The 3 Monthly Spend

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

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....

Everyone is entitled to their opinion said it all along... Unless they have an opinion like yours which is claiming illegal activity. I'm sorry but I won't stand for that without even one shred of evidence. 

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Why don't SMISA buy £50k worth of GLS shareholding?  or havethe shares in trust as security on a loan to the company?  that way, SMISA only spend their money on shares and the club gets some new turf.

SMISA are buying GLS shares anyway mate. When BTB is complete they'll all be transferred to SMISA 

[BuddieinEK]

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. 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

That's it, just keep sharing things that continue to highlight your failure to grasp simple concepts 

[rea]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

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? 

So as you believe that the new 3G pitch will be funded (if the vote goes through) as a result of the "Community" clause in the SMISA articles. can you confirm that it will be possible for members of the community to use it then?

[garzo]

32 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

Why don't SMISA buy £50k worth of GLS shareholding?  or havethe shares in trust as security on a loan to the company?  that way, SMISA only spend their money on shares and the club gets some new turf.

 

23 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

SMISA are buying GLS shares anyway mate. When BTB is complete they'll all be transferred to SMISA 

whoosh :-)

[bazil85]

21 minutes ago, rea said:

So as you believe that the new 3G pitch will be funded (if the vote goes through) as a result of the "Community" clause in the SMISA articles. can you confirm that it will be possible for members of the community to use it then?

I'm not on the SMISA committee or a decision maker at St Mirren so I can't confirm anything like that (I'm sure deep down you wouldn't expect me to be able to). What I can say is the proposal clearly highlights there is a community benefit and youths use/ will continue to use the facility. For me that's enough, but additionally I've seen St Mirren in the community camps use Ralston so I imagine they'll also benefit from the new pitch. 

I appreciate other people might want even more assurance than that from St Mirren FC and SMISA which if they do fine. Contact the club, contact SMISA, maybe they'll give you something in writing? Personally I think it's overkill and I'm happy to take their word because I trust them. 

[rea]

Just now, bazil85 said:

I'm not on the SMISA committee or a decision maker at St Mirren so I can't confirm anything like that (I'm sure deep down you wouldn't expect me to be able to). What I can say is the proposal clearly highlights there is a community benefit and youths use/ will continue to use the facility. For me that's enough, but additionally I've seen St Mirren in the community camps use Ralston so I imagine they'll also benefit from the new pitch. 

I appreciate other people might want even more assurance than that from St Mirren FC and SMISA which if they do fine. Contact the club, contact SMISA, maybe they'll give you something in writing? Personally I think it's overkill and I'm happy to take their word because I trust them. 

So you would not expect say SMISA members to be able to use the Facility only those groups currently using it?

 

Would you have no expectation of an expansion of the use of the facility to even those other groups EG the Womens team that are supported by SMISA?

[pozbaird]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

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 

Yes, you found it. Some people are concerned about ring fenced funds designed for share purchase being dipped into for an astroturf pitch. A second concern is that before even asking members if they would sanction such use of their money, the club and SMiSA firstly held discussions about a specific big ticket item they wanted to spend 50k of those ring fenced funds on.

From what you say now, you recognise these as valid concerns. This is strange, as for page after page, when these very concerns were raised, you brushed them aside because you could vote ‘no’.

Fair enough. Everyone can change their mind. No-one is asking you to share their concerns, but it’s progress that you have now performed a big U-Turn and can now at least say it’s a valid concern for folk to have. 

[bazil85]

21 minutes ago, rea said:

So you would not expect say SMISA members to be able to use the Facility only those groups currently using it?

 

Would you have no expectation of an expansion of the use of the facility to even those other groups EG the Womens team that are supported by SMISA?

I would be open to it being discussed, it wouldn’t be a deal breaker if it wasn’t though. I also wouldn’t have it as a free for all because it would chew up the surface more. My priority is and always will be St Mirren. An additional community benefit is great as well and also ticks a box for releasing the funds. 

[rea]

Just now, bazil85 said:

I would be open to it being discussed, it wouldn’t be a deal breaker if it wasn’t though. I also wouldn’t have it as a free for all because it would chew up the surface more. My priority is and always will be St Mirren. An additional community benefit is great as well and also ticks a box for releasing the funds. 

Then i think you have misunderstood what "community benefit" means.

 

 

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Yes, you found it. Some people are concerned about ring fenced funds designed for share purchase being dipped into for an astroturf pitch. A second concern is that before even asking members if they would sanction such use of their money, the club and SMiSA firstly held discussions about a specific big ticket item they wanted to spend 50k of those ring fenced funds on.

