The 3 Monthly Spend

[TsuMirren]

10 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

Sonny the money is scheduled to be repaid over 9 instalments of £5000 With the money above (currently approx £3000) still to be voted on quarterly.

You are correct, but there will be very few options outside of what the club put forward. Panda Club has to be next, Sports Scientist may even compete with that one or both get split. Every other trinket, SMISA will be right there and David Nicol will advise it, Colin will agree, others will agree so long as there's an invoice and around 600 members will vote it all through. There's a survey to back it up on, not to mention a series of options the club have no appetite to take forward. The club have no appetite, so neither do SMISA as the committee just won't progress any of it. That's fan involvement, not control. Indeed, it's near enough the 10,000 Hours model with the members controlled by a sub-board the is entrenched in with the club board.

 If you're at the AGM, ask why it needs more than three people on the board. Ask why David Nicol feels he can withold key information. Ask why elected board members weren't given access to the takeover agreement.  Ask why the club have asked SMISA to reconsider no votes. 

[TsuMirren]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It wasn’t just a victory it was a landslide with the no side getting less than 8% of the overal members. Very disappointing you’re throwing your toys because people have a different opinion to yourself. 

The funds remain ring fenced as the plan to pay the money back is very sound as long as people continue to pay. The irony is if more people think like you then that’s put at risk. 

Oh, you're back...ahead of preparing for the AGM. "Throwing your toys" makes me cringe in the same way Gordon Scott saying "idiots on a forum" does any time he said it. 

Here's a toy...you ready? The vast majority of the SMISA committee felt the Glenvale option was a good option. Gordon raised an issue, which was put to us as "he may comment". David Nicol took it upon himself to not inform us that Gordon would indeed release a statement. David also didn't see an issue in the statement, with Colin Orr feeling SMISA shouldn't respond or even clarify things. Suddenly, various board members gauged every option on Gordon's view. The women's team were even told "we don't want another Glenvale" when presenting their proposal to us after they'd been launched BY THE CLUB!

Right, anyway, enjoy the game and here's to at least a draw. COYS!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

It wasn’t just a victory it was a landslide with the no side getting less than 8% of the overal members. Very disappointing you’re throwing your toys because people have a different opinion to yourself. 
The funds remain ring fenced as the plan to pay the money back is very sound as long as people continue to pay. The irony is if more people think like you then that’s put at risk. 

Interesting use of numbers. If only 8% voted against, why didn't you note the percentage who voted for it?

[gc_SMFC]

It wasn’t just a victory it was a landslide with the no side getting less than 8% of the overal members. Very disappointing you’re throwing your toys because people have a different opinion to yourself. 
The funds remain ring fenced as the plan to pay the money back is very sound as long as people continue to pay. The irony is if more people think like you then that’s put at risk. 

My toys are ring-fenced m9.

Can't touch them apart from their attended purchase.

[portmahomack saint]

14 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Oh, you're back...ahead of preparing for the AGM. "Throwing your toys" makes me cringe in the same way Gordon Scott saying "idiots on a forum" does any time he said it. 

Here's a toy...you ready? The vast majority of the SMISA committee felt the Glenvale option was a good option. Gordon raised an issue, which was put to us as "he may comment". David Nicol took it upon himself to not inform us that Gordon would indeed release a statement. David also didn't see an issue in the statement, with Colin Orr feeling SMISA shouldn't respond or even clarify things. Suddenly, various board members gauged every option on Gordon's view. The women's team were even told "we don't want another Glenvale" when presenting their proposal to us after they'd been launched BY THE CLUB!

Right, anyway, enjoy the game and here's to at least a draw. COYS!

Well I didn't.  it pissed me off actually, and if my memory serves me right it was only option close to be voted down.  but am still a smisa member, some you win some you lose. democracy I think its called, and my dummy remains in the pram

[garzo]

Can’t make AGM today. My views are clear though. 

Not popular but correct! Lol  

 

[beyond our ken]

4 hours ago, garzo said:

It’s not a surprise to be honest. 

The way this has been put out however has been unfortunately so skewed towards an inevitable yes outcome it beggars belief. 

