The 3 Monthly Spend

[div]

God help us when we really are in charge of the club

[Gruffalo]

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

You miss out the fact the proposal is to transfer the assets to a plc, therfor breaking the asset lock, and that even today on the Smisa website there is a clear commitment outside the £2 pot all the rest of your subscription is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in smfc. And the fact Smisa have sold this as buying sponsorship in a plc.. its a big no, no... 

you cant run a CBS and just decide to swap the rules to suit at any given time. They are in place to protect the MEMBERS assets. These assets do not belong to SMFC and that is a point that some people still haven't grasped.

none of this is my opinion, it is the rules each member, and the Smisa committee willingly signed up to.

they could stop this omnishambles today, cancel the vote, and set a new one asking if members agree, or not to setting aside £5k (if there is £8k total available from the next ten £2 votes to fund the astroturfing. That would be both legal and respectful of their members rights and wishes.

i have a question for you. Do you actually think this, as it stands will end well..? At a time when all we should be doing is revelling  in our imminent glory, both club & smisa have conspired to breach the trust of smisa members. It just wasn't necessary, but follows a pattern of Scott getting what he wants, i.e, other peoples money!  

What a lot of bluster. Your quoting the apparent rules without actually reading them. The constitution is so open you could drive a bus through it and use the wording to suit what ever ends you require. As for it being illegal that is for the FCA to decide. The FCA are never in a month on Sundays going to investigate it and even if they did there could easily be a justification for the spend. Furthermore the FCA have transferred their jurisdiction to the Supporters Trust therefore they do not really care.

The constitution has been quoted on many occasions. However it is worth digesting again.

All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.
8.1 The society must not use or deal with its assets except-
8.1.1 where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for 
the benefit of the community;

What is the definition of "the community". Not sure I have seen it defined anywhere. Is it people of Renfrewshire/Paisley or could it be defined that St Mirren Supporters and the club are a community. SMISA could also be classified as a community.

The assets are subject to a restriction on their use. However they can be used directly or indirectly for the benefit of the community. 

As far as I'm reading you could claim that the assets are being used to assist in principal the St Mirren community and the wider Renfrewshire community. Therefore the funds are free to what ever SMISA see fit to use them for. They are holding a democratic vote and it is for the members to decided what to do. 

While I do not agree with the use of the funds in this manner it looks like SMISA have all the bases covered and its for the members to decide.

In my opinion there are no breaking of rules only bending of them. 

[Lord Pityme]

2 minutes ago, Gruffalo said:

What a lot of bluster. Your quoting the apparent rules without actually reading them. The constitution is so open you could drive a bus through it and use the wording to suit what ever ends you require. As for it being illegal that is for the FCA to decide. The FCA are never in a month on Sundays going to investigate it and even if they did there could easily be a justification for the spend. Furthermore the FCA have transferred their jurisdiction to the Supporters Trust therefore they do not really care.

The constitution has been quoted on many occasions. However it is worth digesting again.

All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.
8.1 The society must not use or deal with its assets except-
8.1.1 where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for 
the benefit of the community;

What is the definition of "the community". Not sure I have seen it defined anywhere. Is it people of Renfrewshire/Paisley or could it be defined that St Mirren Supporters and the club are a community. SMISA could also be classified as a community.

The assets are subject to a restriction on their use. However they can be used directly or indirectly for the benefit of the community. 

As far as I'm reading you could claim that the assets are being used to assist in principal the St Mirren community and the wider Renfrewshire community. Therefore the funds are free to what ever SMISA see fit to use them for. They are holding a democratic vote and it is for the members to decided what to do. 

While I do not agree with the use of the funds in this manner it looks like SMISA have all the bases covered and its for the members to decide.

In my opinion there are no breaking of rules only bending of them. 

Sorry you really made me laugh with "Furthermore the FCA have transferred their jurisdiction to the Supporters Trust" (i assume you mean supporters direct)

so you actually believe a legislative body, empowered under UK law has abdicated responsibility to a two man, operation that has absolutely no power or jurisdiction..? Thats is so funny! Here's a wee tip, go on the Financial Conduct Authority(FCA)  website and look at the Community Benefit Society & Co-operatives they have and are taking legal action against. Some of them are basically allotment committee's... but they are brought to heel by the FCA not some bunch of do-gooders.

its on Smisa's website now "£2 of you subscription goes to the discretionary fund, the rest is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC " no ifs, no but, no opinion.

