Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, pozbaird said:

Seriously? That’s your response!? Especially No1. What a cunty thing to say. Wow, just wow.

Care to elaborate? People have gotten their name up at the stadium forever more for paying a few months after committing to 10 years and actively don’t support BTB. Hardly seems fair. Why should they get such a nice touch when someone that signed up now and paid the rest of it won’t? Your definition of Wow is staggering...  

Again, there might be a few that it’s financial but they’ll be very minimum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


30 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Care to elaborate? People have gotten their name up at the stadium forever more for paying a few months after committing to 10 years and actively don’t support BTB. Hardly seems fair. Why should they get such a nice touch when someone that signed up now and paid the rest of it won’t? Your definition of Wow is staggering...  

Again, there might be a few that it’s financial but they’ll be very minimum. 

I don’t need to elaborate. People can read what you are posting. That’s all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

First paragraph I already said, your money your choice.

Second one is where it comes to matter of opinion on what SMISA are doing. If you think they're showing poor governance and breaching it's constitution that is 100% your opinion. The opinion on breaching will be shown to be be incorrect if the deal gets signed off (which it will/ has) and the fact no wrongdoing has been discovered despite at least two people following the whistle-blowing process. 

The poor governance is completely a matter of opinion. Again disappointed it made you cancel but the only reason you have for cancelling as far as I can see is the majority of paying members have a different view from you. 

How would you know that at least two people followed the whistle blowing process if you aren't either on the SMISA board, or close to someone on it? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, StuD said:

How would you know that at least two people followed the whistle blowing process if you aren't either on the SMISA board, or close to someone on it? 

 

Posts on here. You said you contacted them because you felt mislead and were referred to supporters direct. If they had thought there was illegal doing and not just a dispute by law they would have to investigate. They didn’t because there wasn’t  

I’m also sure someone else posted they had as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, StuD said:

How would you know that at least two people followed the whistle blowing process if you aren't either on the SMISA board, or close to someone on it? 

 

Still not on the trust or close to anyone that is. Haha come on Stuart, How many times? Surely you don’t think what I’ve posted must be insider information? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, StuD said:

How would you know that at least two people followed the whistle blowing process if you aren't either on the SMISA board, or close to someone on it? 

 

Also, sorry should of said in the last post. If you understand how whistleblowing works, surely the SMISA board would be the one group of individuals that would not be aware of it unless a full investigation happened... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Bazil, three posts all quoting the same one line quote. If I wasn't taking you at face value I might begin to think that you're trying very hard to dig yourself out of a hole you created. 

If you are counting the complaint where I was referred to Andrew Jenkins then that was well over a year and a half ago and it related to the spending of discretionary fund money on players wages. Andrew Jenkins first port of call when the complaint was made was - I believe - David Nicol as Andrew referred directly to his discussions with him in the immediate aftermath. Andrew Jenkins had said initially that he too was unhappy with that use of funds, then after an exchange with SMISA he came back to tell me that he now took the opinion that SMISA were protecting their investment by giving £8000 to the club to fund players wages as this would be the difference between staying up and being relegated. It was tenuous to say the least especially as it transpired that the £8k wouldn't have covered the wages of Pal Fjelde or Craig Storie till the end of the season - never mind one of the ones that actually played a part in the Great Escape. 

That complaint obviously did not consider any breaches of the constitution, the use of guaranteed protected ring-fenced funds from the main part of the fund which was to be used exclusively for purchasing shares in the club, or the fact that no Special Resolution was lodged before the rule change with the FCA. It would be completely wrong to claim that SMISA are completely in the clear on the basis of my previous complaint if someone has blown the whistle following the correct process.  Of course perhaps you have more information than me - perhaps you are correct and that two people have gone through the whistle blowing process and perhaps SMISA has been cleared of any wrong doing this time too. I'm just surprised if that is the case - not because I'd be surprised at that outcome - just that I'd be surprised that someone who isn't on the SMISA board, or close to someone on the SMISA board would know this information when it hasn't been posted on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must admit that I have reached the stage where I have gone beyond astonishment when  reading this thread to one where it  feels like I am watching something inherently good begin to unravel before my eyes.  For the sake of the club,  SMISA and fans like myself please consider stopping this public blood letting.  This seems to be a "proxy" conflict that can only end in tears and undoing much of the good work undertaken to date.  Of course, no-one needs to pay attention,  but please give it some thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

 

 

 

 

But............

