The 3 Monthly Spend

[garzo]

5 hours 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 

Open to interpretation I suppose. 

Alternative. 

Do you as SMISA members approve ring fenced funds, intended to purchase shares in SMFC, to be diverted?

In emergency situations such as Club no longer able to fulfill its obligations as a company.

YES/ NO

or for other purposes such as part funding an Astro training pitch at Ralston. 

YES/ NO

[garzo]

Anyway. I’ve had enough of this trail. 

C’est la vie. 

[melmac]

ditto that.

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, melmac said:

To be fair, the fca will not give a shit about whats going on (or not) here, they are not a regulatory body in that sense but simply a registration body, so long as what is presented to them is register-able, they'll register it. 

As for some sort of financial smoke n mirrors, you would need establish whats been done is not in line with the societies goals / aims as a cbs. So, in short, they wont really care.

We can argue till the cows come home but nothing is gonna happen, reality.

Well that’s completely untrue, if they had that attitude my job would be a damn site easier (and completely pointless :P) 

Said it before a regulatory body that isn’t interested in an area where they can potentially issue a fine, isn’t a real thing. 

[StuD]

25 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You say unjustifiable meaning? We can summarise and end it here if everyone would prefer? My summary is: 

1. The vote was 88% yes 

2. The act clearly states there is grounds to release the funds from the ring fence if there’s a direct/ indirect community benefit. This can undeniably be argued by SMISA AND SMFC

3. Any wrong-doing will be highlighted by the FCA as they’ll need to review the proposal 

4. Regulators won’t shy away from issuing fines for rule breakers or not authorising transaction requests 

5. Similar point to the 88% one but I’m sure shull was talking about you arguing your own wee battles against the masses. I have to stress, the vast majority of voting members have seen fit to agree with this proposal

6. Exception processes exist and there’s clear evidence on here that some members know more about them than others. 

7. Same can be said for the concept of ‘poor governance’ 

Seems pretty justifiable to me I’d say. 

I was specifically referring to the blatant and misleading lie that still sits on the pages of the SMISA website. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, StuD said:

I was specifically referring to the blatant and misleading lie that still sits on the pages of the SMISA website. 

Oh right sorry... I wouldn’t say it was a lie though. Where those funds sit is still referred to as a ring fence. There’s simply been a vote to remove £50k of the money as a special resolution that’s been passed by the members, with a plan put in place to replenish from non-ringtenced funds  

Surely you’ve seen the section from the Act that’s been posted on here several times justifying removing the funds from the ring fence? Members agreeing to do that doesn’t change the name Stuart. 

[StuD]

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Oh right sorry... I wouldn’t say it was a lie though. Where those funds sit is still referred to as a ring fence. There’s simply been a vote to remove £50k of the money as a special resolution that’s been passed by the members, with a plan put in place to replenish from non-ringtenced funds  

Surely you’ve seen the section from the Act that’s been posted on here several times justifying removing the funds from the ring fence? Members agreeing to do that doesn’t change the name Stuart. 

It's not a special resolution, Bazil. It can't be without a Special General Meeting and at least 28 days notice (I have checked this time). 

Anyway here's the Act in full. I can't be arsed searching through it. Please highlight to me the section that says it's OK to take money from a ring-fenced fund that is to be used for purchasing shares only, to donate it to a Ltd company to help them pay for a new astroturf pitch that only their players will get to use (oh and only the male players apparently) 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/14/pdfs/ukpga_20140014_en.pdf

Edited May 4, 2018 by StuD

[St.Ricky]

13 minutes ago, StuD said:

It's not a special resolution, Bazil. It can't be without a Special General Meeting and at least 28 days notice (I have checked this time). 

Anyway here's the Act in full. I can't be arsed searching through it. Please highlight to me the section that says it's OK to take money from a ring-fenced fund that is to be used for purchasing shares only, to donate it to a Ltd company to help them pay for a new astroturf pitch that only their players will get to use (oh and only the male players apparently) 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/14/pdfs/ukpga_20140014_en.pdf

Jings Bazl

Beginning to wish you had taken well meant advice and stepped back? 

Still time I hope. 

[melmac]

20 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Well that’s completely untrue, if they had that attitude my job would be a damn site easier (and completely pointless :P) 

Said it before a regulatory body that isn’t interested in an area where they can potentially issue a fine, isn’t a real thing. 