Emotional blackmail included to drag along fans who can’t see or understand the single most important objective for SMISA and like sheep press the yes button without a second thought. 

To spell this out clearly this vote means we are paying for our shares twice!!!.

Saving up to pay back money loaned to ourselves is an unbelievable way to go about things. 

Smisa need to grow a pair & protect all future funds- saving only to buy shares. 

This should be enshrined & untouchable  - not risked in any way whatsoever & never used as a political football again..

To know what should be put to a vote, held back as protected is good governance & sound judgement - Smisa need to be a bit more hard nosed & protect the members from themselves, lol  as it looks like every suggestion will get voted through without a care.

Be careful as you go forward SMISA .

My point exactly, I think there must be a lot of people who don't understand that a small to medium dent in the collection process just now can represent a significant shortfall in the future.  The committee effectively asked the members to gamble on the PROSPECT of the flow of monies staying at least roughly the same as now.

Most of those who voted had good intentions in that they just thought they are helping St Mirren, but the outcome of this exercise is that a majority of voters decided to use the money OTHER people committed to buy shares for another purpose.  The committee should have communicated the request for funds tothe mebers, but not actully asked them to spend share money this way.  Some of that is my money, I'm not happy that the buy out is now delayed or dependant on things that can't be guaranteed.  It's like a feckless mother spending the family allowance on fags and booze for the dad and telling the kids that they can have new shoes when dad can raise the cash.

[billyg]

I was at the AGM, the presentation is far more professional looking now than it was at the outset of the BtB campaign . Everything was explained in a proper manner and everything was voted through to my own satisfaction. Every question , including my own , was answered with a clear explanation. I am confident that Smisa are moving in the right direction towards eventual ownership ! (Despite the apparent toys out the pram brigade,  at this stage , during the past month , there have been no "leavers" , 5 people have upgraded their memberships , and 5 potential new members have been in contact !)

[Lord Pityme]

6 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Very clear that the overwhelming majority of paying members support this or are indifferent. 

Time for everyone to move on for the good of our football club. 

Actually no its not very clear, as the majority of members either voted against, or didnt vote at all. However the vote is there, cant be erased and the committee will be held to account for their actions now. Promse to ring fence broken asset lock broken.... jeez they must really like Gordon to do all his cash grabbing bidding for him.

[FTOF]

5 hours ago, billyg said:

I was at the AGM, the presentation is far more professional looking now than it was at the outset of the BtB campaign . Everything was explained in a proper manner and everything was voted through to my own satisfaction. Every question , including my own , was answered with a clear explanation. I am confident that Smisa are moving in the right direction towards eventual ownership ! (Despite the apparent toys out the pram brigade,  at this stage , during the past month , there have been no "leavers" , 5 people have upgraded their memberships , and 5 potential new members have been in contact !)

That is all!

 

 

[Smithers Jones]

18 hours ago, billyg said:

I was at the AGM, the presentation is far more professional looking now than it was at the outset of the BtB campaign . Everything was explained in a proper manner and everything was voted through to my own satisfaction. Every question , including my own , was answered with a clear explanation. I am confident that Smisa are moving in the right direction towards eventual ownership ! (Despite the apparent toys out the pram brigade,  at this stage , during the past month , there have been no "leavers" , 5 people have upgraded their memberships , and 5 potential new members have been in contact !)

Couldn't agree more billy. I thought it was well delivered, informative and assuring that despite the histrionics on here, the majority are happy with how things are being run.

Well done to all concerned.

[Buddymarvellous]

I voted NO on this because I saw it as simply passing £50K to the club - dressed up as an astroturf project which would go ahead anyway and should be included in a ‘living within our means’ policy.

Perhaps SMISA should have been more honest and said we were donating to the player’s budget.

I have asked lots of friends and relatives how they voted and the ‘all’ said they opened the email clicked on the vote and voted YES because the trusted the committee.

You can argue that that’s democracy bud but I remain disappointed in the committee’s handling of the proposal.

[Smithers Jones]

On 4/13/2018 at 2:33 PM, Graeme Aitken said:

Nice one.

You are quite selective in what you want to see and which side of this argument you want to dig out.