Sometimes folk forget and sometimes folk just lie and forget. emoji6.png

Trying to be too smart for your own good again Cock

Bazil said two people went through the whistle blower process. When challenged he claimed I'd done it and was referred to Andrew Jenkins. The only time I contacted the FCA was in January 2017 when I complained about the £8k spend on players wages. I was referred to Andrew Jenkins and went through the complaint with him. 

I have indeed contacted Andrew Jenkins again - as stated in the posts you've quoted - this time to get his comments before deciding my next action and his response is given. I have never gone through the whistle blower process as outlined on the FCA pages. So that rules me out. Either Bazil knows something that hasn't been disclosed on here - or his confidence is well misplaced. 

And you are still a coward! 

Edited by StuD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Must admit that I have reached the stage where I have gone beyond astonishment when  reading this thread to one where it  feels like I am watching something inherently good begin to unravel before my eyes.  For the sake of the club,  SMISA and fans like myself please consider stopping this public blood letting.  This seems to be a "proxy" conflict that can only end in tears and undoing much of the good work undertaken to date.  Of course, no-one needs to pay attention,  but please give it some thought. 

Ricky, honestly for the best part of 20 years I have been a big supporter of Supporters Direct, of Independent Supporters Associations and of Community Ownership of Football Clubs. For the last 10 years I've  also been a very interested spectator when it comes to the Social Enterprise Sector having been taken to see many good examples of what is being done by SEN's up and down the length of the UK. Social Enterprise is inherently good when it's not being abused. I could show you hundreds of examples of businesses that have enjoyed sustained growth and profits that are re-invested in local communities and to charities. I can show you examples at all levels where groups that relied on grant pay outs became self sustainable. There would be nothing better than to have seen SMISA live up to their BTB promises building closer links between SMFC and the local community. There's no doubt that it would have been mutually beneficial. However sadly somewhere along the way SMISA has once again lost focus and because of poor management it's breaching its own constitution. 

It's clearly not unravelling, but it does smell rotten. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, StuD said:

Wow Bazil, three posts all quoting the same one line quote. If I wasn't taking you at face value I might begin to think that you're trying very hard to dig yourself out of a hole you created. 

If you are counting the complaint where I was referred to Andrew Jenkins then that was well over a year and a half ago and it related to the spending of discretionary fund money on players wages. Andrew Jenkins first port of call when the complaint was made was - I believe - David Nicol as Andrew referred directly to his discussions with him in the immediate aftermath. Andrew Jenkins had said initially that he too was unhappy with that use of funds, then after an exchange with SMISA he came back to tell me that he now took the opinion that SMISA were protecting their investment by giving £8000 to the club to fund players wages as this would be the difference between staying up and being relegated. It was tenuous to say the least especially as it transpired that the £8k wouldn't have covered the wages of Pal Fjelde or Craig Storie till the end of the season - never mind one of the ones that actually played a part in the Great Escape. 

That complaint obviously did not consider any breaches of the constitution, the use of guaranteed protected ring-fenced funds from the main part of the fund which was to be used exclusively for purchasing shares in the club, or the fact that no Special Resolution was lodged before the rule change with the FCA. It would be completely wrong to claim that SMISA are completely in the clear on the basis of my previous complaint if someone has blown the whistle following the correct process.  Of course perhaps you have more information than me - perhaps you are correct and that two people have gone through the whistle blowing process and perhaps SMISA has been cleared of any wrong doing this time too. I'm just surprised if that is the case - not because I'd be surprised at that outcome - just that I'd be surprised that someone who isn't on the SMISA board, or close to someone on the SMISA board would know this information when it hasn't been posted on here. 

Firstly, what hole is this? Do you think I’ve quoted anything that would HAVE to be insider knowledge of SMISA or mean I MUST be associated with someone on SMISA? If so what? All this says to me is people haven’t been doing the research they claim because I assure you everything I’ve said (about SMISA) is common knowledge or at best a bit of investigation. 

As for ‘blowing the whistle’ I thought that’s what you had done, given you thought we had broken the law. It’s actually unlawful not to do so if you have actual evidence of wrongdoing. I suppose giving that you don’t have evidence you have that as a defence. I am also sure a complaint has come up from another username on this thread who’s contacted the regulator. Could be wrong on that, not willing to scroll back but does anyone else remember seeing someone else had went for an investigation? 

