The 3 Monthly Spend

[St.Ricky]

28 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

At the risk of sounding 'patronising' an exception to a process being used/ agreed is not breaking rules or wrong doing. Exceptions are a massive part of 'good governance' as you put it. 

You didn't answer the question I asked.

Would you be content to be asked to leave without due process?

[Lord Pityme]

42 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

You didn't answer the question I asked.

Would you be content to be asked to leave without due process?

I'd gladly make an exception for him.

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

I'd gladly make an exception for him.

I still awaiting his answer. 

[StuD]

Bazil said the £50,000 isn't needed. That if the vote hadn't been carried the money would have been found, "like it is at evey other club at our level with the same facilities." Bazil said this was just a way of getting more money into the wage budget for next season. 

So if there is no need for urgency why not raise the Special Resolution and hold the Special General Meeting to properly discuss using ring fenced funds before the membership wave it through? Why the need for an exception? Why the need to ignore the proper process? Why the need to strap on the "tin hats" while a "few idiots on a football forum" moan about it and risk concerns and investigations being raised about breached legislation? Why wouldn't a competent board representing all its members not follow its own due process?

Edited May 1, 2018 by StuD

[Smithers Jones]

17 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

I'd gladly make an exception for him.

Classy

[Lord Pityme]

25 minutes ago, Smithers Jones said:

Classy

Lol...

[bazil85]

20 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

You didn't answer the question I asked.

Would you be content to be asked to leave without due process?

because I don't understand that question in the slightest. Asked to leave what? How is being asked to leave something relevant to a vote on something that's clearly going to pass regardless if we were asked after one day 10 days or 100 days? 

Do you agree that the vote would very likely of had the same outcome if timescales were followed to the letter? If so, what is your actual issue with an exception being used? 

[bazil85]

5 hours ago, StuD said:

Bazil said the £50,000 isn't needed. That if the vote hadn't been carried the money would have been found, "like it is at evey other club at our level with the same facilities." Bazil said this was just a way of getting more money into the wage budget for next season. 

So if there is no need for urgency why not raise the Special Resolution and hold the Special General Meeting to properly discuss using ring fenced funds before the membership wave it through? Why the need for an exception? Why the need to ignore the proper process? Why the need to strap on the "tin hats" while a "few idiots on a football forum" moan about it and risk concerns and investigations being raised about breached legislation? Why wouldn't a competent board representing all its members not follow its own due process?

he also said that it would be helpful to have in a division next season where the majority, if not all the clubs will have a bigger budget than us. I also did not say it was 'just a way of getting more money into the wage budget for next season.' It's mutually beneficial to St Mirren and SMISA, as well as the community they both serve. Must be about the fifth or sixth time you've tried to put words in my mouth which is disappointing, I have to say. 

As for your last paragraph, maybe the exception was easier to put through than follow the process? Happens all the time. 

If it's easier, if it's accepted by the FCA, if the outcome would be the same, if exceptions are a perfectly agreeable part of legislation, then why not? Are you really suggesting it should of been followed to satisfy a dozen fans (some that aren't  members) even though the outcome for them will be unchanged? I'm glad my director isn't like you Stuart, I'd still be working on 2014 submissions 

[StuD]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

he also said that it would be helpful to have in a division next season where the majority, if not all the clubs will have a bigger budget than us. I also did not say it was 'just a way of getting more money into the wage budget for next season.' It's mutually beneficial to St Mirren and SMISA, as well as the community they both serve. Must be about the fifth or sixth time you've tried to put words in my mouth which is disappointing, I have to say. 

As for your last paragraph, maybe the exception was easier to put through than follow the process? Happens all the time. 