[Buddymarvellous]

I think it’s a shame this debate is centred on the abuse of the main fund (which I agree should not be used as a lending bank for St Mirren)

My main gripe is that we are supporting a mainstream requirement which should be planned with costs being spread over the life of the asset and budgeted appropriately by the club. 

What we are in fact doing is providing £50K to the club to save them from spending £50K on what is a normal business cost.

So why dress it up as a project - just give the club the £2 pot and and save all the charade.

And that is why I voted NO

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Maboza said:

As good and clear a summary as you will find amongst the extensive debate on this thread.  Well done! 

My own simple thoughts are that St. Mirren FC should always be run as a break even club. This should take into account player budgets and club running costs. Something like a 4G training pitch has a lifespan and cost associated with it and is therefore a planned spend. So are things like training balls.  This is the clubs responsibility to budget for these. 

Any additional revenue boosts (player sales, cup runs, higher league finish than budgeted, etc.)  should primarily be banked into the club accounts to cover tougher times but may also allow for a very modest loosening of the playing budget to provide opportunity for improvement. 

Here we have a situation where we have received the most transfer income in many years and cup revenue last season. None of which budgeted for.  We're looking at winning the league now and coming out on top for revenue for the league this season alongside increased attendances. 

Still, we're being told that finances aren't sufficiently rosy.

If that's the case then it's indicative that the spending on the player budget this season has been a gamble. It may have worked out but I don't like that precedent. 

Already we have someone saying that this £50k is needed as it will indirectly support that playing budget next season. The figures for league placings were dropped in to show the huge financial disadvantage from 1st in Championship vs the SPL teams who will be our competitors next season.  I'm sorry but the recent transfer revenues received more than make up that difference and could have been the springboard for providing a comparable playing budget for Year 1 in the SPL if we really want to get involved in that game.

If the money is needed for playing budget then ask the members to vote based on that. The whole approach to this from SMISA seems a bit of a mess.

I don't blame Gordon in asking for the cash and other proposals but I do question how wise it is to respond so favourably. The extent of this SMISA cash (cow) resource wasn't so readily available to the previous board. Had it been available previously it would have made their job as Chairman/Board considerably easier and  easier to get a more expensive and higher quality product on the pitch. 

We've got an ambitious chairman but  I think the SMISA group need to tread very carefully. 

 

 

As far as I understand I don't think SMISA has marketed itself (to date) as anything other than a vehicle for the takeover. 

I think it's fully expected that members will drop off as others have also said. SMISA should be making an effort in my opinion to push the vision of the benefits to the club for continuing membership beyond the 10 year period. I think this should have been promoted from the outset. 

 

Can I ask, when you’re talking about making more money this season and budgets and transfer income and 1st place prize money. Who does that put us in a better position than giving our competitors next season? Ross County? Hamilton? Maybe Motherwell? 

This thread has clearly documented we aren’t spending out of our means and the club has said they could pay this if need be. Just very simply it’s an opportunity for them not to spend £50k and us to use that money for the budget. I don’t know how much people think we pay players but to St Mirren £50k could easily be a player. 

Different opinions are all fine and dandy but I think some people are getting a bit confused when they think about our spending/ budget and where the transfer income/ prize money goes. 

[bazil85]

30 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Sorry you really made me laugh with "Furthermore the FCA have transferred their jurisdiction to the Supporters Trust" (i assume you mean supporters direct)

so you actually believe a legislative body, empowered under UK law has abdicated responsibility to a two man, operation that has absolutely no power or jurisdiction..? Thats is so funny! Here's a wee tip, go on the Financial Conduct Authority(FCA)  website and look at the Community Benefit Society & Co-operatives they have and are taking legal action against. Some of them are basically allotment committee's... but they are brought to heel by the FCA not some bunch of do-gooders.

its on Smisa's website now "£2 of you subscription goes to the discretionary fund, the rest is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC " no ifs, no but, no opinion.

You’re like a dog with a bone but you’ve finally got something right. The FCA would be ultimately responsible for any investigation into wrong doing. Shame for you that there’s no wrong doing though. 

As for the website, for the second time, no decision has been made so why would they change the website before the vote results are out? If we vote no, nothing changes. 

[TsuMirren]

19 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

This thread has clearly documented we aren’t spending out of our means.