From what you say now, you recognise these as valid concerns. This is strange, as for page after page, when these very concerns were raised, you brushed them aside because you could vote ‘no’.

Fair enough. Everyone can change their mind. No-one is asking you to share their concerns, but it’s progress that you have now performed a big U-Turn and can now at least say it’s a valid concern for folk to have. 

I’m possibly not making this clear. I appreciate them as valid concerns in the sense I think those that have the concerns are perfectly entitled to them and to see them as a valid reason why they might not go for the proposal. Personally I don’t share the concerns, I disagree with them. As I’ve said people are entitled to their opinion and there’s a lot of validity in having some of these other opinions. 

However for the last maybe 12 hours now I’ve been trying to differentiate between valid concerns and made up garbage that slanders our club. 

If that’s not been clear I apologise but my stance has been completely unchanged and I continue to respect other viewpoints (again within reason) 

Edited April 10, 2018 by bazil85

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion said it all along... Unless they have an opinion like yours which is claiming illegal activity. I'm sorry but I won't stand for that without even one shred of evidence. 

Do you understand the terms "ring fenced" and "asset lock"..?

because everyone i spoke to, and helped during the sign up to BTB wanted to know if both these meant their £10 or £23 was only for ONE purpose. as it was enshrined in both our constitution and legally binding under the conditions set out by the FCA on how an organisation like Smisa must comply, I told them 'Yes'....

so far those two legally binding entities have been breached TWICE by the Smisa committee (£15k USH loan, and £50k lending facility) and now the aim to breach it a THIRD time in less than two years with another £50k raid on the ring fenced funds.... thats £115k in less than two years and counting... 

Try selling that track record if you are trying to recruit new Smisa members now..!

do you understand what transparent, open and honest mean..? Are these three examples good, or bad reflections on them..?

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, rea said:

Then i think you have misunderstood what "community benefit" means.

 

 

So you don’t think there’s a community benefit in youngsters from the surrounding areas using the park? (Regardless if they’re St Mirren affiliated or not) 

or St Mirren in the community using it? 

And you also don’t think there’s an argument for a strong St Mirren is good for the community? 

I think I understand it just fine, if you think there’s only a community benefit if it’s a universal benefit with no strings then more power to you... 

[rea]

Just now, bazil85 said:

So you don’t think there’s a community benefit in youngsters from the surrounding areas using the park? (Regardless if they’re St Mirren affiliated or not) 

or St Mirren in the community using it? 

And you also don’t think there’s an argument for a strong St Mirren is good for the community? 

I think I understand it just fine, if you think there’s only a community benefit if it’s a universal benefit with no strings then more power to you... 

Except that all of those things are already happening....so what is the "benefit" from the additional money. The Club have already said they will fund it if SMISA do not.

[BuddieinEK]

I continue to respect other viewpoints (again within reason) 

Rubbish.
Your one man mission to decry anyone who tries to articulate a valid concern knows no reason whatsoever.
You are like a dog with a bone.
A yappy one at that.

Respect and reason are most certainly NOT something I associate with any of your posts on this matter.

From people talking nonsense to having a valid concern overnight says it all really.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

Do you understand the terms "ring fenced" and "asset lock"..?

because everyone i spoke to, and helped during the sign up to BTB wanted to know if both these meant their £10 or £23 was only for ONE purpose. as it was enshrined in both our constitution and legally binding under the conditions set out by the FCA on how an organisation like Smisa must comply, I told them 'Yes'....

so far those two legally binding entities have been breached TWICE by the Smisa committee (£15k USH loan, and £50k lending facility) and now the aim to breach it a THIRD time in less than two years with another £50k raid on the ring fenced funds.... thats £115k in less than two years and counting... 

Try selling that track record if you are trying to recruit new Smisa members now..!

do you understand what transparent, open and honest mean..? Are these three examples good, or bad reflections on them..?

Yes I understand them perfectly well. I work in a risk function providing assurance for a large financial organisation. 

Mate they’ve not been breached, you’ve been shown they’ve not several times. I’m not going over it again. 

Dont worry, all your pals you’ve signed up can vote no and if they’re in the majority we’re all good to go. If not they should respect the vote like the rest of us. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, rea said:

Except that all of those things are already happening....so what is the "benefit" from the additional money. The Club have already said they will fund it if SMISA do not.

They’ll have a better facility to use. That’s the whole point. 

