The 3 Monthly Spend

[bazil85]

23 minutes ago, st jock said:

Fair enough Stu. As I've said, I think some of your grievances are valid. Just don't know why you don't move on as you don't seem to have any emotional or financial attachment to the club. Seems that you are only here for attention and to do some shit stirring.

For me a lot of it is a matter of opinion which Stuart is of course fully entitled to as we all are. Okay it can be infuriating the way he sometimes comes across but I'm sure people say the same about me 

Stuart seems to have a more set opinion about what X was, in regards to the BTB £2 fund, with little wiggle room. He wanted much more focus on community benefit, didn't agree with us funding the St Mirren player budget and other votes that he felt weren't community beneficial (I'm simplifying this slightly given the amount of posts this covers) 

I took it as a fund that can be used to the benefit of our football club and/or community. Led by members suggestions, club requirements and SMISA decision makers. I took it as the final decision will be made by members in the way of a vote and that options on any ballot paper would be down to the popular demand of our members. It came as zero surprise to me that the majority of members would find St Mirren benefits more appealing than other options (I'm frankly very surprised anyone signing up would) 

They're different interpretations and I'm not sure anyone can say which is right and which is wrong. I looked over a lot about SMISA when the deal came up but I don't remember anything that confirmed or denied money could go directly to the club or about community benefit. An argument can also be made about a strong St Mirren being good for the community.

The flip side of that is the name of the fund and background regulation that covers it, a person can have a viable concern about what the money has been used for (They can't about legality but I'm not getting into that again). Different strokes for different folks. 

What does frustrate me about the whole thing is I feel it's a bit 'tail wagging the dog' When it comes to the £10/ £23 Vs the £2 spend. Part of me thinks would it of been simpler just to put the full £25/ £12 to the buyout and have members committing to 10 years of payments. At the end of the 10 years all the excess funds transferred to the fan owned club for a vote on how it's spent over the community and club. We wouldn't be getting all the frustration from the minority and we also likely wouldn't be getting much drop off (bar financial reasoning) 

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Just spent over an hour reading through pages get near the end only to find Stuart Dickson back in full swing. Have lost interest now thanks Stuart. 

[faraway saint]

12 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Just spent over an hour reading through pages get near the end only to find Stuart Dickson back in full swing. Have lost interest now thanks Stuart. 

It would be foolish to dismiss Stuart's points.

Repetition doesn't make them wrong.

I read them and many are more than decent, some are difficult to disagree with, well constructed and he does know the type of fuel to put in his car, can't be all that bad eh? 

Overall this thread has been enjoyable/interesting. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by faraway saint

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

1 minute ago, faraway saint said:

It would be foolish to dismiss Stuart's points.

Repetition doesn't make them wrong.

I read them and many are more than decent, difficult to disagree with, well constructed and he does know the type of fuel to put in his car, can't be all that bad eh? 

Overall this thread has been enjoyable/interesting. 

I'm glad you got something from Stuart's posts.  Have read his stuff going back to Saints Online pre BAWA. He has no interest in St Mirren only him self not for me sorry to say. As for fuel that was my costly mistake if you get fun at pointing a finger and laughing then enjoy its not my idea of fun but as this thread proved we all have different opinions. 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

2 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

He has no interest in St Mirren only him self not for me sorry to say.

Why would he have any interest in you?

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

34 minutes ago, Eric Arthur Blair said:

Why would he have any interest in you?

TV not working or are you just camping on a hill side ?  There are some good books out there maybe get one tomorrow help stave of the boredom. 

[StuD]

7 hours ago, bazil85 said:

For me a lot of it is a matter of opinion which Stuart is of course fully entitled to as we all are. Okay it can be infuriating the way he sometimes comes across but I'm sure people say the same about me 

Stuart seems to have a more set opinion about what X was, in regards to the BTB £2 fund, with little wiggle room. He wanted much more focus on community benefit, didn't agree with us funding the St Mirren player budget and other votes that he felt weren't community beneficial (I'm simplifying this slightly given the amount of posts this covers) 

I took it as a fund that can be used to the benefit of our football club and/or community. Led by members suggestions, club requirements and SMISA decision makers. I took it as the final decision will be made by members in the way of a vote and that options on any ballot paper would be down to the popular demand of our members. It came as zero surprise to me that the majority of members would find St Mirren benefits more appealing than other options (I'm frankly very surprised anyone signing up would) 

They're different interpretations and I'm not sure anyone can say which is right and which is wrong. I looked over a lot about SMISA when the deal came up but I don't remember anything that confirmed or denied money could go directly to the club or about community benefit. An argument can also be made about a strong St Mirren being good for the community.