We've pushed the boat out on the playing budget, can't cover basics like balls, gym equipment and other equipment. The women's team have a justgiving page, £1,800 going elsewhere saw Gordon put a statement out to state SMISA were making things difficult and every SMISA poll sees cap in hand requests from the club.  All this on the back of larger crowds, various transfer funds and having the kit sales in house. Maybe you see the SMISA funds as being within our means, but proof is there that we are pushing the limits if nothing else.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Can I ask, when you’re talking about making more money this season and budgets and transfer income and 1st place prize money. Who does that put us in a better position than giving our competitors next season? Ross County? Hamilton? Maybe Motherwell? 
This thread has clearly documented we aren’t spending out of our means and the club has said they could pay this if need be. Just very simply it’s an opportunity for them not to spend £50k and us to use that money for the budget. I don’t know how much people think we pay players but to St Mirren £50k could easily be a player. 
Different opinions are all fine and dandy but I think some people are getting a bit confused when they think about our spending/ budget and where the transfer income/ prize money goes. 

So you'd rather spend 50k on extra wages for a season than keep it until its actually needed?
This is what clubs like Rangers, Dundee, Livi done.

[Lord Pityme]

30 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You’re like a dog with a bone but you’ve finally got something right. The FCA would be ultimately responsible for any investigation into wrong doing. Shame for you that there’s no wrong doing though. 

As for the website, for the second time, no decision has been made so why would they change the website before the vote results are out? If we vote no, nothing changes. 

Au contraire.. Baz. If as popular opinion suggests this is getting voted down we need as a matter of urgency an investigation into why the Smisa committee have done twice and tried this third time to break the solemn promise to members that this money is ring fenced.

this isnt going away, promises made to every member are being broken left, right and centre.  They are not living up to the responsibilities they willingly accepted.

[Gruffalo]

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Sorry you really made me laugh with "Furthermore the FCA have transferred their jurisdiction to the Supporters Trust" (i assume you mean supporters direct)

so you actually believe a legislative body, empowered under UK law has abdicated responsibility to a two man, operation that has absolutely no power or jurisdiction..? Thats is so funny! Here's a wee tip, go on the Financial Conduct Authority(FCA)  website and look at the Community Benefit Society & Co-operatives they have and are taking legal action against. Some of them are basically allotment committee's... but they are brought to heel by the FCA not some bunch of do-gooders.

its on Smisa's website now "£2 of you subscription goes to the discretionary fund, the rest is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC " no ifs, no but, no opinion.

FCA only interest in governing CIC is on registration. The fines dished out by the FCA relate no the societies not submitting their registrations over a number of years. The FCA also state they do not get involved in disputes between societies and their members  

 

The last section of the constitution for SMISA states that the Supporters Direct (hope I got it right this time) appoint an adjudicator in the event of disputes. Not the FCA. 

[bazil85]

34 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

We've pushed the boat out on the playing budget, can't cover basics like balls, gym equipment and other equipment. The women's team have a justgiving page, £1,800 going elsewhere saw Gordon put a statement out to state SMISA were making things difficult and every SMISA poll sees cap in hand requests from the club.  All this on the back of larger crowds, various transfer funds and having the kit sales in house. Maybe you see the SMISA funds as being within our means, but proof is there that we are pushing the limits if nothing else.

All expenses could have been and would have been covered by the club. Us covering expenses means those costs are recycled back into the club and ultimately to the player/ facilities/ staffing budget. We have not got the biggest budget in this league, Falkirk, United, ICT and Dunfermline can all outspend us on player wages. These wee bonuses have allowed us to strengthen a wee bit more than we would have and it seems to have paid off. Asking for these funds IS NOT BECAUSE WE’RE FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING

As for the statement from GLS with SMISA. It was because of a conflict of interest to the club not because money wasn’t going to St Mirren. Read the post again. 

The club have also made a donation to the woman’s team. 

I don’t know what people are finding so hard to get about this. Is it really difficult to understand, regardless of how much we bring in financially, you’ll get other clubs that have better spending power? If money wasn’t an issue Celtic would be worrying about 10 in a row next season. 

Edited April 9, 2018 by bazil85

[TsuMirren]

41 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

All expenses could have been and would have been covered by the club. Us covering expenses means those costs are recycled back into the club and ultimately to the player/ facilities/ staffing budget. We have not got the biggest budget in this league, Falkirk, United, ICT and Dunfermline can all outspend us on player wages. These wee bonuses have allowed us to strengthen a wee bit more than we would have and it seems to have paid off. Asking for these funds IS NOT BECAUSE WE’RE FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING

As for the statement from GLS with SMISA. It was because of a conflict of interest to the club not because money wasn’t going to St Mirren. Read the post again. 