Finally back to one of my previous points. If I assume you know the confidentiality behind whistleblowing, in what way, shape or form would someone on the SMISA committee get to know someone had done that without a massive DPA breach? Or unless a fine and sanctions were issued. The only people that would be aware would be those involved with SMISA asked to provide evidence (maybe, evidence gathering is done with every safeguard not to tip-off so it’s possible they weren’t aware) 

i fear the only hole digging here is yourself sir. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Must admit that I have reached the stage where I have gone beyond astonishment when  reading this thread to one where it  feels like I am watching something inherently good begin to unravel before my eyes.  For the sake of the club,  SMISA and fans like myself please consider stopping this public blood letting.  This seems to be a "proxy" conflict that can only end in tears and undoing much of the good work undertaken to date.  Of course, no-one needs to pay attention,  but please give it some thought. 

If you’re beyond astonished you need to get out more. Haha 

again as I said before, don’t make the mistake that you’re in the majority view. 88% of votes cast agree with the proposal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StuD said:

Trying to be too smart for your own good again Cock

Bazil said two people went through the whistle blower process. When challenged he claimed I'd done it and was referred to Andrew Jenkins. The only time I contacted the FCA was in January 2017 when I complained about the £8k spend on players wages. I was referred to Andrew Jenkins and went through the complaint with him. 

I have indeed contacted Andrew Jenkins again - as stated in the posts you've quoted - this time to get his comments before deciding my next action and his response is given. I have never gone through the whistle blower process as outlined on the FCA pages. So that rules me out. Either Bazil knows something that hasn't been disclosed on here - or his confidence is well misplaced. 

And you are still a coward! 

You were one of the people I was referring to. I assumed you had followed the correct process for claims of illegal activity. Silly me. Regardless no wrong doing was established last time and if contacted this time, it’ll be (has been) the same outcome. 

It’s amazing that just having a profession that puts me in contact with the FCA can lead to allegations that I must be in SMISA I have to say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

If you’re beyond astonished you need to get out more. Haha 

again as I said before, don’t make the mistake that you’re in the majority view. 88% of votes cast agree with the proposal. 

You genuinely don't get it.  I am in neither camp.  I consider your approach to communication on this to be a danger to the whole fan purchase project. 

I am going to say nothing more on this.  if you haven't got the message by now then you just aren't going to get it. 

Would be very sad if your unneeded "defence" were to cause serious problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StuD said:

Ricky, honestly for the best part of 20 years I have been a big supporter of Supporters Direct, of Independent Supporters Associations and of Community Ownership of Football Clubs. For the last 10 years I've  also been a very interested spectator when it comes to the Social Enterprise Sector having been taken to see many good examples of what is being done by SEN's up and down the length of the UK. Social Enterprise is inherently good when it's not being abused. I could show you hundreds of examples of businesses that have enjoyed sustained growth and profits that are re-invested in local communities and to charities. I can show you examples at all levels where groups that relied on grant pay outs became self sustainable. There would be nothing better than to have seen SMISA live up to their BTB promises building closer links between SMFC and the local community. There's no doubt that it would have been mutually beneficial. However sadly somewhere along the way SMISA has once again lost focus and because of poor management it's breaching its own constitution. 

It's clearly not unravelling, but it does smell rotten. 

Again in your opinion and just because the opinion of the many contradicts yours, you've seen fit to abandon what will ultimately be good for SMFC long after the people you disagree with are gone.

That's what's  disappointing to me but that's only my view of people that have cancelled for similar reasons. As we have both said, your money, your choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

You genuinely don't get it.  I am in neither camp.  I consider your approach to communication on this to be a danger to the whole fan purchase project. 

I am going to say nothing more on this.  if you haven't got the message by now then you just aren't going to get it. 

Would be very sad if your unneeded "defence" were to cause serious problems. 

That's strange, others seem to think my approach coincides with an in-depth knowledge that only a SMISA committee member could have :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again in your opinion and just because the opinion of the many contradicts yours, you've seen fit to abandon what will ultimately be good for SMFC long after the people you disagree with are gone.
That's what's  disappointing to me but that's only my view of people that have cancelled for similar reasons. As we have both said, your money, your choice. 
Have people cancelled on the back of the ring fence getting torn down & the £10 pot being dipped into for a first time?

