cowboy is back at the ranch house meeting..?

Hi ho Silver...!

Yeah I know I’m wasting my time. It’s became very clear to me you can’t differentiate between a proposal that’s being voted on and a SMISA decision to tap into the ring fenced funds. 

Hey I tried, probably pissing in the wind as well to ask if you’ll respect the outcome of the vote and give st Mirren fans a wee bit more credit they understand what they’re voting on? 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

At no point has anyone been asked IF they think ring-fenced money should be spent.

We HAVE been asked if a particular project is worth spending ring-fenced money on.

That assumes the first point has already been passed... Without consultation.

It is a completely separate issue.

(I typed that last bit as slowly as possible!)

If you genuinely don’t think st Mirren fans can vote with their head on this and understand what the vote means Correlating BOTH these issues then that’s on you. I have a wee bit more faith than that. 

I’d encourage you to read this next bit ‘slowly’ and several times try and get it in your head.

Why on earth would we put a vote saying ‘is it okay to spend ringfenced funds’ when it isn’t a prudent and beneficial idea for BTB to have it open ended? This is a vote in isolation for a particular use(just so happens we’re asking to borrow from the ring fence, separate point, but I’m not sure why people see this as more risky than a simple loan) and it’s how it should be treated. Just like for any other future proposals. And repeat. 

[BuddieinEK]

If you genuinely don’t think st Mirren fans can vote with their head on this and understand what the vote means Correlating BOTH these issues then that’s on you. I have a wee bit more faith than that. 
I’d encourage you to read this next bit ‘slowly’ and several times try and get it in your head.
Why on earth would we put a vote saying ‘is it okay to spend ringfenced funds’ when it isn’t a prudent and beneficial idea for BTB to have it open ended? This is a vote in isolation for a particular use(just so happens we’re asking to borrow from the ring fence, separate point, but I’m not sure why people see this as more risky than a simple loan) and it’s how it should be treated. Just like for any other future proposals. And repeat. 

So you finally agree that it is a separate point!

Good.

We are getting somewhere at last!

[pozbaird]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

If you genuinely don’t think st Mirren fans can vote with their head on this and understand what the vote means Correlating BOTH these issues then that’s on you. I have a wee bit more faith than that. 

I’d encourage you to read this next bit ‘slowly’ and several times try and get it in your head.

Why on earth would we put a vote saying ‘is it okay to spend ringfenced funds’ when it isn’t a prudent and beneficial idea for BTB to have it open ended? This is a vote in isolation for a particular use(just so happens we’re asking to borrow from the ring fence, separate point, but I’m not sure why people see this as more risky than a simple loan) and it’s how it should be treated. Just like for any other future proposals. And repeat. 

Why can’t you understand these very simple points....

1. The £10s were ring-fenced money designed solely for share purchase.

2. Before even asking the people who’s money it is if they would allow it to be used for anything else, the club and the SMiSA committee clearly held private discussions about using member’s ring-fenced money to fund an astroturf pitch.

Can you understand why some people think this a pretty bad way to have went about it? In answering, please do not say ‘but people are being asked to vote on it, and if the vote is ‘no’, then democracy has taken place so it’s all good’. I accept that. I understand a vote is taking place.

Could you simply respond to my points 1 and 2, and if you can at least understand why some folk are uneasy about the order of events here?

Edited April 8, 2018 by pozbaird

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

So you finally agree that it is a separate point!

Good.

We are getting somewhere at last!

They’re separate points but you’re making one of the points up to be more than it is yourself. There is no need for a separate vote on being allowed to use ring fenced funds. That’s not what this is about. It’s about a situation in isolation we’re being asked to find from the discretionary pot that includes a borrowing facility from the £10 pot. 

To say we must vote separately about the ring fence is a load of rubbish and it reaks of desperation because you don’t want this vote to win. For some reasons beyond my grasp. 

[BuddieinEK]

They’re separate points but you’re making one of the points up to be more than it is yourself. There is no need for a separate vote on being allowed to use ring fenced funds. That’s not what this is about. It’s about a situation in isolation we’re being asked to find from the discretionary pot that includes a borrowing facility from the £10 pot. 
To say we must vote separately about the ring fence is a load of rubbish and it reaks of desperation because you don’t want this vote to win. For some reasons beyond my grasp. 

As previously stated, I have never once commented on my thoughts on the actual proposal or the merits of it.

That is a completely separate issue... Or it should be. You already agreed with me on that point.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, pozbaird said:

Why can’t you understand these very simple points....

1. The £10s were ring-fenced money designed solely for share purchase.

2. Before even asking the people who’s money it is if they would allow it to be used for anything else, the club and the SMiSA committee clearly held private discussions about using member’s ring-fenced money to fund an astroturf pitch.

Can you understand why some people think this a pretty bad way to have went about it? In answering, please do not say ‘but people are being asked to vote on it, and if the vote is ‘no’, then democracy has taken place so it’s all good’. I accept that. I understand a vote is taking place.

Could you simply respond to my points 1 and 2, and if you can at least understand why some folk are uneasy about the order of events here?

