Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie

Recommended Posts

I'll match your £50
Bazil85?
Easy to click yes on an online vote!
Willing to put money where your mouth is?

My overdraft is at the limit snd credit card not too healthy.

Not been abroad for a couple of years as can't afford it.

Despite that, I am willing to financially contribute to the purchase of astroturf if it means protecting ring-fenced money for the share purchase.

Are you in?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, garzo said:

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. 

Can’t get my head round this emotional blackmail. 

If all these people don’t approve then they should vote no and that will be that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can’t get my head round this emotional blackmail. 
If all these people don’t approve then they should vote no and that will be that. 
Because some people are in a position of having to vote no to something they potentially support because it is dressed up as being for the good of the club.

A no vote is potentially seen as not caring about the good of the club when nothing could be further from the truth.

Astroturf and use of ring-fenced money are SEPARATE issues deserving a SEPARATE vote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Because some people are in a position of having to vote no to something they potentially support because it is dressed up as being for the good of the club.
 

Seriously?

Just vote no FFS. 

Where’s the shake of the head emoji Div? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that sound advice.

I truly didn't realise it was that simple.

Here was me worrying needlessly about the abuse of ring-fenced money when the solution was that straightforward all this time!

I assume you are on the SMISA board?
David doesn't need to be on the SMISA board to let someone that it's a simple vote yes or no. it should be idiot proof system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David doesn't need to be on the SMISA board to let someone that it's a simple vote yes or no. it should be idiot proof system.
But it is NOT a simple yes or no vote. Is it?

I asked how I could support the project but not the funding source... The advice was vote no.

That doesn't support the project so hardly simple.

Just seemed like a very dismissive party line response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Thanks for that sound advice.

I truly didn't realise it was that simple.

Here was me worrying needlessly about the abuse of ring-fenced money when the solution was that straightforward all this time!

I assume you are on the SMISA board?

He's not, he's merely supportive of the proposal.

Funnily enough, I'm not actually sure how much is accrued yet due to paying the former directors and enabling the 50K. At this point, it's possibly next to nothing. They could have put together a presentation highlighting the current picture,  future projections and how redirecting the next four £10 phases of contribution could be palatable and still allow buy the buds to be completed on time. But, just that subtle difference would involve letting you all in the room just a wee bit.

Edited by TsuMirren
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not, he's merely supportive of the proposal.
Funnily enough, I'm not actually sure how much is accrued yet due to paying the former directors and enabling the 50K. At this point, it's possibly next to nothing. They could have put together a presentation highlighting the current picture,  future projections and how redirecting the next four £10 phases of contribution could be palatable and still allow buy through buds to be completed on time. But, just that subtle difference would involve letting you all in the room just a wee bit.
Cheers Tsu.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

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.

 

You see right there!

thats a thought through, considered proposal. Unfortunately the Smisa committee jump to what ever tune Scott is whistling, before we had even signed up one person on the BTB campaign he was already saying in regards to the ring fenced funds "that money will just be gathering dust"....

personally i thought and still believe we picked the right horse with BTB, as for the jockey..? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:



We ALL want what is best for the club...

 

Really?

From the subtle and not so subtle personal attacks on our current board and SMISA members, in several of the posts on this matter, I'd suggest that not everyone is simply posting on the aforementioned premise. 

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, comes to mind.........................

There have been some great posts though from people without a personal agenda, who are obviously quite passionate about this type of matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Thanks for that sound advice.

I truly didn't realise it was that simple.

Here was me worrying needlessly about the abuse of ring-fenced money when the solution was that straightforward all this time!

I assume you are on the SMISA board?

So if you don't agree with you, then you must be on the SMISA board?

What a strange assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, davidg said:

Can’t get my head round this emotional blackmail. 

If all these people don’t approve then they should vote no and that will be that. 

"""would reduce the core budget available for the first team and the club's day-to-day operation

if you don’t do it the playing budget will be affected.

So our share of the pitch upgrade at Ralston would – over time – be paid for entirely from £2 and discretionary money –
but we would use funds which would otherwise be sitting in the bank to let it happen sooner."""

is emotional blackmail :-)

It's sitting in the bank for a reason!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, whatever happens I've no doubt this will all work out for the benefit of St Mirren football club in the end.
I've no doubt the money will be paid back as set out.