The club have also made a donation to the woman’s team. 

I don’t know what people are finding so hard to get about this. Is it really difficult to understand, regardless of how much we bring in financially, you’ll get other clubs that have better spending power? If money wasn’t an issue Celtic would be worrying about 10 in a row next season. 

How would you know the club have made a donation unless you were pretty close to things?  That's never been made public!

The conflict of interest was the money going elsewhere...simple as. They don't offer the same, don't offer free sessions and don't have a pathway for kids that age. The club spoke out against sessions for disadvantaged kids and I thought it was a disgrace. I almost resigned then and, indeed, probably should have.

I had a vague recollection of your username being mentioned during committee meetings, I just can't quite remember who you are.

[faraway saint]

When will the results be in on this vote?

Can't fecking wait. 

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, Gruffalo said:

FCA only interest in governing CIC is on registration. The fines dished out by the FCA relate no the societies not submitting their registrations over a number of years. The FCA also state they do not get involved in disputes between societies and their members  

 

The last section of the constitution for SMISA states that the Supporters Direct (hope I got it right this time) appoint an adjudicator in the event of disputes. Not the FCA. 

Ah you see just there you are highlighting the faux pas Mr Dickson made!

you are quite correct, the FCA do not get involved with disputes between societies and their members, and good on you for checking out their website. But if you'll allow me to explain a little you might become educated a little more on the legislative reach, powers and practices of the FCA in cases like the one Smisa have brought on themselves. But first some back story for context.

Mr Dickson, who perhaps like others? You enjoy referencing how he was informed by the FCA to take his grievances to Supporters Direct, either didnt know, or decided to try a 'work round'. I was in the Smisa committee at the time his request, complaint and subsequent appeal, then referral to the FCA occurred.

for professional reasons, and commintments I undertook, and still uphold. I cant divulge the nature of his grievance, but it was between an individual member and the society, so he was corrected in what avenue to pursue to further his grievance.

no surprise there, and certainly being someone who re-drafted the Smisa constitution, absolutely what I knew would be the case.  And it was whilst i was re-drafting the constitution i took an understandable interest in the governance role played by the FCA in relation to ComBens, and extended my research and information gathering process into other similar Com Bens, their constitutions and any action taken by the FCA into infringement of its governing legislation. Whilst you could never describe their number of actions as akin to The Sweeney, the interesting thing for me was how they treated One man and his dog societies (and there are some literally like that) the same as a society like ours dealing with Hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not over a million pounds worth of members asset locked funds.

the common theme with those societies who had contravened the governing legislation, and where Smisa now find themselves is that the contravention affects every society member! If the ring fenced funds are used for any purpose other than that for which every member agreed they would (to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC), and in addition the asset lock is broken as a consequence. Then it is way, way beyond Supporters Direct's remit.

if you go back to the FCA website you will see a section devoted to "Whistle Blowing", email address, confidential hotline to be used expressely in the instance that any society, its committee, members or third party have or are seeking to take an action that breaks the governing legislation. So not for an individual grievance, but definitely for something where multiple members are raising concerns that the action in question is breaking the constitution, the asset lock and subsequently the law as it pertains.

looks like there is a very real chance we will find out, if the constitution, the BTB ring fenced funds in the asset lock are all breached how the FCA operate in the flesh!

hope this helps?

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

So you'd rather spend 50k on extra wages for a season than keep it until its actually needed?
This is what clubs like Rangers, Dundee, Livi done.

We’ll need all the finance we can muster for next season. Also it’s nothing like what they did, they borrowed outside their means and ran up millions in debt. We’re talking about £50k from an account already in the name of St Mirren fans that has been easily costed to be repayed. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Au contraire.. Baz. If as popular opinion suggests this is getting voted down we need as a matter of urgency an investigation into why the Smisa committee have done twice and tried this third time to break the solemn promise to members that this money is ring fenced.

this isnt going away, promises made to every member are being broken left, right and centre.  They are not living up to the responsibilities they willingly accepted.

It’s not popular opinion, it’s four or five people on a forum. Also they haven’t broken any promises, for the millionth time they’ve simply put it to a vote and the USH was not from the ring fenced funds. 

[DumboBud]

4 hours ago, div said:

God help us when we really are in charge of the club

And this is the reason I haven’t joined SMISA. It will go pear shaped. 

