StuD Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, bazil85 said: We've been over exceptions long enough Stuart come on, seriously? Yes it's in my opinion and like I say if we don't get a fine/ deal knocked back, it'll look like that opinion comes down to fact. Or it might be that simply no-one blew the whistle - you won't know which it is with any confidence if the process you claim to be fact is reality. It's my opinion that the SMISA board have abused their positions and as I've stated it's my opinion that the whole Buy The Buds process has been tainted and stinks as a result. I also think that there are huge issues over what looks like a clear conflict of interests where a number of recent spends, including the latest one, has been proposed by the same single SMISA member whom just so happens stands to make a potential financial gain as the major shareholder of the Ltd Company. That looks to me in clear breach of the Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 30 minutes ago, garzo said: Rewind - Question and only 1 question in isolation, Do you as SMISA members approve ring fenced funds to be diverted and used at the boards discretion? YES/ NO 12 minutes ago, bazil85 said: No Correct answer :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 44 minutes ago, bazil85 said: In all honesty I don't think there will be another one more I think about it. If there is and it's similar to this one (well costed, community and club benfit) I really don't see the issue. BTB will conclude at same time and be uneffected, long-term plans will be unchanged. Hold on a minute. In one post you say future asks will be as well costed as this astroturf one, then five minutes later you don’t believe there will be any future asks. So, one must assume that your position is that this astroturf request is strictly a one-off, and no further requests of the ring-fenced for shares money will be used for any further ‘astroturf style’ use. Is that fair comment? I believe it is what you are (now) saying. So, if you believe this was indeed a one-off request, it strikes me as being a weird one. Firstly, there is no urgency for it, and secondly, it could be funded by other means. Would you also agree with this? There’s no urgency and it could have been funded by other means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, StuD said: Or it might be that simply no-one blew the whistle - you won't know which it is with any confidence if the process you claim to be fact is reality. It's my opinion that the SMISA board have abused their positions and as I've stated it's my opinion that the whole Buy The Buds process has been tainted and stinks as a result. I also think that there are huge issues over what looks like a clear conflict of interests where a number of recent spends, including the latest one, has been proposed by the same single SMISA member whom just so happens stands to make a potential financial gain as the major shareholder of the Ltd Company. That looks to me in clear breach of the Act. Are you saying whistelblowing isn't confidential sorry? No one needs to do that to confirm it's all legal and above board. This deal, FCA will need to review and agree. That's enough for me regarding the football team I support, possibly not enough for you? Strange to say the least... I also have to say, I don't really see SMISA board having a position in the democratic set-up we exist in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, garzo said: Correct answer :-) That's your whole point? As far as irrelevant comments go, it's right up there haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, bazil85 said: That's your whole point? As far as irrelevant comments go, it's right up there haha in your opinion boss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 13 minutes ago, pozbaird said: Hold on a minute. In one post you say future asks will be as well costed as this astroturf one, then five minutes later you don’t believe there will be any future asks. So, one must assume that your position is that this astroturf request is strictly a one-off, and no further requests of the ring-fenced for shares money will be used for any further ‘astroturf style’ use. Is that fair comment? I believe it is what you are (now) saying. So, if you believe this was indeed a one-off request, it strikes me as being a weird one. Firstly, there is no urgency for it, and secondly, it could be funded by other means. Would you also agree with this? There’s no urgency and it could have been funded by other means? You do realise there's a difference between thinking something will happen and having an opinion on what it'll look like if it happened? I don't think I'll win the lottery tonight but I certainly have a view on what I'd do if I did Your second part makes very little sense, I can only assume you're speaking and assuming my views on hypothetical circumstances. So no, it's not a fair comment and it's in no way shape or form the opinion I've given. Not sure how you've managed to spin my comment that 'I don't think there will be further requests' to it must be 'strictly one-off' another baffling attempt at putting words in my mouth by someone else on here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zico Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: You've said that several times, please god let it be true this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, bazil85 said: You do realise there's a difference between thinking something will happen and having an opinion on what it'll look like if it happened? I don't think I'll win the lottery tonight but I certainly have a view on what I'd do if I did Your second part makes very little sense, I can only assume you're speaking and assuming my views on hypothetical circumstances. So no, it's not a fair comment and it's in no way shape or form the opinion I've given. Not sure how you've managed to spin my comment that 'I don't think there will be further requests' to it must be 'strictly one-off' another baffling attempt at putting words in my mouth by someone else on here... FFS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 20 minutes ago, garzo said: in your opinion boss My opinion on 'SMISA members approve ring fenced funds to be diverted and used at the boards discretion' Yes that's opinion. The questions relevance to what's being discussed? Hardly