If it's easier, if it's accepted by the FCA, if the outcome would be the same, if exceptions are a perfectly agreeable part of legislation, then why not? Are you really suggesting it should of been followed to satisfy a dozen fans (some that aren't  members) even though the outcome for them will be unchanged? I'm glad my director isn't like you Stuart, I'd still be working on 2014 submissions 

If the rules aren't to be followed why bother with a constitution, or legislation? Why not just flout everything? Why even bother asking the membership for their opinion? Why not just go ahead and spend the memberships money without consultation as they did with the money for the repairs to the undersoil heating, or for the cash float that can be used by the Ltd Company? 

I understand exceptions where there is a need to quickly bypass normal process for an emergency of some sort - but you've already highlighted this isn't an urgent need at all. So why not take the 28 days or so that it would take to lodge a Special Resolution and to host a Special General Meeting? What are the board running scared of? Surely they would be just as confident that the membership would wave it through following the correct process and doing things by the book. 

Maybe you should explain to me again how this is beneficial to SMISA? Was there an immediate need to dispose of the assets for some reason? I'm struggling to get my head around how it would be beneficial to SMISA members to have the money that was to be ring-fenced for the use of the purchase of shares in the football club, and a greater say in how the club is run, should be plundered by a Ltd Company with a £2.5m turnover and repaid back to the ring-fenced funds by the SMISA membership. 

Even the community claim is being stretched more than the elastic on my underpants. The Ltd Company won't even let their own womans team play or train there  FFS! 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, StuD said:

If the rules aren't to be followed why bother with a constitution, or legislation? Why not just flout everything? Why even bother asking the membership for their opinion? Why not just go ahead and spend the memberships money without consultation as they did with the money for the repairs to the undersoil heating, or for the cash float that can be used by the Ltd Company? 

I understand exceptions where there is a need to quickly bypass normal process for an emergency of some sort - but you've already highlighted this isn't an urgent need at all. So why not take the 28 days or so that it would take to lodge a Special Resolution and to host a Special General Meeting? What are the board running scared of? Surely they would be just as confident that the membership would wave it through following the correct process and doing things by the book. 

Maybe you should explain to me again how this is beneficial to SMISA? Was there an immediate need to dispose of the assets for some reason? I'm struggling to get my head around how it would be beneficial to SMISA members to have the money that was to be ring-fenced for the use of the purchase of shares in the football club, and a greater say in how the club is run, should be plundered by a Ltd Company with a £2.5m turnover and repaid back to the ring-fenced funds by the SMISA membership. 

Even the community claim is being stretched more than the elastic on my underpants. The Ltd Company won't even let their own womans team play or train there  FFS! 

I'm sorry Stuart, your first paragraph really shows you have a massively idealistic view of this world, going on from that I've lost you a bit but will do my best.

Exception processes are their for a reason, if you don't agree with them fine but it's a relatively naive mindset IMO. And they are not just for 'emergency' changes to normal process. An exception can be for a number of reason. For example if the normal process isn't deemed to add any additional value to a decision or mitigate any additional risks. This is subjective and based on individual circumstances. 

You might not like it, you might want to get the tinfoil hat out for a reason why but the simple fact of the matter is St Mirren and SMISA can overwhelmingly argue that waiting extra time to sort this out would not change the impact, 'so can we forgo the time requirements?' Exception process. That simple. 

We've covered the point several time, that benefit to SMISA/ Community/ St Mirren are not mutually exclusive. Something benefiting St Mirren Football Club does not mean automatically it CAN'T benefit the community. As has been quoted from the Act you have quoted many times the benefit can be direct or indirect. The aspects that make this water tight are

• An argument can easily be made that a strong St Mirren is good for the community (indirect)
• Youths from the local community use the facility
• St Mirren in the community use Ralston, this gives them a better potential surface to use

As for the SMISA benefit outside of the community. The £50k is very well costed to be repaid back, way before deal concluded so the risk is absolutely minimal (also given the level of support/ indifference to the project) It's an asset we will inherit one day and that our youth players we might play/ sell on day will use. Clear benefits and low risk. 