1. I understand what it was designed for, why don’t you understand members have the right to vote on changing that?

2. I’d expect nothing less than them discussing requests from st Mirren football club and canvass fans. I’ll ask you a question, what if st Mirren asked and SMISA dismissed it without letting members decide, or that St Mirren had approached?  better or worse? What if this vote is a landslide yes, should they still not of canvassed members and rejected it?

As above I understand why people are uneasy of course. I think more people would be concerned if they made the decision without talking to members. 

[garzo]

Spoke to a few people in passing yesterday at the game. 

All n agreement that SMISA are wrong with this proposal. 

Unfortunately it’s been put across in such a way, with emotional blackmail included, that means it’s more likely to be passed. 

Disappointing & an error of judgement in my view. Doesn’t fill me with confidence. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

As previously stated, I have never once commented on my thoughts on the actual proposal or the merits of it.

That is a completely separate issue... Or it should be. You already agreed with me on that point.

I agreed it’s a separate issue like it’s a seperate issue about funding bibs for the youth teams through SMISA or what font the SMISA logo should be on the sponsorship.

I in no way gave the issue merit in deserving a vote because it doesn’t. I’d go as far as to say as far as issues go it’s very close to a non one. 

[BuddieinEK]

I agreed it’s a separate issue like it’s a seperate issue about funding bibs for the youth teams through SMISA or what font the SMISA logo should be on the sponsorship.
I in no way gave the issue merit in deserving a vote because it doesn’t. I’d go as far as to say as far as issues go it’s very close to a non one. 

So there we have it.

You think using ring-fenced money for a purpose other than that for which it is specifically set aside is a non event... a "non issue"!

There really is no debating with someone with such a low moral baseline.

[garzo]

Simple principles should be applied.

We’re saving to buy shares - period.

No deviation from this should be allowed unless under extreme circumstances.

[TsuMirren]

32 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I agreed it’s a separate issue like it’s a seperate issue about funding bibs for the youth teams through SMISA or what font the SMISA logo should be on the sponsorship.

I in no way gave the issue merit in deserving a vote because it doesn’t. I’d go as far as to say as far as issues go it’s very close to a non one. 

David?

[pozbaird]

43 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

1. I understand what it was designed for, why don’t you understand members have the right to vote on changing that?

2. I’d expect nothing less than them discussing requests from st Mirren football club and canvass fans. I’ll ask you a question, what if st Mirren asked and SMISA dismissed it without letting members decide, or that St Mirren had approached?  better or worse? What if this vote is a landslide yes, should they still not of canvassed members and rejected it?

As above I understand why people are uneasy of course. I think more people would be concerned if they made the decision without talking to members. 

I knew you would ask me about the vote, and I knew you would claim (again) that I don’t understand that members are indeed being asked to vote on the ring-fenced funds, designed solely for share purchase, instead be used towards an astroturf pitch, with the monies (if the vote is ‘yes’), being paid back from members own future monies.

I get it. Really, I do.

It’s a cnut of a way to ask people to vote on something like this. IMHO. Arthur Daley would be proud.

Edited April 8, 2018 by pozbaird

[TsuMirren]

Ah vote, where there's an obvious change to procedure, rules or promises made as a result of a yes should first involve a vote to alow that change. Even if it does cost £90 to run one.

[garzo]

This is no way to go about buying shares. 

[Lord Pityme]

23 minutes ago, garzo said:

This is no way to go about buying shares. 

The vote should be cancelled, and meaningful consultations entered into with the membership to determine if there is any appetite to dis-apply the asset lock on our ring fenced share purchase fund. Anything less and this could derail the whole Buy The Buds campaign.

also we need to hear at the agm who is 'owning' this cock-a-mamie excuse for following due process. Who thought up the mechanics of breaking our own asset lock, putting our share purchase fund in debt, suggesting its paid back in on the drip, and breaking the solemn promise given by every Smisa committee member that 'your £10 or £23 is ringfenced solely to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC..?

was it Scott? Was it one or more of the Smisa committee? Did it go to a vote? Who backed it? Who didnt?

everyone needs to email smisa and register their dissaproval, and if possible raise the whole sorry affair at the agm and get the answer on who owns it?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I knew you would ask me about the vote, and I knew you would claim (again) that I don’t understand that members are indeed being asked to vote on the ring-fenced funds, designed solely for share purchase, instead be used towards an astroturf pitch, with the monies (if the vote is ‘yes’), being paid back from members own future monies.
I get it. Really, I do.
It’s a cnut of a way to ask people to vote on something like this. IMHO. Arthur Daley would be proud.

In some ways it's reminiscent of the sevco season ticket scheme.

[Bart Simpson]

1. Fair play to the club for asking.

2. This clearly will help the club in a number of ways.

3. The club surely need to examine all methods of funding acquisition prior to dipping into it’s own funds.

4. That said ‘Ring Fenced’ funds for the sole purpose of purchasing shares to obtain a controlling share of the club, surely should be solely used for this purpose?