The flip side of that is the name of the fund and background regulation that covers it, a person can have a viable concern about what the money has been used for (They can't about legality but I'm not getting into that again). Different strokes for different folks. 

What does frustrate me about the whole thing is I feel it's a bit 'tail wagging the dog' When it comes to the £10/ £23 Vs the £2 spend. Part of me thinks would it of been simpler just to put the full £25/ £12 to the buyout and have members committing to 10 years of payments. At the end of the 10 years all the excess funds transferred to the fan owned club for a vote on how it's spent over the community and club. We wouldn't be getting all the frustration from the minority and we also likely wouldn't be getting much drop off (bar financial reasoning) 

Yeah. I think you've pretty much summed up my position quite well. It's not irrational though. Take a look at these quotes off the SMISA page. 

Quote

Basic membership of SMISA has been set at £12 per month. Of that, £10 is ringfenced for the share purchase.

Quote

Your £12 per month as a basic member will see £10 set aside to fund the share purchase

Quote

What is Gordon’s vision for the club?

The club’s income will fund its expenditure, and we won’t spend what we don’t have.

 

Quote

How can the fans fund the club? What if it needs financial help?

The club won’t depend on SMISA to pay the bills

If ever there was a misleading website promoting a product or service the SMISA website is it and that's after all the changes that were made to the website to erase all the promises of community spending. 

[billyg]

On ‎17‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 6:34 AM, bonzoboys said:

Not having made the SMISA AGM i am cautious about commenting on any SMISA responce.

Since asking in my last post, i am still not sure as a 12 pound payer whether I am actually a member of SMISA or not.

I am still no clearer as to what is truth and to quote Mr Trump false news.

In simple terms, I and I suspect many others who have been reading this latest episode will be watching a lot closer to see that the money for the astroturf is genuinely being paid back in installments from the monthly two pounds.

Having got us in to such confusion, SMISA have a huge responsibility to be seen to be totally above reproach on this matter going forward.

Please help restore our confidence in the BTB plan.  we are at a great place currently on the pitch, lets combine that with some positive thoughts about the way forward to fan ownership.

COYS and BTB

There is , or was , no confusion , certainly none that a wee trip to the AGM wouldn't have allayed ! 

[Lord Pityme]

18 hours ago, Smithers Jones said:

He said that he asked a question which they didn't like so the meeting was shut down.  This simply did not happen.

You can keep repeating it, but it wont make it correct. It happened and was widely witnessed. Save some face and let it go.

[Lord Pityme]

16 hours ago, bazil85 said:

For me a lot of it is a matter of opinion which Stuart is of course fully entitled to as we all are. Okay it can be infuriating the way he sometimes comes across but I'm sure people say the same about me 

Stuart seems to have a more set opinion about what X was, in regards to the BTB £2 fund, with little wiggle room. He wanted much more focus on community benefit, didn't agree with us funding the St Mirren player budget and other votes that he felt weren't community beneficial (I'm simplifying this slightly given the amount of posts this covers) 

I took it as a fund that can be used to the benefit of our football club and/or community. Led by members suggestions, club requirements and SMISA decision makers. I took it as the final decision will be made by members in the way of a vote and that options on any ballot paper would be down to the popular demand of our members. It came as zero surprise to me that the majority of members would find St Mirren benefits more appealing than other options (I'm frankly very surprised anyone signing up would) 

They're different interpretations and I'm not sure anyone can say which is right and which is wrong. I looked over a lot about SMISA when the deal came up but I don't remember anything that confirmed or denied money could go directly to the club or about community benefit. An argument can also be made about a strong St Mirren being good for the community.

The flip side of that is the name of the fund and background regulation that covers it, a person can have a viable concern about what the money has been used for (They can't about legality but I'm not getting into that again). Different strokes for different folks. 