 

 

[St.Ricky]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

because I don't understand that question in the slightest. Asked to leave what? How is being asked to leave something relevant to a vote on something that's clearly going to pass regardless if we were asked after one day 10 days or 100 days? 

Do you agree that the vote would very likely of had the same outcome if timescales were followed to the letter? If so, what is your actual issue with an exception being used? 

Slippery as an eel.

"Happens ALL the time"

A very slippery slope.

I would not put one penny of my cash or my families into any venture you might be associated with.

You fully understand the point - alternatively you are not intelligent enough to understand - which I very much doubt is the case.

Forum members might want to look at Stirling Albion where the board was eventually in a position where they saw no other option other to resign en masse as they had lost the support of members. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by St.Ricky

[StuD]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I'm sorry Stuart, your first paragraph really shows you have a massively idealistic view of this world, going on from that I've lost you a bit but will do my best.

Exception processes are their for a reason, if you don't agree with them fine but it's a relatively naive mindset IMO. And they are not just for 'emergency' changes to normal process. An exception can be for a number of reason. For example if the normal process isn't deemed to add any additional value to a decision or mitigate any additional risks. This is subjective and based on individual circumstances. 

You might not like it, you might want to get the tinfoil hat out for a reason why but the simple fact of the matter is St Mirren and SMISA can overwhelmingly argue that waiting extra time to sort this out would not change the impact, 'so can we forgo the time requirements?' Exception process. That simple. 

We've covered the point several time, that benefit to SMISA/ Community/ St Mirren are not mutually exclusive. Something benefiting St Mirren Football Club does not mean automatically it CAN'T benefit the community. As has been quoted from the Act you have quoted many times the benefit can be direct or indirect. The aspects that make this water tight are

• An argument can easily be made that a strong St Mirren is good for the community (indirect)
• Youths from the local community use the facility
• St Mirren in the community use Ralston, this gives them a better potential surface to use

As for the SMISA benefit outside of the community. The £50k is very well costed to be repaid back, way before deal concluded so the risk is absolutely minimal (also given the level of support/ indifference to the project) It's an asset we will inherit one day and that our youth players we might play/ sell on day will use. Clear benefits and low risk. 

It's idealistic to believe that a Community Benefit Society will follow legislation and its own constitution and that it will follow through on its promises from it's original proposal? Well I'm sorry for being such an idealist then.  It's funny though, when I talk to some much more experienced members of Social Enterprise Organisations throughout Scotland they don't seem to have quite such a laissez faire attitude to their constitution and to the regulations that govern them. Indeed one of them - a board member of one of the biggest ones in Scotland - after taking some time to read this thread, suggested they would be extremely concerned if anyone consulting for them suggested taking the kind of approach that you appear to be defending on these pages as they believe it would leave them and their fellow board members wide open to criminal prosecution. 

I agree exception processes are there for a reason. They are there to be used in exceptional circumstances - not to flout your organisations constitution and to flout legislation. 

As I said too this argument that the pitch is for the community is being stretched way beyond breaking point. Trust me, when you are denying access to the pitch and to the facility to your own womens team you blow any claim of community benefit right out of the water. 

Andrew Jenkins told me that it was his view - and SMISAs view - that the £50k from ring fenced money was being used to "protect" an asset that SMISA would eventually own.. I asked him how using ring fenced money that was supposed to be used to buy shares in the club, giving fans a stronger voice in the running of their club, and protecting the long term future of the club - to re-lay a carpet sat with the principle reason for the existence of Supporters Direct and to date I'm still waiting on an answer. 

[Lord Pityme]

You can understand why people are leaving, or not joining smisa given the mantra Basil keeps pushing. It seems he and the rest of the committee dont see why they need to stick to any rules, constitution or legal requirements when they can simply say "its an exception" whenever they choose!