opinion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, pozbaird said: FFS! Classic Pozbaird, after talking nonsense and being caught out, avoid responding with actual words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zico Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Your second part makes very little sense, A bit like all the posts he makes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, bazil85 said: My opinion on 'SMISA members approve ring fenced funds to be diverted and used at the boards discretion' Yes that's opinion. The questions relevance to what's being discussed? Hardly opinion... Your opinion seems to be conflicting & confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Classic Pozbaird, after talking nonsense and being caught out, avoid responding with actual words Yeah, I’ve been found out... asking those pesky questions like why one minute you are sure future asks will be as well costed as this first one, then two minutes later you don’t think there will be future asks, or maybe there will. Do me a favour! Fcuking Amber Rudd. Edited May 4, 2018 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 Just now, pozbaird said: Yeah, I’ve been found out... asking those pesky questions like why one minute you are sure future asks will be as well costed as this firstcine, then two minutes later you don’t think there will be future asks, or maybe there will. Do me a favour! It's genuinely staggering you can't understand what I mean here. Not thinking something will happen but given an opinion on what it hypothetically would look like if it did To quote yourself wow just wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 Classic Pozbaird, after talking nonsense and being caught out, avoid responding with actual words In fairness, words are wasted on you Baz.You already have a stock list of party line answers. You are like a one man cell centre, unable to think for yourself or deviate from the mainframe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 Yeah, I’ve been found out... asking those pesky questions like why one minute you are sure future asks will be as well costed as this first one, then two minutes later you don’t think there will be future asks, or maybe there will. Do me a favour! Fcuking Amber Rudd. Just call him Elmer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, garzo said: Your opinion seems to be conflicting & confused. Confused you may be... Conflicting, would welcome your explanation to what you find 'conflicting' about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zico Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 The usual suspects resorting to abuse..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 13 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: In fairness, words are wasted on you Baz. You already have a stock list of party line answers. You are like a one man cell centre, unable to think for yourself or deviate from the mainframe! By party line, do you mean appropriate, factual and sensible responses to people saying the club has broken the law or moaning that they’re in a minority? Haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 13 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Confused you may be... Conflicting, would welcome your explanation to what you find 'conflicting' about it. You say one thing & do another. It’s really that simple. Unless I’m picking you up wrong that on principle you would not approve use of ring fenced fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, garzo said: You say one thing & do another. It’s really that simple. Unless I’m picking you up wrong that on principle you would not approve use of ring fenced fund. Can you give me an actual example when I've done that? I'm guessing no because you've clearly not understood your own question. You asked a very narrow question on funds being diverted and used at the boards discretion. That's not what's happened with the £50k vote and it shouldn't happen at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Can you give me an actual example when I've done that? I'm guessing no because you've clearly not understood your own question. You asked a very narrow question on funds being diverted and used at the boards discretion. That's not what's happened with the £50k vote and it shouldn't happen at all. It’s a narrow question deliberately to understand from you in principle whether you would approve use of ring fenced (singular intention for use) funds by the board. You answered NO. No other question was required as supplementary. You said NO. “Unless it’s for an Astro pitch & might hurt the players budget “ thats conflicted & confused. Edited May 4, 2018 by garzo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, garzo said: It’s a narrow question deliberately to understand from you in principle whether you would approve use of ring fenced (singular intention for use) funds by the board. You answered NO. No other question was required as supplementary. You said NO. “Unless it’s for an Astro pitch & might hurt the players budget “ thats conflicted & confused. No the question was 'to be used at the board discretion' is the £50k being used at the board discretion or is it being used for a stated and voted on asset that's well costed and presented? Good effort trying to trip me up though, better luck next time. If you had asked, 'should the ring fence be used for a very well costed and stated purchase, subject to a SMISA democratic vote' (what's actually happened) guess what my Yes/ No would have been? Does that still 'confuse' you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted May 4, 2018 Report Share Posted May 4, 2018 16 minutes ago, bazil85 said: No the question was 'to be used at the board discretion' is the £50k being used at the board discretion or is it being used for a stated and voted on asset that's well costed and presented? Good effort trying to trip me up though, better luck next time. If you had asked, 'should the ring fence be used for a very well costed and stated purchase, subject to a SMISA democratic vote' (what's actually happened) guess what my Yes/ No would have been? Does that still 'confuse' you? I’m not confused at all Sir. Point of principle. Ring fenced should have remained just that. No debate. No emotions attached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.