The 3 Monthly Spend

[DumboBud]

1 minute ago, Vambo57 said:

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.

I’ve been around Bowling Club committees often enough to know that in this situation a dictatorship is infinitely preferable to a democracy. 

[bazil85]

8 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:

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!

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

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.

All your points have been answered over this thread. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion and your vote but

no there wouldn’t need to be an additional vote, we’re all adults we know voting to use the ring fence means... using the ring fence. 

The additional asks for the £2 funds are always a benefit that allows the club to concentrate money elsewhere so we wouldn’t just dip in all the time. Any future time we went in we’d have to vote accordingly. 

Theres not ‘plenty of money from transfers and league position’ we’re going into a league where likely 9-10 clubs will still have a bigger budget than us. 

 

[bazil85]

17 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

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.
 

We wouldn’t overbudget we would just have that £50k still in the budget. The repayment of the £50k is from future £2 pots so in no way would it be us over budgeting 

[civilsaint]

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

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. 

With all due respect, that really is quite a pathetic and counter productive attitude.

I seriously hope your views do not reflect the views of those involved in the management of SMISA, the second that kind of attitude is adopted the game is up. 

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, civilsaint said:

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.

What way is this vote putting our club even remotely at risk? It’s certainly a lot safer and cheaper way to borrow than any loan on the planet. 

[bazil85]

Just now, civilsaint said:

With all due respect, that really is quite a pathetic and counter productive attitude.

I seriously hope your views do not reflect the views of those involved in the management of SMISA, the second that kind of attitude is adopted the game is up. 

In what way? If a bunch of members spit the dummy are we suppost to go ‘oh gosh this is the yes voters fault. Imagine supporting a well costed idea that helps our football team.’ 

I know in the modern day world people have to be precious about all the feelings but if the outcome is people cutting their noses off to spite their face. More fool them. 

[pozbaird]

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I’m not saying peoples concerns aren’t valid

That’s exactly what you’ve been saying. Many times, in many posts. You’ve regularly said you cannot understand people having concerns about this because there’s a vote you can simply say ‘no’ to.

To humour me, can you tell me what you think my concern has been, and if you do indeed think it is valid?

[bazil85]

Can I ask everyone a question on the SMISA money given to St Mirren for various things over last couple years?

Say we had one of those crystal balls, just for a bit of fun... 

So I think we’ve had seven quarters of SMISA £2 votes so far roughly £56k. I don’t know the maths but say directly or indirectly we’ve given about £45k of that to St Mirren. If we had all said no to every vote, and had those funds plus this quarter to fund the new surface in cash... but St Mirren had funded all the requested proposals themselves out of the budget. What if that missing £45k was Gavin Reilly? Or Cammy Smith? Or we sold Morgan in the summer to cover the shortfall? Or Jack Ross new contract? 

For me that’s the exact position we’re potentially putting ourselves in next season £50k is a player for a club like St Mirren. 

I feel that the idea is well costed, low risk and beneficial to our team. That last one is my number one priority in BTB. 

[civilsaint]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

What way is this vote putting our club even remotely at risk? It’s certainly a lot safer and cheaper way to borrow than any loan on the planet. 

Borrow? Who said anything about the club having to borrow money? I thought there was enough money available in the budget? 

Your position seems to be rather confused to say the least.

 

[TsuMirren]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

In what way? If a bunch of members spit the dummy are we suppost to go ‘oh gosh this is the yes voters fault. Imagine supporting a well costed idea that helps our football team.’ 

I know in the modern day world people have to be precious about all the feelings but if the outcome is people cutting their noses off to spite their face. More fool them. 

Why is it always spitting the dummy?

it's also NOT a well costed idea. It looks to use the ring fenced funds, slashes the £2 pot dramatically and sees SMISA take on free sponsorship slots that the club could otherwise have gained funding through. If it's so great and meets SMISA's objectives, it shouldn't need associated trinkets.

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

That’s exactly what you’ve been saying. Many times, in many posts. You’ve regularly said you cannot understand people having concerns about this because there’s a vote you can simply say ‘no’ to.

To humour me, can you tell me what you think my concern has been, and if you do indeed think it is valid?

No not at all. I’ve said I can’t undersand concerns like ‘we’re over spending’ or ‘we should have it in the budget after a great season’ or ‘we need two votes because fans won’t understand asking to spend the ring fence is spending the ring fence.’ 

I’m simplifying the quotes for dramatic effect of course but that’s what some of the points have been. They’re not concerns, they’re just nonsense. People have genuine concerns, I don’t share them but it doesn’t mean they’re not valid. 

[Lord Pityme]

38 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

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.  

Ha, ha, ha...ha ha..ha, ha... i like you. Even when you've got nothing... you still say it anyway. After we have wrapped up the title tomorrow night everyone's attention can focus on this!

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

That’s exactly what you’ve been saying. Many times, in many posts. You’ve regularly said you cannot understand people having concerns about this because there’s a vote you can simply say ‘no’ to.

To humour me, can you tell me what you think my concern has been, and if you do indeed think it is valid?

As for your particular concerns I can’t remeber. I’ve been at this for a few days now, it’s brain damage. Give me a reminder and i’ll Tell you if they’re actual concerns or just nonsense 

[pozbaird]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

As for your particular concerns I can’t remeber. I’ve been at this for a few days now, it’s brain damage. Give me a reminder and i’ll Tell you if they’re actual concerns or just nonsense 

Have a read back, and get back to me.