If they have, how many?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Have people cancelled on the back of the ring fence getting torn down & the £10 pot being dipped into for a first time?

If they have, how many?

What part of me not being on the SMISA committee do people struggle with? :lol: Still waiting for any of this insider knowledge I apparently have... 

How about the question. Would people cancel if St Mirren came with this proposal and SMISA flatly declined to even consider it without canvassing members? 

I wouldn't of cancelled my membership but if I found out the ask was rejected without being consulted I would of been very disappointed. 

Edit: Although in saying that, I believe at the last meeting someone had said there had been a few cancellations but more new interest with new potential member inquiries. I think that was shared on here as well... No doubt I'll be accused again of being on the committee though. :blink::rolleyes:

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

What part of me not being on the SMISA committee do people struggle with? :lol: Still waiting for any of this insider knowledge I apparently have... 

How about the question. Would people cancel if St Mirren came with this proposal and SMISA flatly declined to even consider it without canvassing members? 

I wouldn't of cancelled my membership but if I found out the ask was rejected without being consulted I would of been very disappointed. 

Edit: Although in saying that, I believe at the last meeting someone had said there had been a few cancellations but more new interest with new potential member inquiries. I think that was shared on here as well... No doubt I'll be accused again of being on the committee though. :blink::rolleyes:

that's what a strong board would have done - disappointed you and protected the ring fenced funds - that's the sole purpose of SMISA - to save up to buy shares!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be going around in circles, Baz / the committee saying and believing one thing and a vocal very small minority (myself included ) quite rightly pointing out that the committee are stiffing the membership.

A few things are clear, namely, the vast majority of the membership don't know to care they are being stiffed; the club and committee are going to continue doing it; no one person is going to stop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, the 50k being dipped into is being used for something that is of benefit to Jack Ross and St Mirren. When the SMiSA piggy bank is raided again, as I firmly believe it will, I am sure that something else will be voted on that benefits the manager / team / club. Let’s say it was new equipment for Tommy Doc’ to help ensure a bowling green surface at the Twenny Twenny Wan. Put to a vote - ‘do you agree to spend this money helping our groundsman ensure Jack Ross’ stars can be given the best possible playing surface’ - it’ll sail through. No contest, a doddle.

Baz will say, it’s all good, it was voted on and democracy wins out.

I have saved my post where I stated that ‘fan ownership’ will never happen. GLS will remain as the new SG, with SMiSA like a pet dug’ beside the dinner table, getting thrown scraps.

Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, melmac said:

Seems to be going around in circles, Baz / the committee saying and believing one thing and a vocal very small minority (myself included ) quite rightly pointing out that the committee are stiffing the membership.

A few things are clear, namely, the vast majority of the membership don't know to care they are being stiffed; the club and committee are going to continue doing it; no one person is going to stop them.

In your opinion.

Why is this clear ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of me not being on the SMISA committee do people struggle with? [emoji38] Still waiting for any of this insider knowledge I apparently have... 
How about the question. Would people cancel if St Mirren came with this proposal and SMISA flatly declined to even consider it without canvassing members? 
I wouldn't of cancelled my membership but if I found out the ask was rejected without being consulted I would of been very disappointed. 
Edit: Although in saying that, I believe at the last meeting someone had said there had been a few cancellations but more new interest with new potential member inquiries. I think that was shared on here as well... No doubt I'll be accused again of being on the committee though. :blink::rolleyes:
At no time have I suggested you are on the SMISA committee, my question was based on your comment of people "cancelling on the back of this"

I believe the comment at the AGM that got reported on here was no discernable drop off (or words to that effect).
I was also told that about the 19th April by a SMISA committee member but you have suggested there had been cancellations.
I'm curious to find out how many.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, garzo said:

that's what a strong board would have done - disappointed you and protected the ring fenced funds - that's the sole purpose of SMISA - to save up to buy shares!

A strong board wouldn’t of given their contributing members a vote? Very strange given there was an 88% agreement from voting members for this. Disappointing the vast majority doesn’t seem very ‘strong’ or sensible  

Do you know how a democratic organisation works? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...