In relation to cbs, its completely accurate. They are not regulatory, they are the registrar https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/

Members of a cbs can pass info to the fsa if they think the cbs is breaching mutuals legislation.

[bazil85]

18 minutes ago, StuD said:

It's not a special resolution, Bazil. It can't be without a Special General Meeting and at least 28 days notice (I have checked this time). 

Anyway here's the Act in full. I can't be arsed searching through it. Please highlight to me the section that says it's OK to take money from a ring-fenced fund that is to be used for purchasing shares only, to donate it to a Ltd company to help them pay for a new astroturf pitch that only their players will get to use (oh and only the male players apparently) 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/14/pdfs/ukpga_20140014_en.pdf

The section has been quoted on here several times, if you haven’t seen (not willing to scroll back) it others will confirm it’s been posted many times.

To paraphrase ‘the funds can be taken if a direct OR indirect benefit to the community is deemed in the purchase.’ It doesn’t say ‘a community benefit direct or indirect is only when the ladies team use the facility’

strong st Mirren is indirect benefit, youth teams using the facility and St Mirren in the community likely using it in years to come is direct, simple fact, you can’t deny that. Even as hard as you may try. 

Rest of your post, again, Stuart seriously? Exception processes and Community/ St Mirren benefit not being mutually exclusive. We’ve been over that several times. It’s done. 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, melmac said:

In relation to cbs, its completely accurate. They are not regulatory, they are the registrar https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/

Members of a cbs can pass info to the fsa if they think the cbs is breaching mutuals legislation.

Have a wee check when your page was last updated pal.

FSA isn’t even a thing anymore. FCA and PRA (among others) has replaced them years ago. 

[StuD]

19 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The section has been quoted on here several times, if you haven’t seen (not willing to scroll back) it others will confirm it’s been posted many times.

To paraphrase ‘the funds can be taken if a direct OR indirect benefit to the community is deemed in the purchase.’ It doesn’t say ‘a community benefit direct or indirect is only when the ladies team use the facility’

strong st Mirren is indirect benefit, youth teams using the facility and St Mirren in the community likely using it in years to come is direct, simple fact, you can’t deny that. Even as hard as you may try. 

Rest of your post, again, Stuart seriously? Exception processes and Community/ St Mirren benefit not being mutually exclusive. We’ve been over that several times. It’s done. 

Are you talking about this? 

Quote

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 except8.1.1 where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for the benefit of the community; 8.1.2 to pay a member of the society the value of his withdrawable share capital or interest on such capital; 8.1.3 to make a payment pursuant under section 36 (payments in respect of persons lacking capacity) 37 (nomination by members of entitlement to property in society on member’s death), 40 (death of a member: distribution of property not exceeding £5,000) of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014; 8.1.4 to make a payment in accordance with the Rules of the society to trustees of the property of bankrupt members or, in Scotland, members whose estate has been sequestrated; 8.1.5 where the society is to be dissolved or wound up, to pay its creditors; or 8.1.6 to transfer its assets to one or more of the following: 8.1.6.1 a prescribed community benefit society whose assets have been made subject to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred; 8.1.6.2 a community interest company; 8.1.6.3 a registered social landlord which has a restriction on the use of its assets which is equivalent to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred; 8.1.6.4 a charity (including a community benefit society that is a charity) ;or 8.1.6.5 a body, established in Northern Ireland or a State other than the United Kingdom, that is equivalent to any of those persons. 8.2 Any expression used in this Rule which is defined for the purposes of regulations made under section 1 of the 2003 Act shall have the meaning given by those regulations.]

 

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, StuD said:

Are you talking about this? 

 

Looks like that’s part of it. There’s more in regards to voluntary subscribing to changes in the legislation as well. As I’ve said, it’s a very complex and recently changed Act. 

Edited May 4, 2018 by bazil85

[StuD]

Just now, bazil85 said:

Looks like that’s part of it. There’s more one regards to voluntary subscribing to changes in the legislation as well. As I’ve said, it’s a very complex and recently changed Act. 

Missing sections huh? Funny that. Cause that wasn't lifted from the Act at all. That was lifted directly from SMISA's constitution - which was in turn copied directly from Supporters Directs Model Rules Document.