Again yes they will but that ultimately will be money out our budget for our return to the top flight. If that happens fine, I think the risk is very low of it not being repayed so I’m happy to vote yes. 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

 

Rubbish.
Your one man mission to decry anyone who tries to articulate a valid concern knows no reason whatsoever.
You are like a dog with a bone.
A yappy one at that.

Respect and reason are most certainly NOT something I associate with any of your posts on this matter.

From people talking nonsense to having a valid concern overnight says it all really.
 

 

Does it aye? 

[rea]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

They’ll have a better facility to use. That’s the whole point. 

Again yes they will but that ultimately will be money out our budget for our return to the top flight. If that happens fine, I think the risk is very low of it not being repayed so I’m happy to vote yes. 

So as you have said above. SMISA money is being used  for the benefit of a private organisation.

 

SMISA spend money of a Club Asset, Clubs balance sheet sees the benefit, Club gets to spend more money on paying players, no one extra gets to use the 3G pitch.

 

I hope you are not providing risk analysis for any org i have a relationship with!

[Lord Pityme]

34 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I'm not on the SMISA committee or a decision maker at St Mirren so I can't confirm anything like that (I'm sure deep down you wouldn't expect me to be able to). What I can say is the proposal clearly highlights there is a community benefit and youths use/ will continue to use the facility. For me that's enough, but additionally I've seen St Mirren in the community camps use Ralston so I imagine they'll also benefit from the new pitch. 

I appreciate other people might want even more assurance than that from St Mirren FC and SMISA which if they do fine. Contact the club, contact SMISA, maybe they'll give you something in writing? Personally I think it's overkill and I'm happy to take their word because I trust them. 

No where in the proposal does it state the key deliverables, measures, sustainability and how the use of our Society's assets will benefit the community. Now you may not understand it, but as a process to ensure public or community based funding is not misappropriated, these kep performance indicators have to be met before funding is approved. 

you perfectly highlight there is nothing approaching even a sincere desire they are met, let alone any type of measure, or predicted outcomes at benefit the community. Your position seems to be 'i love smfc, they want it, it must be good then if they say it is'...... how would you rate your, Smisa and the clubs chances would be pitching that airy fairy nonsense to Dragon's Den..? Let alone the FCA!

Dragon: 'tell us Basil, how will this propsal make the Community more resilient, and how can we measure that.'

Basil: '????'

[BuddieinEK]

No where in the proposal does it state the key deliverables, measures, sustainability and how the use of our Society's assets will benefit the community. Now you may not understand it, but as a process to ensure public or community based funding is not misappropriated, these kep performance indicators have to be met before funding is approved. 
you perfectly highlight there is nothing approaching even a sincere desire they are met, let alone any type of measure, or predicted outcomes at benefit the community. Your position seems to be 'i love smfc, they want it, it must be good then if they say it is'...... how would you rate your, Smisa and the clubs chances would be pitching that airy fairy nonsense to Dragon's Den..? Let alone the FCA!
Dragon: 'tell us Basil, how will this propsal make the Community more resilient, and how can we measure that.'
Basil: '????'

Am I the only one who read that last sentence with the voice of Sybil Fawlty in my head?
[emoji23]

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, rea said:

So as you have said above. SMISA money is being used  for the benefit of a private organisation.

 

SMISA spend money of a Club Asset, Clubs balance sheet sees the benefit, Club gets to spend more money on paying players, no one extra gets to use the 3G pitch.

 

I hope you are not providing risk analysis for any org i have a relationship with!

So you think providing a benefit to a private organisation and to a community can't be mutual? That's the beauty of the proposal. Benefits our team benefits our community.

You know who would be okay with that assurance? the FCA  

[Lord Pityme]

18 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Yes I understand them perfectly well. I work in a risk function providing assurance for a large financial organisation. 

Mate they’ve not been breached, you’ve been shown they’ve not several times. I’m not going over it again. 

Dont worry, all your pals you’ve signed up can vote no and if they’re in the majority we’re all good to go. If not they should respect the vote like the rest of us. 

You are a piece of work!

the people i signed up came to open Smisa meetings at SMP, just ordinary buddies wanting to do their bit, complete strangers trusting me to help fill in their personal and financial details because they trusted Smisa and the clubs assurances that their money was ring fenced for one purpose. Where is the respect they are due? Are you going to explain they were to a man and woman lied too?

i get you dont care, just want to wave the flag, but promises matter, people dont forget, and Smisa & Scott have shown their true colours and will be judged on them.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

SMISA are buying GLS shares anyway mate. When BTB is complete they'll all be transferred to SMISA 

Not with that 50k they won't, or with any other sum handed over before the official hand-over takes place.