Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

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. 

It potentially takes money away from St Mirren, by giving those sponsorship items for free. Fans/members wanted new big ticket items from the £2 pot, not known operational whole life costings that then limit £2 spend due to paying the share money back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

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

Factually, in your opinion, of course. 

I'm not sure that your opinion, or even the opinion of a legal advisor makes something 'factual'.

For what it's worth, I have no idea if the proposal is constitutional and quite frankly don't care. But I do no it doesn't look very palatable from the outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

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

Have a wee check back on what donate means there but anyway, that’s not what the proposal is. It’s asking for £50k from future £2 spends paid in advance from money sitting gathering dust, that will then be paid off over the next couple years or so.

No it’s not living out with our means, it’s a proposal to support the club allowing to save a bit of money. If it’s a no we’ll just adjust the budget accordingly. Everyone within their means, the Saints way for a long time now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

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!

We’ll see. I’ll respect the vote either way. Hope you do the same. Are you even in SMISA still... 

Once again no it’s not, it’s being smart about using funds available to us (pending member approval) 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

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

Well that’s something, i’ll Maybe look back at your posts tomorrow. They must be about six pages back now. Too much for this time of night. 

By the way I wasn’t saying you did say it was illegal, i was taking a stab in the dark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

It potentially takes money away from St Mirren, by giving those sponsorship items for free. Fans/members wanted new big ticket items from the £2 pot, not known operational whole life costings that then limit £2 spend due to paying the share money back. 

Yeah it might take it away... however st Mirren won’t get a free £50k anywhere else. I think giving up a sponsorship is worth it. Plus if it generates new SMISA members, more money to the club in the end through the £2 fund. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Well that’s something, i’ll Maybe look back at your posts tomorrow. They must be about six pages back now. Too much for this time of night. 

By the way I wasn’t saying you did say it was illegal, i was taking a stab in the dark. 

No worries. No rush. Will have a look when you get round to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

We’ll see. I’ll respect the vote either way. Hope you do the same. Are you even in SMISA still... 

Mans again no it’s not, it’s being smart about using funds available to us (pending member approval) 

I'm about 99.9% certain it's not gathering anything as we don't have it yet. I'm even struggling to get my head round how we'll have it in the summer. I was under the impression we didn't start accruing ring-fenced funds until after the former board are paid in full around August or so. Maybe the 50K loan facility is being re-directed then replenished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

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. 

If you read and quoted my post in full instead of selected bits, it makes perfect sense.

Reading the last two pages, clearly you are getting tired and confused and it's time YOU were in bed Bud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, civilsaint said:

 

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. 

It’s really not. They released the stats not long ago. St Johnstone, Motherwell and Hamilton average first team player wages are all under £50k, Ross county and Kilmarnock a wee bit over. That would be the teams we’d be about. 

I agree with your X comment. Just so happens we have a chance for X to be £50k higher. Pretty clear maths really 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:

If you read and quoted my post in full instead of selected bits, it makes perfect sense.

Reading the last two pages, clearly you are getting tired and confused and it's time YOU were in bed Bud.

I did read it all, it just doesn’t copy over when you respond. The comments seemingly implied I had posted contradicting things when they made perfect sense together. Strange. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Oh wait! It was that we weren’t buying you a new set of golf clubs cause the missus wouldn’t be happy?! Nailed it 

No, that wasn’t it. If it helps, other posters voiced the same concern, and you gave them the ‘it isn’t a concern because there’s a vote, just vote no if you have a problem’.

Will check back in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Have a wee check back on what donate means there but anyway, that’s not what the proposal is. It’s asking for £50k from future £2 spends paid in advance from money sitting gathering dust, that will then be paid off over the next couple years or so.
No it’s not living out with our means, it’s a proposal to support the club allowing to save a bit of money. If it’s a no we’ll just adjust the budget accordingly. Everyone within their means, the Saints way for a long time now. 
Are you really this naive or just spinning?
It's fifty grand that BtB won't have when they take over the club. What happens the next time the AstroTurf needs replaced as its likely to do prior to the fans taking over? What if the dome needs replaced in 2020?
What if the manager wants to spend 50k on a short term solutions in the January window to try and save us from relegation next season?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've got a league to win and a squad to strengthen over the next couple of months. Right now , I couldn't give a f**k about whether Smisa uses ring-fenced money or not. By the time the club is in the supporters hands I could be dead anyway. Smisa guys can do what they want , they'll still get my monthly subs no matter what !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Are you really this naive or just spinning?
It's fifty grand that BtB won't have when they take over the club. What happens the next time the AstroTurf needs replaced as its likely to do prior to the fans taking over? What if the dome needs replaced in 2020?
What if the manager wants to spend 50k on a short term solutions in the January window to try and save us from relegation next season?

Guessing you haven’t read the proposal. The pitch will do into our ownership of the club. 

your point about what if XY&Z happens. 

We’ll deal with it the same as almost any other club in the world deal with it. Or the same way we’d of dealt with it 10, 20, 50, pretty much any other time in our history. We’d pay out of our budget. This is a very rare situation we’re in right now, it doesn’t happen much in football so using it to our advantage isn’t naive and it’s certainly not alarm bells for ‘what about the future.’ 

What do you think happens when Falkirk, Morton, Dundee, Kilmarnock, ICT, etc have a cost? Do you think they all have multi-millionaire owners that pay out the goodness of their heart? No, they need to run at least at cost or they start to get in trouble. (Which all those clubs have been in the past) often due to short term greed of shareholders (we won’t have shareholders in it for profit, one of the benefits of fan ownership) 

also the club was up for sale for about seven years. Another model doesn’t exist that doesn’t present us with significant risk of going like a Dundee, Livi or Clydebank with dodgy owners and decisions. This is the best hope we have of running the club like a business and our only low risk option when it comes to future costs. I’m sorry but it sounds like you’re the naive one. Unless of course you have another business model that’ll protect us from future big ticket costs that hasn’t been proposed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2018 at 4:38 PM, 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?

Right found one. Yeah valid point of course having concerns about the ring-fenced funds being used. Can also appreciate that private discussions must have happened (although I'm not sure what other way they could of discussed the request from the club initially). Entitled to those opinions, it's not calling our club crooks or some of the other weird and wonderful things people are saying. 

I obviously don't share the concerns for the reasons I've put across 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, billyg said:

We've got a league to win and a squad to strengthen over the next couple of months. Right now , I couldn't give a f**k about whether Smisa uses ring-fenced money or not. By the time the club is in the supporters hands I could be dead anyway. Smisa guys can do what they want , they'll still get my monthly subs no matter what !

I pondered for a while whether to seek for a vote for permission before I pressed the like button for Billy's post.

However, I made up my own mind.

I'm sorry if I've generated any feelings of betrayal.:(:lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:


 

 


Hallefeckinlujah!

Last night it was nonsense, this morning it is valid.

At least your consistent with your inconsistencies!
 

 

Basil quote: "Yeah valid point of course having concerns about the ring-fenced funds being used."

Pinned..! The membership speaking as one, Keep The Fence, Drop The Pretence....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:


 

 


Hallefeckinlujah!

Last night it was nonsense, this morning it is valid.

At least your consistent with your inconsistencies!
 

 

So are you struggling to understand the difference between having a different viewpoint and pointing out certain things are nonsense? I'll try break it down a bit simpler for you.

Having concerns about spending the ring fence - perfectly valid point, I just don't agree with it and think there's lots of evidence it would actually be a benefit. 

Saying our club and SMISA are crooks and that this proposal somehow means St Mirren are paying outside their means - Nonsense 

Hope my very clear points are now that bit more clear to you. 

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...