Under Section 8. https://www.smisa.net/images/Constitution2017.pdf

Under Section 8. https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Trust-Model-Rules-2016-proposed-for-adoption-at-AGM.pdf

The Act is from 2014. The last annotation on the Act seems to be from 1st August 2014 when they changed wording on pages to the name of the new Act. It's not that complex - even I managed to read it. Boring maybe - but not as bad as reading Stu Gillespies match reports. 

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, StuD said:

Missing sections huh? Funny that. Cause that wasn't lifted from the Act at all. That was lifted directly from SMISA's constitution - which was in turn copied directly from Supporters Directs Model Rules Document.

Under Section 8. https://www.smisa.net/images/Constitution2017.pdf

Under Section 8. https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Trust-Model-Rules-2016-proposed-for-adoption-at-AGM.pdf

The Act is from 2014. The last annotation on the Act seems to be from 1st August 2014 when they changed wording on pages to the name of the new Act. It's not that complex - even I managed to read it. Boring maybe - but not as bad as reading Stu Gillespies match reports. 

What’s your point? It still quotes that the funds can be moved if there is a direct or indirect community benefit.

You seem to be suggesting no community benefit can exist as long as the woman’s team don’t play on the park... 

[StuD]

52 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

What’s your point? It still quotes that the funds can be moved if there is a direct or indirect community benefit.

You seem to be suggesting no community benefit can exist as long as the woman’s team don’t play on the park... 

No Bazil - I'm pointing out to you that the section you keep referencing is not part of the Act, it's part of the SMISA constitution which was lifted directly from Supporters Directs Model Rules. 

Now since we've established you are following SMISA's constitution - here's another wee bit of it for you

Quote

3. COMMUNITY BENEFIT PURPOSE The Society’s purpose is to be the vehicle through which a healthy, balanced and constructive relationship between the Club and its supporters and the communities it serves is encouraged and developed. The business of the Society is to be conducted for the benefit of the community served by the Club and not for the profit of its members.

Now tell me in what way did the Paisley Community benefit from the fixing of the Undersoil Heating? 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

FFS not acting in members interests with an 88% Yes vote [emoji38]

Why do you continue with this disingenous shite?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

1. New members will also join (come of age) as existing members die, others canceling and falling out, more fool them. members dropping out because they can't afford £12 will be an extreme minority 
2. The £50k has no impact on when the club will be bought as there is no way it'll be bought in 30 months without an extra couple thousand members
3. There is no £50k extra in the pot, the £50k used would be sitting gathering dust until the buyout happens and will be repaid long before then.
4. Only time there would be £50k left in the pot when we takeover is if the £2 discretionary funds were always voted to be carried over, which from experience we can see is not popular opinion.  

1 membership isn't growing which pretty much disproves your theory.
2 there's no impact on when the club will be bought as the chairman is not moving until the 10 years is up, even when the money is there. Not sure what your point was here TBH.
3 & 4 you don't see that giving a loan that you then pay back is double the money? There's no chance of carrying over the additional spend and putting it into a 'rainy day fund' for when smisa take over as its never really promoted as an option and most don't bother to vote.

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, StuD said:

No Bazil - I'm pointing out to you that the section you keep referencing is not part of the Act, it's part of the SMISA constitution which was lifted directly from Supporters Directs Model Rules. 

Now since we've established you are following SMISA's constitution - here's another wee bit of it for you

Now tell me in what way did the Paisley Community benefit from the fixing of the Undersoil Heating? 

Come on Stuart you can’t be serious. Where do you think the guidance and rules come from? It’s all legislative, there is legality behind what funds can and can’t be used for. Funds from the account have to be linked to a community benefit. Has that not been your argument throughout? that you don’t think the purpose has a community benefit? 

The USH was an interest free loan that was to be paid under the terms of a credit agreement (which it has been). It doesn’t fall into the community benefit terms because no funds are being used, only lending.

This is all basic stuff that’s been covered so many times.  

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

On 02/05/2018 at 2:02 PM, bazil85 said:

FFS not acting in members interests with an 88% Yes vote 

Why do you continue with this disingenous shite?

That’s actually a fact sunshine. 

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 membership isn't growing which pretty much disproves your theory.
2 there's no impact on when the club will be bought as the chairman is not moving until the 10 years is up, even when the money is there. Not sure what your point was here TBH.
3 & 4 you don't see that giving a loan that you then pay back is double the money? There's no chance of carrying over the additional spend and putting it into a 'rainy day fund' for when smisa take over as its never really promoted as an option and most don't bother to vote.