I'd ask for this type of thing not to happen again though, if that's allowed on here ;-)
To me it's running counter to the original intent as set out in the Buy The Buds deal.
Ring-fenced funds should not be risked - however low that risk may be or perception of harm to club operating budget.

I take my view on this and most SMISA related matters now from a business perspective.
Thinking in straight lines and putting relevant aspects in particular boxes - it's how my brain works unfortunately :-)
I'm looking at this as a shareholder, not a fan - that's another hat all together.

IMO if we are to become owners of a football club then we must reach that point at the earliest point in time.
Is that not the main purpose of SMISA - correct me please if I'm picking all this up wrong..

I'd go as far to put to the vote all £2 pot goes towards shares, so we've got even more money just sitting in the bank!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

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.

You can use what I'm saying and mess it about in word games all you like, it doesn't take away from facts that SMISA paying members are being asked to fund this in isolation from ring fenced funds (a proposal in isolation). It doesn't take away from the fact that the proposal is very well worded and anyone with half a brain would know in this instance SMISA would be borrowing from the ring fence. 

Your definition of low moral baseline seems to be - give fans a vote on a very well details proposal 

I assume you'd think high morale baseline would be either - Refuse to give them a vote and dismiss an idea from our club or Give them a misleading vote that would be on if ring fence funds could be used on proposals without that actual proposals being named or costed...

Very strange moral compass that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, pozbaird said:

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.

I would say, only if you think the majority of paying members are of a similar mindset to you. I'm not sure they are. I think a lot of them (not sure if it'll be a majority) will be more than happy that we can help the club in this way and will see the borrowing as pretty low risk. It'll possibly be different if it happens closer to the closure date. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, garzo said:

It's sitting in the bank for a reason!!!

& hopefully, after this vote, it'll still be sitting in the bank. Until the next nugget/club need comes along to get the mitts into the ring fenced pot. Who knows!

 

7 minutes ago, garzo said:

I'd ask for this type of thing not to happen again though, if that's allowed on here ;-)

Garzo, only way to ensure your suggestion/wish is heard is to email SMISA directly ([email protected])

anyone emailing SMISA, I'd urge that comments are constructive as anything else will be destructive and there's no value in spamming the in box with irrelevance. I have emailed SMISA and have had responses. All very cordial, which is the way it should be. I have no doubts, the intentions are honourable, I just don't agree with this method of SMISA using ring fenced money to pay for something now.

14 minutes ago, garzo said:

I'd go as far to put to the vote all £2 pot goes towards shares, so we've got even more money just sitting in the bank!

The budget for the BTB deal was deal was, 

"The £2 pot was money we always budgeted to spend. The £10s are budgeted for the share purchase and we are well ahead of target on that"

You'll notice, that last bit talks about "we". "We always budgeted to spend" and "We are well ahead of target" and the bit in between "The £10s are budgeted for the share purchase"

SMISA said that very recently.

It can be dressed up any which way anyone wishes but the fact remains, the £10's were and always were intended to be ring fenced and that is how it should remain until The Buds is Bought.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, garzo said:

Anyway, whatever happens I've no doubt this will all work out for the benefit of St Mirren football club in the end.
I've no doubt the money will be paid back as set out.

I'd ask for this type of thing not to happen again though, if that's allowed on here ;-)
To me it's running counter to the original intent as set out in the Buy The Buds deal.
Ring-fenced funds should not be risked - however low that risk may be or perception of harm to club operating budget.

I take my view on this and most SMISA related matters now from a business perspective.
Thinking in straight lines and putting relevant aspects in particular boxes - it's how my brain works unfortunately :-)
I'm looking at this as a shareholder, not a fan - that's another hat all together.

IMO if we are to become owners of a football club then we must reach that point at the earliest point in time.
Is that not the main purpose of SMISA - correct me please if I'm picking all this up wrong..

I'd go as far to put to the vote all £2 pot goes towards shares, so we've got even more money just sitting in the bank!

To my eyes, the whole situation reminds me of Barcelona and shirt sponsorship. Firstly it was ‘we will never sully the jersey with advertising’ - then they slipped on a charity logo and said it was a one-off, but then it progressed to ‘Qatar Foundation’, a hybrid between ‘proper’ sponsorship and charity..... then, having had shirts ‘sullied’ with some sort of wording on it, fans accepted it, and they just went full-on, and now have chest and sleeve sponsorship like everyone else.