Trouble is so far we have had three BIG "Exceptions" rifling in total £115k from the share purchase ringfenced fund. Looks like we have been sold a pup. Time to explore all options me thinks, no way i am going to continually fund Scott's Smisa pot dipping.

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Slippery as an eel.

"Happens ALL the time"

A very slippery slope.

I would not put one penny of my cash or my families into any venture you might be associated with.

You fully understand the point - alternatively you are not intelligent enough to understand - which I very much doubt is the case.

Forum members might want to look at Stirling Albion where the board was eventually in a position where they saw no other option other to resign en masse as they had lost the support of members. 

Do you not think you're exaggerating slightly? (massively) 

The repayment plan is very well laid out, all evidence suggests the vote would have went the same way regardless of timescale, it retrospectively comes out of the £2 spend. Some people really just like a moan. 

Also this isn't my venture, it's nothing to do with me. Do you really think I'd want to take a risk with the club I've supported my whole life? What way would a fan benefit from that? I think that's what people don't factor in with this deal, why would a fan of SMFC knowingly risk their club? Baffling. 

[StuD]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Do you not think you're exaggerating slightly? (massively) 

The repayment plan is very well laid out, all evidence suggests the vote would have went the same way regardless of timescale, it retrospectively comes out of the £2 spend. Some people really just like a moan. 

Also this isn't my venture, it's nothing to do with me. Do you really think I'd want to take a risk with the club I've supported my whole life? What way would a fan benefit from that? I think that's what people don't factor in with this deal, why would a fan of SMFC knowingly risk their club? Baffling. 

I find it baffling too Bazil. After all they are knowingly risking the long term future of the club by dipping into ring fenced money that is supposed to be used exclusively for the purchase of shares in the club giving fans the security of eventual majority ownership of the football club. The risk is plain to see even if it's minimal. If the members lose interest in the SMISA proposition it's entirely possible that the money SMISA have removed from the ring-fenced fund may never be fully repaid. 

It looks to me like the SMISA board took a gamble that they could continue to emotionally blackmail any dissenting members by telling them that if they cancelled their membership they would be putting the future ownership of the club at risk - whilst doing exactly that themselves. 

I don't get why any St Mirren fan would do that either - but they have on several occasions. They did it when after being frustrated in their attempt to buy shares off Stewart Gilmour and Co, they opted instead to squander their accumulated cash on towels and t-shirts and they are doing it again right now. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, StuD said:

It's idealistic to believe that a Community Benefit Society will follow legislation and its own constitution and that it will follow through on its promises from it's original proposal? Well I'm sorry for being such an idealist then.  It's funny though, when I talk to some much more experienced members of Social Enterprise Organisations throughout Scotland they don't seem to have quite such a laissez faire attitude to their constitution and to the regulations that govern them. Indeed one of them - a board member of one of the biggest ones in Scotland - after taking some time to read this thread, suggested they would be extremely concerned if anyone consulting for them suggested taking the kind of approach that you appear to be defending on these pages as they believe it would leave them and their fellow board members wide open to criminal prosecution. 

I agree exception processes are there for a reason. They are there to be used in exceptional circumstances - not to flout your organisations constitution and to flout legislation. 

As I said too this argument that the pitch is for the community is being stretched way beyond breaking point. Trust me, when you are denying access to the pitch and to the facility to your own womens team you blow any claim of community benefit right out of the water. 

Andrew Jenkins told me that it was his view - and SMISAs view - that the £50k from ring fenced money was being used to "protect" an asset that SMISA would eventually own.. I asked him how using ring fenced money that was supposed to be used to buy shares in the club, giving fans a stronger voice in the running of their club, and protecting the long term future of the club - to re-lay a carpet sat with the principle reason for the existence of Supporters Direct and to date I'm still waiting on an answer. 