1. No it doesn’t, it’s a 10 year plan as you’ve stated so don’t see how you can possibly comment that new members won’t come in as they come of age. It’s extremely likely we will see new members over that time. 

2.  You’re kinda just proving my point that BTB won’t be slowed down by this proposal.if GLS isn’t going before 10 years fine, who cares? He will still get the same money and has done a pretty damn good job so far.  

3&4. It’s not double the money we are giving the money to the club once and won’t get it back. The money will ultimately be given out the £2 fund. We pay it up front from the £10 pot then the £2 replenishes that pot which is going to the club anyway (not for this, for the separate purpose of actually buying the club). It’s not paying it twice, the money is part of BTB regardless and the £2 will be used for a big ticket item so many fans wanted. 

If people can’t work out that voting no means the money won’t be spent I’m surprised they had the ability to set-up the direct debit in the first place. Regardless votes before the last had changed to include carrying over funds on fan feedback. Also funding that helps st Mirren seems like it’ll always be the popular win given evidence from previous votes. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

1. No it doesn’t, it’s a 10 year plan as you’ve stated so don’t see how you can possibly comment that new members won’t come in as they come of age. It’s extremely likely we will see new members over that time. 
2.  You’re kinda just proving my point that BTB won’t be slowed down by this proposal.if GLS isn’t going before 10 years fine, who cares? He will still get the same money and has done a pretty damn good job so far.  
3&4. It’s not double the money we are giving the money to the club once and won’t get it back. The money will ultimately be given out the £2 fund. We pay it up front from the £10 pot then the £2 replenishes that pot which is going to the club anyway (not for this, for the separate purpose of actually buying the club). It’s not paying it twice, the money is part of BTB regardless and the £2 will be used for a big ticket item so many fans wanted. 
If people can’t work out that voting no means the money won’t be spent I’m surprised they had the ability to set-up the direct debit in the first place. Regardless votes before the last had changed to include carrying over funds on fan feedback. Also funding that helps st Mirren seems like it’ll always be the popular win given evidence from previous votes. 

I never said there wouldn't be new members.
The rest of your post is equally rambli g made up nonsense.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

That’s actually a fact sunshine. 

It definitely isn't a fact.

[StuD]

17 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Come on Stuart you can’t be serious. Where do you think the guidance and rules come from? It’s all legislative, there is legality behind what funds can and can’t be used for. Funds from the account have to be linked to a community benefit. Has that not been your argument throughout? that you don’t think the purpose has a community benefit? 

The USH was an interest free loan that was to be paid under the terms of a credit agreement (which it has been). It doesn’t fall into the community benefit terms because no funds are being used, only lending.

This is all basic stuff that’s been covered so many times.  

Yep it's basic stuff and yeah your right to pick up the fact that there must be a Community Benefit - but what you missed from that quote was that the business of the society should not be conducted for the profit of it's members. 

Yet time and time again one member gets their proposals put on the table for spending. That member just happens to own a majority 70% shareholding in the Ltd Company that SMISA keep giving money away to. The point is Gordon Scott should not be a member of SMISA and he should not be able to put forward proposals for spending as he is the person standing to profit from many of these contributions. 

Have you read the constitution Bazil. There are fewer pages to it than the Act. It's still boring but it's not quite as bad as an Off The Ball with Div guesting. Did you see the bit about how any amendment to the rules need an "extraordinary resolution"? Yet here the document is amended and signed by Kenny Morrison, David Riley, Colin Orr and Joseph Allen Quinn despite there not having been an EGM involving at least one quarter of the members - as per the constitution. 

Quote

AMENDMENT TO RULES 94. Unless these Rules say otherwise any Rule may be altered or rescinded, or any new rule may be made, by extraordinary resolution. No change to these Rules shall be valid until registered. 95. In the case of this Rule, Rule 3, and Rule 7 the quorum at any general meeting called to consider a resolution to amend shall be not less than one half of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has up to 200 members when the meeting is called; not less than one third of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has more than 200 but less than 1000 members when the meeting is called; and not less than one quarter of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has more than 1000 members when the meeting is called. Rule 8 may not be amended or rescinded.

 

[BuddieinEK]

It definitely isn't a fact.

Now THAT's a fact!