What does frustrate me about the whole thing is I feel it's a bit 'tail wagging the dog' When it comes to the £10/ £23 Vs the £2 spend. Part of me thinks would it of been simpler just to put the full £25/ £12 to the buyout and have members committing to 10 years of payments. At the end of the 10 years all the excess funds transferred to the fan owned club for a vote on how it's spent over the community and club. We wouldn't be getting all the frustration from the minority and we also likely wouldn't be getting much drop off (bar financial reasoning) 

What is frustrating to a growing number of members is the fact that despite the initial facade, and promises the £2 pot was "for the members to decide what to spend it on" we have seen the club basically take the piss, whilst taking the money (matchballs ffs) and now they have tied the bulk of it up for two and half years in advance, as well as getting the 30-50 (cant remember how many) Community group season tickets out of this votes balance.

if a member suggests something like installing TV screens around the kiosks they get told it needs to be costed and certified by the club first ( no offer whatsoever despite having a committee member on the club board to help). Wheras the club simply passes an invoice to the Smisa rep on the board, then smisa tell us... "its your choice where the vote goes".... its like a fecking Russian Election campaign where everyone knows its already decided, but we still have to dance around all the houses in an effort to make it look real..!

what is also frustrating to members is the promise their subs were/are ring fenced for the reason they signed up! But have been rifled three times.

all of this is documented by Smisa and the club. None of it is opinion! Its all happened on OUR watch.,

[bazil85]

9 hours ago, StuD said:

Yeah. I think you've pretty much summed up my position quite well. It's not irrational though. Take a look at these quotes off the SMISA page. 

 

If ever there was a misleading website promoting a product or service the SMISA website is it and that's after all the changes that were made to the website to erase all the promises of community spending. 

Not wanting to get massively into the debate again but like I said it's difference of opinions. I think most people can argue there is a level of subjectivity in those quotes. Could argue if we said no to the player wages for example, then we just wouldn't of signed some of the players so it's not technically a bill. Voted no to the last one, St Mirren would have covered the bill out of the budget. So I'm not saying you're right or wrong because I don't think it's a matter of that. 

[bazil85]

58 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

What is frustrating to a growing number of members is the fact that despite the initial facade, and promises the £2 pot was "for the members to decide what to spend it on" we have seen the club basically take the piss, whilst taking the money (matchballs ffs) and now they have tied the bulk of it up for two and half years in advance, as well as getting the 30-50 (cant remember how many) Community group season tickets out of this votes balance.

if a member suggests something like installing TV screens around the kiosks they get told it needs to be costed and certified by the club first ( no offer whatsoever despite having a committee member on the club board to help). Wheras the club simply passes an invoice to the Smisa rep on the board, then smisa tell us... "its your choice where the vote goes".... its like a fecking Russian Election campaign where everyone knows its already decided, but we still have to dance around all the houses in an effort to make it look real..!

what is also frustrating to members is the promise their subs were/are ring fenced for the reason they signed up! But have been rifled three times.

all of this is documented by Smisa and the club. None of it is opinion! Its all happened on OUR watch.,

But like I say, it's matter of opinion if a person thinks all of the above is wrong.

We've went over it before but if history is anything to go buy, feckin TV screens at the pie stall is never going to beat money going to the club we all support. It's just popular opinion. 

[StuD]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Not wanting to get massively into the debate again but like I said it's difference of opinions. I think most people can argue there is a level of subjectivity in those quotes. Could argue if we said no to the player wages for example, then we just wouldn't of signed some of the players so it's not technically a bill. Voted no to the last one, St Mirren would have covered the bill out of the budget. So I'm not saying you're right or wrong because I don't think it's a matter of that. 

Come on Bazil, there's no dubiety about what these quotes have promised. One of them is supposed to have come directly from Gordon Scott. These are still on SMISA current Web page. 

Take your insistence about the popularity of spending money on players wages. During the first ballot - which is still available online at Survey Monkey - six options were presented to the members to vote on. Guess where players wages came in that poll? Using the "weighted scoring system" that SMISA used it was fifth in the six horse race and more members deemed it an inappropriate way to spend the discretionary money than anything else. Guess what the choice was at the next ballot? Yep - spend all the money on players wages yes or no? 

I had a wee hunt around the Web last night looking for the societies rules which Kenny claimed he asked for but never saw. I was right SMISA did just adopt SDs model rules - eventually getting round to changing a few lines and the graphic in the header. The Society rules are also known as the constitution which is available on the SMiSA website which lays out the procedure for a rule change - like spending ring fenced money - where a Special Resolution and and AGM need to be called before it can happen. It also lays out the terms of the asset lock on all of the societies assets - something that has been flagrantly breached on a number of occasions now. 