[bazil85]

54 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

How would you know the club have made a donation unless you were pretty close to things?  That's never been made public!

The conflict of interest was the money going elsewhere...simple as. They don't offer the same, don't offer free sessions and don't have a pathway for kids that age. The club spoke out against sessions for disadvantaged kids and I thought it was a disgrace. I almost resigned then and, indeed, probably should have.

I had a vague recollection of your username being mentioned during committee meetings, I just can't quite remember who you are.

My understanding is St Mirren have made a donation and also supported in other ways to the woman’s team. I imagine we will help them to an extent going forward as well, got to remember the idea is in its early stages and they’ve only just started their first season. They want to be self sustraning though.  

It was not about money. He didn’t just come out saying ‘don’t give them money we want all the money.’ It was in regards to a conflict of interest. Read back on it if you wish. 

i doubt it was, I’ve never went to a committe meeting and have no affiliation with SMISA outside of my monthly payments  I do keep on top of all communications though including meeting details when provided  

 

[bazil85]

43 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Ah you see just there you are highlighting the faux pas Mr Dickson made!

you are quite correct, the FCA do not get involved with disputes between societies and their members, and good on you for checking out their website. But if you'll allow me to explain a little you might become educated a little more on the legislative reach, powers and practices of the FCA in cases like the one Smisa have brought on themselves. But first some back story for context.

Mr Dickson, who perhaps like others? You enjoy referencing how he was informed by the FCA to take his grievances to Supporters Direct, either didnt know, or decided to try a 'work round'. I was in the Smisa committee at the time his request, complaint and subsequent appeal, then referral to the FCA occurred.

for professional reasons, and commintments I undertook, and still uphold. I cant divulge the nature of his grievance, but it was between an individual member and the society, so he was corrected in what avenue to pursue to further his grievance.

no surprise there, and certainly being someone who re-drafted the Smisa constitution, absolutely what I knew would be the case.  And it was whilst i was re-drafting the constitution i took an understandable interest in the governance role played by the FCA in relation to ComBens, and extended my research and information gathering process into other similar Com Bens, their constitutions and any action taken by the FCA into infringement of its governing legislation. Whilst you could never describe their number of actions as akin to The Sweeney, the interesting thing for me was how they treated One man and his dog societies (and there are some literally like that) the same as a society like ours dealing with Hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not over a million pounds worth of members asset locked funds.

the common theme with those societies who had contravened the governing legislation, and where Smisa now find themselves is that the contravention affects every society member! If the ring fenced funds are used for any purpose other than that for which every member agreed they would (to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC), and in addition the asset lock is broken as a consequence. Then it is way, way beyond Supporters Direct's remit.

if you go back to the FCA website you will see a section devoted to "Whistle Blowing", email address, confidential hotline to be used expressely in the instance that any society, its committee, members or third party have or are seeking to take an action that breaks the governing legislation. So not for an individual grievance, but definitely for something where multiple members are raising concerns that the action in question is breaking the constitution, the asset lock and subsequently the law as it pertains.

looks like there is a very real chance we will find out, if the constitution, the BTB ring fenced funds in the asset lock are all breached how the FCA operate in the flesh!

hope this helps?

What you say actually makes perfect sense. To shorten it for people though:

members knickers in the twist - Supporters Direct

breaking the law - FCA

Great information from you in that sense.

Although it doesn’t change facts the FCA will tell anyone claiming SMISA/ St Mirren are breaking the law to bugger off because they’re not. You’ve been shown that in black and white at least half a dozen times now.  

[civilsaint]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

All expenses could have been and would have been covered by the club. Us covering expenses means those costs are recycled back into the club and ultimately to the player/ facilities/ staffing budget. We have not got the biggest budget in this league, Falkirk, United, ICT and Dunfermline can all outspend us on player wages. These wee bonuses have allowed us to strengthen a wee bit more than we would have and it seems to have paid off. Asking for these funds IS NOT BECAUSE WE’RE FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING

As for the statement from GLS with SMISA. It was because of a conflict of interest to the club not because money wasn’t going to St Mirren. Read the post again. 

The club have also made a donation to the woman’s team. 

I don’t know what people are finding so hard to get about this. Is it really difficult to understand, regardless of how much we bring in financially, you’ll get other clubs that have better spending power? If money wasn’t an issue Celtic would be worrying about 10 in a row next season. 