5. Why, if the first team have not been training on the pitch this season was this proposal not made sooner?

6. Surely an open and transparent mechanism would have been to do one of the following:
a. State at the outset of the campaign to BtB that the ‘Ring Fenced’ £10 spend may at times be dipped into but only at the expense of and not exceeding the £2 spend.
b. State at the outset or with any of the votes since that some of the £2 spend would be set aside in advance for alternative capital investment either anticipated (as this should clearly have been given the details about the quality this year) or non anticipated ‘rainy day’ funding.
c. Offer members a clear opportunity to consider a change to the use of the ‘Ring Fenced’ funding with a clear explanation of the implications of such a move.

The SMISA committee/board clearly were aware of the potential sensitivity of this issue with the effort taken to articulate the proposal in the way they have done. Why not offer members an opportunity in advance to consider such a potential proposal? The current scenario suggests trying to curry favour rather than than actually using the funds for their stated purpose.

[TsuMirren]

1 hour ago, Bart Simpson said:

5. Why, if the first team have not been training on the pitch this season was this proposal not made sooner?

The club had already spent a fair bit relaying one of the grass pitches, the second was to follow. It was my understanding that Jack would prefer to not train on the 4G, obviously certain factors could make it acceptable over and above any preference. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by TsuMirren

[garzo]

Go on. Try selling Buy the buds to me again. 

Whats the deal?

[Kombibuddie]

Here's a thought

We all agree, we want to help the club as best we can but quite a few/many of us do not think using the ring fenced money is appropriate or right.

Here's an alternative.  As it has already been determined, the club will pay for the astro replacement if the SMISA vote is 'No' to using ring fenced money.

The Club pay for the astro replacement (it has got the money) and SMISA members vote yes or no for £5000 to be donated from  each of the next 10 quarterly votes meaning SMISA will effectively contribute 33% of the cost but by instalment every 3 months. April 2018 being the first instalment of £5000.

Everyone could be happy then.

Ring fenced money stays ring fenced (as we were told). The Astro gets replaced (for the whole community to benefit from). SMISA pays1/3  of this big ticket item (as the club currently desires) by instalments when it has collected the money instead of dipping a pot it should be leaving well alone. The ring fenced money stays ring fenced for the sole purchase of shares and Jack Ross gets a brand spanking new 4G pitch to train on if he wishes.

I have no problem with SMISA paying the £50k but it has to be out of the £2 pot and not out of the ring fenced pot which then gets repaid over time from the £2 pot.

 

[BuddieinEK]

Here's a thought
We all agree, we want to help the club as best we can but quite a few/many of us do not think using the ring fenced money is appropriate or right.
Here's an alternative.  As it has already been determined, the club will pay for the astro replacement if the SMISA vote is 'No' to using ring fenced money.
The Club pay for the astro replacement (it has got the money) and SMISA members vote yes or no for £5000 to be donated from  each of the next 10 quarterly votes meaning SMISA will effectively contribute 33% of the cost but by instalment every 3 months. April 2018 being the first instalment of £5000.
Everyone could be happy then.
Ring fenced money stays ring fenced (as we were told). The Astro gets replaced (for the whole community to benefit from). SMISA pays1/3  of this big ticket item (as the club currently desires) by instalments when it has collected the money instead of dipping a pot it should be leaving well alone. The ring fenced money stays ring fenced for the sole purchase of shares and Jack Ross gets a brand spanking new 4G pitch to train on if he wishes.
I have no problem with SMISA paying the £50k but it has to be out of the £2 pot and not out of the ring fenced pot which then gets repaid over time from the £2 pot.
 

Absolutely.
There are many options.

We ALL want what is best for the club... Some have more of a business approach than heart led and are being criticized for it.

Funnily enough, it was that very approach by SG that resulted in us still having a club to be passionate about!

He too was slated at first! Did him cutting back on expenditure mean he didn't care about our club and team?

Quite the opposite. He saw it worth protecting.

I care passionately about our club and team.

Personally, abuse of ring-fenced cash is a line I am not willing to cross.

You have shown one way that is easily applicable.

Tsu has suggested fundraising.

Cancel the stupid divisive and self harming vote and I will personally chuck £50 in a bucket for some astroturf!

SMISA BOARD... DO YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO BACK DOWN AND ACTUALLY BRING THE MEMBERSHIP WITH YOU ON THE JOURNEY BEFORE LOSING THEM THROUGH ARROGANT ABUSE OF POWER?

[Kombibuddie]

Absolutely.
There are many options.

We ALL want what is best for the club... Some have more of a business approach than heart led and are being criticized for it.

Funnily enough, it was that very approach by SG that resulted in us still having a club to be passionate about!

He too was slated at first! Did him cutting back on expenditure mean he didn't care about our club and team?

Quite the opposite. He saw it worth protecting.

I care passionately about our club and team.

Personally, abuse of ring-fenced cash is a line I am not willing to cross.

You have shown one way that is easily applicable.

Tsu has suggested fundraising.

Cancel the stupid divisive and self harming vote and I will personally chuck £50 in a bucket for some astroturf!

SMISA BOARD... DO YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO BACK DOWN AND ACTUALLY BRING THE MEMBERSHIP WITH YOU ON THE JOURNEY BEFORE LOSING THEM THROUGH ARROGANT ABUSE OF POWER?

I'll match your £50