You're right when you say we don't need to argue about this - we really don't. What is there in black and white is clear for anyone who isn't trying to spin the story. In fairness to you, you accepted process breaches earlier in the thread where you said I should report it then cause the FCA wouldn't be interested in issuing a small fine. You are probably right about that too....however where a board can't be trusted to follow its own pledges, promises, printed statements, direct quotes and it's own constitution then clearly the question has to be asked about the fitness for purpose of the Society and those who are running it. Those who vote with the committee out of apathy and a sense of trust should really be a bit more careful with about who they want to represent them within football. 

You seem like a decent guy Scott, so do most St Mirren fans I've met face to face. I know you care about the club. I just wish you didn't see yourself as the SMISA spin doctor. 

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, StuD said:

Come on Bazil, there's no dubiety about what these quotes have promised. One of them is supposed to have come directly from Gordon Scott. These are still on SMISA current Web page. 

Take your insistence about the popularity of spending money on players wages. During the first ballot - which is still available online at Survey Monkey - six options were presented to the members to vote on. Guess where players wages came in that poll? Using the "weighted scoring system" that SMISA used it was fifth in the six horse race and more members deemed it an inappropriate way to spend the discretionary money than anything else. Guess what the choice was at the next ballot? Yep - spend all the money on players wages yes or no? 

I had a wee hunt around the Web last night looking for the societies rules which Kenny claimed he asked for but never saw. I was right SMISA did just adopt SDs model rules - eventually getting round to changing a few lines and the graphic in the header. The Society rules are also known as the constitution which is available on the SMiSA website which lays out the procedure for a rule change - like spending ring fenced money - where a Special Resolution and and AGM need to be called before it can happen. It also lays out the terms of the asset lock on all of the societies assets - something that has been flagrantly breached on a number of occasions now. 

You're right when you say we don't need to argue about this - we really don't. What is there in black and white is clear for anyone who isn't trying to spin the story. In fairness to you, you accepted process breaches earlier in the thread where you said I should report it then cause the FCA wouldn't be interested in issuing a small fine. You are probably right about that too....however where a board can't be trusted to follow its own pledges, promises, printed statements, direct quotes and it's own constitution then clearly the question has to be asked about the fitness for purpose of the Society and those who are running it. Those who vote with the committee out of apathy and a sense of trust should really be a bit more careful with about who they want to represent them within football. 

You seem like a decent guy Scott, so do most St Mirren fans I've met face to face. I know you care about the club. I just wish you didn't see yourself as the SMISA spin doctor. 

I fear this is why people get frustrated with you Stuart, you're very much 'I'm right and everyone that disagrees is wrong.' 

Your first point about not spending on player wages, it doesn't mean the club can't request it. As much as it might not be everyone's cup of tea (the voting was at a point in time as all are), given the situation we were in last year it was likely seen by a number of members as a good way to help our club out of a hole. That was apparent in the vote result. 

In regards to your next bit on legality. I think you touched on it before and even if not I'm sure you'll be somewhat aware. The FCA need to sign-off on this request. They'll certainly let us know if there's any aspect of the proposal that they deem has breached. If it has breached they'll say no and the money won't be moved over for the purchase. If they green light it then that's an end to the matter. It's also worth pointing out, we wouldn't be fined at this point unless we have already completed the deal.

I think what a lot of people on here don't realise about legislative compliance is it's very in-depth. It involves exceptions and it's by no means black and white. If SMISA and St Mirren can present the case to the satisfaction of the FCA then that's fine.

No company in the world is at any time 100% compliant with every rule, regulation and legislation going (Can see examples of this in big companies recently in GDPR). It would be absolutely impossible to function given how fluid such things are. 

[BuddieinEK]

I fear this is why people get frustrated with you Stuart, you're very much 'I'm right and everyone that disagrees is wrong.' 
Your first point about not spending on player wages, it doesn't mean the club can't request it. As much as it might not be everyone's cup of tea (the voting was at a point in time as all are), given the situation we were in last year it was likely seen by a number of members as a good way to help our club out of a hole. That was apparent in the vote result. 
In regards to your next bit on legality. I think you touched on it before and even if not I'm sure you'll be somewhat aware. The FCA need to sign-off on this request. They'll certainly let us know if there's any aspect of the proposal that they deem has breached. If it has breached they'll say no and the money won't be moved over for the purchase. If they green light it then that's an end to the matter. It's also worth pointing out, we wouldn't be fined at this point unless we have already completed the deal.
I think what a lot of people on here don't realise about legislative compliance is it's very in-depth. It involves exceptions and it's by no means black and white. If SMISA and St Mirren can present the case to the satisfaction of the FCA then that's fine.
No company in the world is at any time 100% compliant with every rule, regulation and legislation going (Can see examples of this in big companies recently in GDPR). It would be absolutely impossible to function given how fluid such things are. 