 

That's the problem. Right there.  Acknowledging and recognising the concerns being raised and robustly disagreeing is one thing. Failing to even recognise the perceived issue, despite being spelled out by numerous independent posters does nothing for your position.  Is it blindness or is it an  unwillingness to open your eyes? 

As for the reasoning for requiring additional funding, that in itself is quite concerning. Businesses, clubs, individuals can ALWAYS 'justify' that extra bit of cash for a new computer, or new car, or new office. But that doesn't make it right. Businesses which fold often do so because they made bad decisions in the good times, giving them no room for error in the bad times (New Look is probably the most recent example but there are many, many more).

Edited April 9, 2018 by civilsaint

[Vambo57]

On 4/5/2018 at 7:45 PM, FTOF said:

It states in the e-mail that I received that the money will be "reinstated" , "by committing £5,000 from each of the next nine quarterly spends – plus £5,000 available now of leftover funds which pre-date the #BuyTheBuds campaign.".

Good enough for me.

So, the SMISA board are proposing that £50,000 of the ring-fenced funds members have been paying in to Buy The Buds be gifted to SMFC  and are then going to use the same member's £2 spend to pay that money back into the ring-fence?   GTF outta here!

On 4/6/2018 at 12:42 PM, 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. 

There would need to be a vote at a GM to change the agreement first, to not have that stinks...

On 4/6/2018 at 12:56 PM, faraway saint said:

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? 

 

This ^^^^  plus our Quarterly spend will no longer be available for 2 1/2 years.  What will the Club do now for their future 'requests'?

Dip into the 'ring-fenced' funds again and again until we cannot actually But The Buds when the time comes?

I voted NO.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

We’ll need all the finance we can muster for next season. Also it’s nothing like what they did, they borrowed outside their means and ran up millions in debt. We’re talking about £50k from an account already in the name of St Mirren fans that has been easily costed to be repayed. 

In my opinion we'll only need the finance we can budget for. Anything else is the kind of short-sightedness that got us and others into financial trouble over the years.

 

Do you remember the first time Fitzy was manager?

 

I'd rather the main shareholder (in waiting) built up a slush fund to deal with short term unexpected cash demands that arise when they are in charge.

 

 

 

[bazil85]

8 minutes ago, civilsaint said:

 

That's the problem. Right there.  Acknowledging and recognising the concerns being raised and robustly disagreeing is one thing. Failing to even recognise the perceived issue, despite being spelled out by numerous independent posters does nothing for your position.  Is it blindness or is it an  unwillingness to open your eyes? 

As for the reasoning for requiring additional funding, that in itself is quite concerning. Businesses, clubs, individuals can ALWAYS 'justify' that extra bit of cash for a new computer, or new car, or new office. But that doesn't make it right. Businesses which fold often do so because they made bad decisions in the good times, giving them no room for error in the bad times (New Look is probably the most recent example but there are many, many more).

I’m not saying peoples concerns aren’t valid I’m saying their comments about us not living within our means and over spending are simply incorrect. We’ll always be chasing other clubs spending ability regardless of what league we’re in and how well we perform. So you’re right, yes extra money will always help  so why not give it when we can and it’s very low risk to pay it back? This isn’t any old business it’s our football club and i’ll Always be willing to support it any way I can including financially  

You can say about bad decisions and concerns but the idea is very well costed. It would take a massive drop in member numbers to impact the club and if that happened we’d have more to worry about than £50k... the members that dropped out would also only have themselves to blame. 

[Vambo57]

27 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

And this is the reason I haven’t joined SMISA. It will go pear shaped. 

if there were no debate would you join?

Debate and questioning of decisions are a good thing. 

Unquestioningly following those in power can lead to situations like OldCo.  Doing nothing except sniping is worse.

[civilsaint]

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I’m not saying peoples concerns aren’t valid I’m saying their comments about us not living within our means and over spending are simply incorrect. We’ll always be chasing other clubs spending ability regardless of what league we’re in and how well we perform. So you’re right, yes extra money will always help  so why not give it when we can and it’s very low risk to pay it back? This isn’t any old business it’s our football club and i’ll Always be willing to support it any way I can including financially  

 

NO,NO, NO. That is not what I'm saying. In fact it is the complete opposite. HELP!

Sorry to burst your bubble but it is just like any old business. If the business fails there is no football club. Business should be at the centre of every decision taken, the emotional side needs to be separated or things will go wrong - think Fergus McCann. He didn't make them successful by doing what the fans wanted.

Edited April 9, 2018 by civilsaint