As some have already stated, they will vote in line with the proposal without thinking about it. I think there is a commonly used term "following like sheep". Never crossed my mind that referring to such a phrase for folk who blindly follow would be seen as arrogance.
Och well, it is what it is.

As for the potential consequences of that protected pot being opened just the once, the precedent will have been set and the temptation to do so again will always be there.

I hope Beyond our Ken is talking shite too.

"mark my words" he is.

[Lord Pityme]

2 hours ago, Smithers Jones said:

"mark my words" he is.

Saints fans turning on their own... aye classy. Wtf

back on topic, Scott will be like dog with two cocks now he's tied uo two and a half years of £2 vote pot. Lets see what he wants the memberships money for the next time they rifle the ring fenced (Lol) fund?

Edited April 15, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[faraway saint]

On 13/04/2018 at 12:52 PM, beyond our ken said:

Care to make a meaningful contribution rather than settling for being a snipey wee get?

 

 

15 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Saints fans turning on their own... aye classy. Wtf

 

Whit, like above? 

You really don't help yourself. 

[Lord Pityme]

4 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

 

Whit, like above? 

You really don't help yourself. 

He called that one bob on!

[faraway saint]

Just now, Lord Pityme said:

He called that one bob on!

Aye, if ye like. 

[Lord Pityme]

Jings they havent jist got a hard on for me, looks like they are thinking daisy chain.... 

[faraway saint]

9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Jings they havent jist got a hard on for me, looks like they are thinking daisy chain.... 

You'd think there was a connection wouldn't you.........................

[Lord Pityme]

Oh look.. theres another fluffer. 

[bazil85]

On 4/14/2018 at 11:30 AM, TPAFKATS said:

On 4/14/2018 at 11:14 AM, bazil85 said:

It wasn’t just a victory it was a landslide with the no side getting less than 8% of the overal members. Very disappointing you’re throwing your toys because people have a different opinion to yourself. 
The funds remain ring fenced as the plan to pay the money back is very sound as long as people continue to pay. The irony is if more people think like you then that’s put at risk. 

Interesting use of numbers. If only 8% voted against, why didn't you note the percentage who voted for it?

Roughly 44% voted for (or 88% of the voting population) with the remaining not voting at all for I'm sure various reasons.

The main reason is very likely to be indifference though. (I've spoken to three paying members that didn't vote and all of them just weren't really bothered, I know that's a small number but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the general theme from those that didn't vote) 

[StuD]

The average lifespan of an astroturf playing surface is between 8 and 12 years. So given that, what provisions are SMISA putting in place to ensure that next time this happens they have the full £150,000 in place to meet the cost? 

[Bud the Baker]

3 minutes ago, StuD said:

The average lifespan of an astroturf playing surface is between 8 and 12 years. So given that, what provisions are SMISA putting in place to ensure that next time this happens they have the full £150,000 in place to meet the cost? 

Welcome back! 

[bazil85]

41 minutes ago, StuD said:

The average lifespan of an astroturf playing surface is between 8 and 12 years. So given that, what provisions are SMISA putting in place to ensure that next time this happens they have the full £150,000 in place to meet the cost? 

Same provisions as almost any other club at our level with the same kind of pitch.

Very few clubs have a rich chairman or benefactor now that can fund such purchases, we'll cover it out of our running costs. The only difference this time is we've had the opportunity to support through SMISA contributions. It's in no way an indication that it would not be affordable otherwise or in the future. In fact the proposal said as much. It clearly stated in the event of a no vote the club would pay for it out of its budget. Will be same in 8-12 years as required. 

[StuD]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Same provisions as almost any other club at our level with the same kind of pitch.

Very few clubs have a rich chairman or benefactor now that can fund such purchases, we'll cover it out of our running costs. The only difference this time is we've had the opportunity to support through SMISA contributions. It's in no way an indication that it would not be affordable otherwise or in the future. In fact the proposal said as much. It clearly stated in the event of a no vote the club would pay for it out of its budget. Will be same in 8-12 years as required. 

Really? How many other clubs at our level own an astrograss pitch they can't rent out and two full sized grass parks that require a full time groundsman?