Well like I say Stuart, let's sit back and wait on what the FCA say about 'criminal prosecution' I do find it strange that you only believe information from people that back-up what you want to believe yourself (that this is illegal) 

I don't see any flouting. Again your post highlights dramatically, your limited knowledge of exceptions processes. I would say along with idealistic you are very pernickety if we are in agreement the vote result would not change regardless of how long they took to cast it.

If you went for a mortgage with your bank, they cleared all your KYC, AML and Fraud checks to their satisfaction within say two days but their 'process' was not to release funds for a further seven days, would you be insistent they followed 'process' and would take your business elsewhere if they suggested an exception due to the low risk? Simplistic example of course, but it amounts to the same thing. 

We could get into the Principle Based approach Vs Rules Based approach in UK corporate governance but I fear my efforts would be futile here. 

As for blowing community benefit out the window, it's just not true. If you can point to the part of the Act that says 'you must let your woman's team use the pitch if you have one.' then yep blown. I can point to the part of the Act that highlights direct OR indirect community benefit. If you don't understand the concept of this that's fine but claiming not letting the women's team use it breaches the act is frankly a bit embarrassing. 

I'm not going to go into your last paragraph because I have now explained at least three times that community benefits and protecting assets do not have to be mutually exclusive. Again we can wait for the FCA outcome. 

I'd also say, it's done now, votes happened, it won't change. Probably best we all move on and for those that aren't happy to leave it to the regulator to handle. 

[St.Ricky]

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Do you not think you're exaggerating slightly? (massively) 

The repayment plan is very well laid out, all evidence suggests the vote would have went the same way regardless of timescale, it retrospectively comes out of the £2 spend. Some people really just like a moan. 

Also this isn't my venture, it's nothing to do with me. Do you really think I'd want to take a risk with the club I've supported my whole life? What way would a fan benefit from that? I think that's what people don't factor in with this deal, why would a fan of SMFC knowingly risk their club? Baffling. 

It's your attitude that's startling.

Again you cannot resist the opportunity to patronise and attempt to misdirected. 

Let me be very clear.

I will not put a penny into any venture where you hold a position on the board or managing committee. Your posts have greatly increased my concerns.

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, StuD said:

I find it baffling too Bazil. After all they are knowingly risking the long term future of the club by dipping into ring fenced money that is supposed to be used exclusively for the purchase of shares in the club giving fans the security of eventual majority ownership of the football club. The risk is plain to see even if it's minimal. If the members lose interest in the SMISA proposition it's entirely possible that the money SMISA have removed from the ring-fenced fund may never be fully repaid. 

It looks to me like the SMISA board took a gamble that they could continue to emotionally blackmail any dissenting members by telling them that if they cancelled their membership they would be putting the future ownership of the club at risk - whilst doing exactly that themselves. 

I don't get why any St Mirren fan would do that either - but they have on several occasions. They did it when after being frustrated in their attempt to buy shares off Stewart Gilmour and Co, they opted instead to squander their accumulated cash on towels and t-shirts and they are doing it again right now. 

No they're not  how many times? If the FCA say no the deal simply doesn't happen, they need to sign-off on it. If the members lose interest then more fool them and it'll cause it's own problems. The vast majority of members seem to be cool with it and as stated by SMISA no real drop-off. 

Ever thought that the majority of paying members might just be happy with this? Why has it to be emotional blackmail? Because you and six other people don't like it? 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

It's your attitude that's startling.

Again you cannot resist the opportunity to patronise and attempt to misdirected. 

Let me be very clear.

I will not put a penny into any venture where you hold a position on the board or managing committee. Your posts have greatly increased my concerns.

Well I don't hold any such position and never will, i have no affiliation with SMISA outside paying my monthly fee. You aren't punishing me with such claims, only the football team you claim to support. Congratulations. 

Rest of your comment is rich from the guy that called me stupid three posts ago. 

[StuD]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No they're not  how many times? If the FCA say no the deal simply doesn't happen, they need to sign-off on it. If the members lose interest then more fool them and it'll cause it's own problems. The vast majority of members seem to be cool with it and as stated by SMISA no real drop-off. 