I read your first paragraph, laughed and stopped reading.
Look back at over 100 pages of evidence then look in the mirror.

I stopped contributing to this thread long ago when I had nothing new to contribute.

You still are regurgitating to prove yourself right yet accuse Stuart of the very same thing!

Laughable.

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

I read your first paragraph, laughed and stopped reading.
Look back at over 100 pages of evidence then look in the mirror.

I stopped contributing to this thread long ago when I had nothing new to contribute.

You still are regurgitating to prove yourself right yet accuse Stuart of the very same thing!

Laughable.

Aye, there are many similarities between the two.

Whither you agree or not both present reasonably constructed post but repeating till people's eyes are bleeding tends to lead to their points being dismissed. 

[StuD]

46 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I fear this is why people get frustrated with you Stuart, you're very much 'I'm right and everyone that disagrees is wrong.' 

Your first point about not spending on player wages, it doesn't mean the club can't request it. As much as it might not be everyone's cup of tea (the voting was at a point in time as all are), given the situation we were in last year it was likely seen by a number of members as a good way to help our club out of a hole. That was apparent in the vote result. 

In regards to your next bit on legality. I think you touched on it before and even if not I'm sure you'll be somewhat aware. The FCA need to sign-off on this request. They'll certainly let us know if there's any aspect of the proposal that they deem has breached. If it has breached they'll say no and the money won't be moved over for the purchase. If they green light it then that's an end to the matter. It's also worth pointing out, we wouldn't be fined at this point unless we have already completed the deal.

I think what a lot of people on here don't realise about legislative compliance is it's very in-depth. It involves exceptions and it's by no means black and white. If SMISA and St Mirren can present the case to the satisfaction of the FCA then that's fine.

No company in the world is at any time 100% compliant with every rule, regulation and legislation going (Can see examples of this in big companies recently in GDPR). It would be absolutely impossible to function given how fluid such things are. 

Oh Bazil! The FCA have never signed off on any of these discretionary spends. To have been approached to sign off on the spends that were contrary to the Constitution, SMISA would have had to have issued a Special Resolution, 21 days notice of a Special AGM and at least 20% of the membership would have had to have taken part in the meeting before any rule change could have been applied. Once passed you would also have seen the rule change then applied to the published constitution and people like me could never have taken issue with the legality of the process. Like you have intimated previously the FCA have zero interest in what SMISA are doing - and won't have unless someone contacts them with a whistle blower complaint. 

As for the survey - your right. The SMISA board weren't bound by it. But you keep going on about the democracy of it all. First team wages clearly lost the vote - despite the manipulative way in which the survey was worded and conducted yet the very next vote was a straight yes / no vote for an item a third of members who voted deemed as an inappropriate use of funds. (significantly more than any other option) and which had come fifth out of the six options presented. That's not democracy. 

And your last paragraph - yeah you're probably right. However companies that flout regulation and legislation tend to get punished. I don't think any SMISA member would want to see that happen at their club. 

 

[bazil85]

47 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I read your first paragraph, laughed and stopped reading.
Look back at over 100 pages of evidence then look in the mirror.

I stopped contributing to this thread long ago when I had nothing new to contribute.

You still are regurgitating to prove yourself right yet accuse Stuart of the very same thing!

Laughable.

All I was saying was my opinion on what Stuart had responded with. Pointing out that my opinion is different does not say his is wrong. 

Why do I get a funny feeling you only read the start of a lot of informative text?  

[bazil85]

45 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Aye, there are many similarities between the two.

Whither you agree or not both present reasonably constructed post but repeating till people's eyes are bleeding tends to lead to their points being dismissed. 

I've always been from a point of opinion. Only time that changes is when people argue a point that an organisation I'm a member of or a club I support are breaking the law with zero evidence. Would you defend a company you had vested interest in? Apparently not. 