[Vambo57]

9 minutes ago, DumboBud said:

I’ve been around Bowling Club committees often enough to know that in this situation a dictatorship is infinitely preferable to a democracy. 

Fascist!!

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

All your points have been answered over this thread. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion and your vote but

no there wouldn’t need to be an additional vote, we’re all adults we know voting to use the ring fence means... using the ring fence. 

The additional asks for the £2 funds are always a benefit that allows the club to concentrate money elsewhere so we wouldn’t just dip in all the time. Any future time we went in we’d have to vote accordingly. 

Theres not ‘plenty of money from transfers and league position’ we’re going into a league where likely 9-10 clubs will still have a bigger budget than us. 

 

  and

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We wouldn’t overbudget we would just have that £50k still in the budget. The repayment of the £50k is from future £2 pots so in no way would it be us over budgeting 

So Bazil, please explain how thw two highlighted statements tie up?

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

What way is this vote putting our club even remotely at risk? It’s certainly a lot safer and cheaper way to borrow than any loan on the planet. 

I think it puts Buy The Buds in jeapordy?

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, civilsaint said:

Borrow? Who said anything about the club having to borrow money? I thought there was enough money available in the budget? 

Your position seems to be rather confused to say the least.

 

Ffs there is! I was using it as a comparison between borrow big money and the proposal. I thought that was clear. 

My position is unchanged, there is money in the budget. That money would be better served on helping out case next season s gains Romany teams with much bigger budgets than us. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

We wouldn’t overbudget we would just have that £50k still in the budget. The repayment of the £50k is from future £2 pots so in no way would it be us over budgeting 

You don't get that asking fans to donate £50k to the running of the club could be living outwith our budget?
Really?

[Lord Pityme]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No not at all. I’ve said I can’t undersand concerns like ‘we’re over spending’ or ‘we should have it in the budget after a great season’ or ‘we need two votes because fans won’t understand asking to spend the ring fence is spending the ring fence.’ 

I’m simplifying the quotes for dramatic effect of course but that’s what some of the points have been. They’re not concerns, they’re just nonsense. People have genuine concerns, I don’t share them but it doesn’t mean they’re not valid. 

But the proposal is to overspend! It is supposed to be squared off by money smisa doesnt have, i.e. Spending money you havent got. The very issue everyone it seems bar you who joined smisa wanted to make sure we avoided.

this Is getting voted down, the members are talking!

[TsuMirren]

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Can I ask everyone a question on the SMISA money given to St Mirren for various things over last couple years?

Say we had one of those crystal balls, just for a bit of fun... 

So I think we’ve had seven quarters of SMISA £2 votes so far roughly £56k. I don’t know the maths but say directly or indirectly we’ve given about £45k of that to St Mirren. If we had all said no to every vote, and had those funds plus this quarter to fund the new surface in cash... but St Mirren had funded all the requested proposals themselves out of the budget. What if that missing £45k was Gavin Reilly? Or Cammy Smith? Or we sold Morgan in the summer to cover the shortfall? Or Jack Ross new contract? 

For me that’s the exact position we’re potentially putting ourselves in next season £50k is a player for a club like St Mirren. 

I feel that the idea is well costed, low risk and beneficial to our team. That last one is my number one priority in BTB. 

What if the 45K was Daryl Duffy, Jordan Kirkpatrick and Ross Stewart? What if SMISA had just started a fundraising campaign 9 flaming months ago? I do admire your effort,  heck you're almost using my post template from a few months back.

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Why is it always spitting the dummy?

it's also NOT a well costed idea. It looks to use the ring fenced funds, slashes the £2 pot dramatically and sees SMISA take on free sponsorship slots that the club could otherwise have gained funding through. If it's so great and meets SMISA's objectives, it shouldn't need associated trinkets.

The smisa sponsorship is an additional benefit to SMISA. it’s a good deal for all. Just shows can’t please everyone. Some fans crying out for a big ticket spend, some come on and say ‘aw now we’ll have less money to spend a quarter’ can’t win. 

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Ha, ha, ha...ha ha..ha, ha... i like you. Even when you've got nothing... you still say it anyway. After we have wrapped up the title tomorrow night everyone's attention can focus on this!

How have I got nothing? Are you actually that fickle you can’t admit your argument has been beaten?

You even shared the point that beat your ‘it’s illegal’ argument haha Jesus wept. 

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Have a read back, and get back to me.

Big ask, do you think the proposal is illegal? Because that’s not a concern, it’s just factually wrong. 

[civilsaint]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Ffs there is! I was using it as a comparison between borrow big money and the proposal. I thought that was clear. 

My position is unchanged, there is money in the budget. That money would be better served on helping out case next season s gains Romany teams with much bigger budgets than us. 

 

Your obsession with the budgets of other teams is misguided. SMFC projected income is "X", therefore SMFC should budget to having outgoings not exceeding "X". End of discussion. That's how business works and SMFC is a business. 

 

P.S. Forgot to say, if you genuinely think that 50K is the cost to employ of a decent first team SPFL player, then you are majorly misguided. 

Edited April 9, 2018 by civilsaint

[pozbaird]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Big ask, do you think the proposal is illegal? Because that’s not a concern, it’s just factually wrong. 

Nope. It’s not that. I have never once claimed illegality. 

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:

Fascist!!

  and

So Bazil, please explain how thw two highlighted statements tie up?

I think it puts Buy The Buds in jeapordy?

Eh? None of that makes any sense whatsoever. We’d be voting on using the future £2 pot for this repayment. It’s exactly what the whole debate has been about. Haha bed time for you I think pal.