Ever thought that the majority of paying members might just be happy with this? Why has it to be emotional blackmail? Because you and six other people don't like it? 

Sorry Bazil, but yes they are doing it again right now. 

You've said it yourself. This money is not needed by the football club. If SMISA members had voted not to use their ring fenced money for the purpose of relaying the 3g pitch, St Mirren FC Ltd would simply have put in the money themselves. That's exactly the same situation as happened when the SMISA board at the time bent over and took a drilling when Gilmour refused to sell them shares and they instead handed over their accumulated cash to buy the first team squad some towels and t-shirts. 

This ring-fenced money was supposed to be used for the purpose of buying shares in the football club, giving fans more say in how it's run and securing the long term future by ensuring the majority of shares in the football club could never again fall into the hands of one individual. Now it's being spent at the bequest and whim of one single SMISA member who just happens to be the single majority shareholder of the football club. 

[StuD]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Well I don't hold any such position and never will, i have no affiliation with SMISA outside paying my monthly fee. You aren't punishing me with such claims, only the football team you claim to support. Congratulations. 

Rest of your comment is rich from the guy that called me stupid three posts ago. 

There is the emotional blackmail - yet again. Come on Bazil - stop it. 

[St.Ricky]

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Well I don't hold any such position and never will, i have no affiliation with SMISA outside paying my monthly fee. You aren't punishing me with such claims, only the football team you claim to support. Congratulations. 

Rest of your comment is rich from the guy that called me stupid three posts ago. 

Now it looks like you can't read.

What I said was that I did not believe  you to be unintelligent. I  do believe you to be misguided.

Take a bit of well meant advice and stop posting.  Whilst I believe that you seriously think that your posts are helping the club and SMISA they are clearly having the opposite effect.

Edited May 1, 2018 by St.Ricky

[bazil85]

10 minutes ago, StuD said:

Sorry Bazil, but yes they are doing it again right now. 

You've said it yourself. This money is not needed by the football club. If SMISA members had voted not to use their ring fenced money for the purpose of relaying the 3g pitch, St Mirren FC Ltd would simply have put in the money themselves. That's exactly the same situation as happened when the SMISA board at the time bent over and took a drilling when Gilmour refused to sell them shares and they instead handed over their accumulated cash to buy the first team squad some towels and t-shirts. 

This ring-fenced money was supposed to be used for the purpose of buying shares in the football club, giving fans more say in how it's run and securing the long term future by ensuring the majority of shares in the football club could never again fall into the hands of one individual. Now it's being spent at the bequest and whim of one single SMISA member who just happens to be the single majority shareholder of the football club. 

Well as you’ve already said recently it’s ‘low risk’ vast majority of paying members look happy/ indifferent to take that risk. Possibly because of the risk/ reward relationship in this. 

Done now, FCA will sign it off soon enough and it’s over. Somethings just don’t go the way you might want. Suggestion to you both, why not sign up for BTB then you can have a vote on such issues? 

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, StuD said:

There is the emotional blackmail - yet again. Come on Bazil - stop it. 

A direct response from a guy that’s very clearly said because of me he won’t join SMISA... or maybe I’ve gotten his take on it wrong, for some reason I think he thinks I’m some kind of spokesperson for them. 

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Now it looks like you can't read.

What I said was that I did not believe  you to be unintelligent. I  do believe you to be misguided.

Take a bit of well meant advice and stop posting.  Whilst I believe that you seriously think that your posts are helping the club and SMISA they are clearly having the opposite effect.

I don’t think my posts will be seen my the majority and I doubt any will be impacted. If they value scorning me over their football club they have to have a word with themselves. 

In regards to misguided, I’ve simply applied my professional knowledge and risk experience to this and decided it’s worthwhile. You can say misguided, I’d say difference in opinion. But hey who’s the patronising one after all...