Oh and people winging about a democratic vote, that's also pretty frustrating. 

[StuD]

34 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

ASSET LOCK
8. Restriction on use: Pursuant to regulations made under section 1 of the Co-operatives and
Community Benefit Societies Act 2014:
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;


Black and White.

So no Special Resolution or General meeting needed.

 

I got outside advice on this one as I told you elsewhere. The answer that came back after consultation was that SMISA aren't claiming the £50k spend is for the benefit of the community. Instead they are claiming they are protecting an asset they hold a 30% shareholding in. It's the same argument they used when lending ring fenced money to the club for the repair of the USH and for the spending on players wages so their argument wasn't a surprise. However using the ring fenced funds for this purpose is a breach of the constitution, the rules of the society, and of the 2014 Act - and due process certainly hasn't been followed. Whether anyone has the energy to take this any further would be for them to decide. I'm not a member of SMISA and all I am concerned about is how I was misled into re-joining SMISA. Hopefully that will be resolved soon. 

[BuddieinEK]

All I was saying was my opinion on what Stuart had responded with. Pointing out that my opinion is different does not say his is wrong. 
Why do I get a funny feeling you only read the start of a lot of informative text?  

I have no idea what on earth triggers your funny feelings!

99% of the time I will read a post entirely before responding to it.

The sheer hypocrisy and irony in your first sentence meant I couldn't read on for tears of laughter!

[Lord Pityme]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

But like I say, it's matter of opinion if a person thinks all of the above is wrong.

We've went over it before but if history is anything to go buy, feckin TV screens at the pie stall is never going to beat money going to the club we all support. It's just popular opinion. 

You see theres the bit you dont get!

where there are legally binding rules & regulations, opinions are meaningless, they dont count, it is either in compliance and legal, or its not. So if you promise in your communnications to prospective members to ring fence funds, then that becomes a legally binding agreement in conjunctiwith your constitution. Its not my opinion, its there on the Smisa website, in all the BtB literature, meetings, discussions etc.

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, StuD said:

Oh Bazil! The FCA have never signed off on any of these discretionary spends. To have been approached to sign off on the spends that were contrary to the Constitution, SMISA would have had to have issued a Special Resolution, 21 days notice of a Special AGM and at least 20% of the membership would have had to have taken part in the meeting before any rule change could have been applied. Once passed you would also have seen the rule change then applied to the published constitution and people like me could never have taken issue with the legality of the process. Like you have intimated previously the FCA have zero interest in what SMISA are doing - and won't have unless someone contacts them with a whistle blower complaint. 

As for the survey - your right. The SMISA board weren't bound by it. But you keep going on about the democracy of it all. First team wages clearly lost the vote - despite the manipulative way in which the survey was worded and conducted yet the very next vote was a straight yes / no vote for an item a third of members who voted deemed as an inappropriate use of funds. (significantly more than any other option) and which had come fifth out of the six options presented. That's not democracy. 

And your last paragraph - yeah you're probably right. However companies that flout regulation and legislation tend to get punished. I don't think any SMISA member would want to see that happen at their club. 

 

Again it's your opinion that we're doing something illegal. I have never said FCA wouldn't be interested, I said they certainly would be interested as they would fine the club (if previous votes were illegal, this one is different as it's not the £2 spend, trust me the FCA will have to sign-off on this). I think my exact point was 'A UK regulatory body not interest in issuing a fine? what a time to be alive.' 

In an attempt to stop going round in circles, I would ask you to simply contact the FCA and blow the whistle. I have full confidence in what the outcome will be.

If the FCA dismiss your complaint as 'not interested' then they are breaching one of their purposes. I can't imagine why they would do that given they have the right to issue fines. It makes very little sense to me. 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I have no idea what on earth triggers your funny feelings!

99% of the time I will read a post entirely before responding to it.

The sheer hypocrisy and irony in your first sentence meant I couldn't read on for tears of laughter!

Seems like you haven't even understood the first sentence then. 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

You see theres the bit you dont get!

where there are legally binding rules & regulations, opinions are meaningless, they dont count, it is either in compliance and legal, or its not. So if you promise in your communnications to prospective members to ring fence funds, then that becomes a legally binding agreement in conjunctiwith your constitution. Its not my opinion, its there on the Smisa website, in all the BtB literature, meetings, discussions etc.

Yeah, it's almost like they can't change what's legally and binding without a members vote or something eh?