As an outsider looking in, the ring-fenced money, if dipped into for the astroturf project following any ‘yes’ vote, is like Barcelona first dipping into shirt sponsorship with the charity logo. Once folk got used to it, there was no going back. I see the club dipping into it again, if they get a yes to astroturf this time. They will come up with something else, then something else..... one of which I bet you will be the suggestion of funding a player purchase. Then, in my opinion, we will head to a place where any thought of fan ownership as it is currently being mooted, will simply not happen. GLS and Co will become the new SG and Co, with a role for SMiSA somewhere in the boardroom. The club will be run along traditional lines, and having shown all the stuff the SMiSA members monies bought over recent years, a ‘new deal’ will be worked on to continue with monthly monies being collected, pooling the £2s and &10s into a ‘buy stuff FOR the Buds’ fund, rather than a ‘Buy the Buds’ fund. If we are doing OK as a top flight club, that kind of arrangement may well be good for everyone, and as I said in a previous post or two, I’d rather buy into that if it was upfront and honest. I wouldn’t mind it simply being a fund that shows clear benefit to all with St Mirren at heart.... so, while under those circumstances I would absolutely vote ‘yes’ to astroturf, I would also hope projects would be put to the vote for funding that also were directly benefitting fans I.E. maybe installing TVs around concourses, upgrade the PA system, get a bigger better scoreboard, all sorts could be put to a vote.

I simply think if there’s a yes vote for the astroturf, having never firstly asked fans about the principle of dipping into their ring-fenced money, then once folk accept the shirts being sullied, they won’t mind it happening all the time. As things stand, my personal preference would be for GLS and Co to simply become the new SG and Co, with a SMiSA role, but for fcuk sake, don’t allow them to run the whole shooting match.

Just my opinion, but admittedly I have been drinking.... coffee.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

& hopefully, after this vote, it'll still be sitting in the bank. Until the next nugget/club need comes along to get the mitts into the ring fenced pot. Who knows!

 

Garzo, only way to ensure your suggestion/wish is heard is to email SMISA directly ([email protected])

anyone emailing SMISA, I'd urge that comments are constructive as anything else will be destructive and there's no value in spamming the in box with irrelevance. I have emailed SMISA and have had responses. All very cordial, which is the way it should be. I have no doubts, the intentions are honourable, I just don't agree with this method of SMISA using ring fenced money to pay for something now.

The budget for the BTB deal was deal was, 

"The £2 pot was money we always budgeted to spend. The £10s are budgeted for the share purchase and we are well ahead of target on that"

You'll notice, that last bit talks about "we". "We always budgeted to spend" and "We are well ahead of target" and the bit in between "The £10s are budgeted for the share purchase"

SMISA said that very recently.

It can be dressed up any which way anyone wishes but the fact remains, the £10's were and always were intended to be ring fenced and that is how it should remain until The Buds is Bought.

 

It seems to have escaped your notice that the intention is to pay back the ring fenced £50K in a fairly short space of time, thus reinstating the share purchase fund.

Edited by smcc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, garzo said:

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

Whats the deal?

I think the main point in selling BTB now is that it's already happening. If it fell apart now with member numbers drop off the result would be at a big hinderance to St Mirren Football Club.The more paying members we now get the stronger it becomes which can only be a good thing.

A lot of people with issue on here but we need to firmly remember this is all short-term. In a few years we'll be fan owned and that's where the power will stay. No risk of a Rangers death nail through dodgy owners, Livi, Dundee, Clydebank etc etc etc. The people running the club in it for the team and not for short-term profits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

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.

 

I f we're going to do that then can I ask why not just take the £50k from the account that's sitting there gathering dust and making next to no interest? 1. Money would be repayed same way as dripping it in would do 2. It would save saints £50k for next seasons budget 3. There is very very very little risk in giving the money up front given the current membership numbers.

What you're suggesting there is absolutely fine but I'm guessing as a person you're pretty risk averse? I think a few people need to take a wee step back, have another look and ask themselves 'Okay realistically, what's the risk here?' I think most will see it's very small. The only response I'm really getting from people is 'but ring-fencing.' It's not really an argument against this, let's be fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...