The 3 Monthly Spend

[Kombibuddie]

Regardless votes before the last had changed to include carrying over funds on fan feedback.

Once. One vote only (from what I recall) included a carry over option.

The reply I got from SMISA was that the £2 spend was "always intended to be spent" and as such, saving was not an option.

If a proposal gets rejected, it stays in the pot and SMISA put it into the next vote.

With all the clubs requests, no vote will ever see money carried over.
I personally think that is short sighted.

When the Buds is Bought and The SMISA folk that make up The Club Board go cap in hand to the membership because they haven't created a contingency pot for when they own the buds, it'll be interesting to see how Bazils 88% react then.

Will it be

A - ok, dokie, how much do you want from me?
Or will it be
B - where's all our money gone?

If the answer is, SMISA membership will continue, how many are likely to continue donating £144 per year when they get little/nothing in return.
I expect, like myself, the vast majority have bought into the ideal of fan ownership for St Mirren and have no intentions of putting themselves forward for further involvment and may not continue paying once the buds is bought.

[Kombibuddie]

Now THAT's a fact!

You still on a parallel universe?
EK golf day in Sept. At least 2 of us will be up for it. Likely have a 4 ball.

[bazil85]

8 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

That’s actually a fact sunshine. 

It definitely isn't a fact.

That 88% of voting SMISA members voted yes to the proposal? 

Ah Now I understand why you think basic sense is ‘nonsense’ 

[bazil85]

8 hours ago, StuD said:

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. 

 

We really are going round in circles here Stuart in regards to legality, exceptions and interpretations of the Act. As I’ve said several times, we’ll let the FCA decide if there is any wrong doing. I am very confident they’ll be fine with this. As for people that say ‘they won’t care’ it’s just not a real thing when it comes to a regulatory body. 

In regards to reading the Act and my awareness of the constitution, again giving my profession I feel my understanding is above most. I’m directly involved with a number of submissions to the FCA, exception processes and breach reporting. If I was providing assurance on The actions of SMISA I would have no real concerns of wrongdoing or worry of regulatory action. 

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

 

 

Once. One vote only (from what I recall) included a carry over option.

The reply I got from SMISA was that the £2 spend was "always intended to be spent" and as such, saving was not an option.

If a proposal gets rejected, it stays in the pot and SMISA put it into the next vote.

With all the clubs requests, no vote will ever see money carried over.
I personally think that is short sighted.

When the Buds is Bought and The SMISA folk that make up The Club Board go cap in hand to the membership because they haven't created a contingency pot for when they own the buds, it'll be interesting to see how Bazils 88% react then.

Will it be

A - ok, dokie, how much do you want from me?
Or will it be
B - where's all our money gone?

If the answer is, SMISA membership will continue, how many are likely to continue donating £144 per year when they get little/nothing in return.
I expect, like myself, the vast majority have bought into the ideal of fan ownership for St Mirren and have no intentions of putting themselves forward for further involvment and may not continue paying once the buds is bought.
 

 

1. Not my 88% the information is in the email communication, to which I’m aware many of you aren’t in.  

2. It’s an interesting point in itself, not being SMISA members, your viewpoints are welcome but ultimately I’m more concerned with how actual members that support long-term fan ownership feel (note the irony in your short-term comment given that not supporting BTB because you don’t like some of the decisions from people running it here and now (especially for the £2 pot which is a tiny aspect of the grand plan) is massively short-term given the plan is to secure SMFC future as a fan owned community club for GENERATIONS to come, not in this 10 year period) 

3. Regardless of your thoughts on saving funds, carrying funds and anything else, the majority of paying members favour short-term club benefits. Even in that one vote where they changed the options for members they thought didn’t have the intelligence to understand a no vote meant the money would carry. That vote still favoured short-term spending (considerably), which tells me exactly what I was saying along. The kind of paying fan that doesn’t understand what yes and no means doesn’t exist. Now you might not agree with spending the money short-term but that’s matter of opinion many like myself look at it, that the money is a tiny fraction of our funds, that’s a wee bonus, so why not use it? Like I say, opinions  

4. Personally i’ll Be happy to keep paying after the deal completes. I might change from £25 to £12 but I won’t miss it. I imagine many will feel the same but if they don’t, it won’t be a big deal. Fears about ‘what we do after’ IMO are misguided. ‘After’ we’ll have a fan owned club where the people running it do it, not for profit. How great is that? How many clubs in Scottish football don’t have a chairman and shareholders that ultimately want to earn income? We’ll be in a great position, we’ll budget as we always have done and as any club should do. Will we have one off big expenses out of the blue that take us by surprise? The question is, does any club on the planet never experience such things? We’ll be fine, I’m sure. Some people just need to see only the negative in the future. In fact I don’t think I’ve seen a positive comment about the future on here from a single one of the minority that don’t support the £50k, not one! 

[StuD]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We really are going round in circles here Stuart in regards to legality, exceptions and interpretations of the Act. As I’ve said several times, we’ll let the FCA decide if there is any wrong doing. I am very confident they’ll be fine with this. As for people that say ‘they won’t care’ it’s just not a real thing when it comes to a regulatory body. 

In regards to reading the Act and my awareness of the constitution, again giving my profession I feel my understanding is above most. I’m directly involved with a number of submissions to the FCA, exception processes and breach reporting. If I was providing assurance on The actions of SMISA I would have no real concerns of wrongdoing or worry of regulatory action. 

Are you sure you arent letting your heart rule your head Bazil? If thats not the case and you really are employed in a consultancy position to SENs and you can't see any wrong doing then like Ricky, I'd love a list of those organisation so I can steer a very wide berth. 

With regards the SMiSA constitution have you worked out what Rule 8 is? You know, the one that cant be amended or rescinded relates too? Aye thats right. Its the Asset Lock!

Still if you cant see that amending the constitution in an unconstitutional manner isn't an exception im not sure there is much hope of getting you to see just how badly off track SMiSA has gone

[bazil85]

Just now, StuD said:

Are you sure you arent letting your heart rule your head Bazil? If thats not the case and you really are employed in a consultancy position to SENs and you can't see any wrong doing then like Ricky, I'd love a list of those organisation so I can steer a very wide berth. 

With regards the SMiSA constitution have you worked out what Rule 8 is? You know, the one that cant be amended or rescinded relates too? Aye thats right. Its the Asset Lock!

Still if you cant see that amending the constitution in an unconstitutional manner isn't an exception im not sure there is much hope of getting you to see just how badly off track SMiSA has gone

Are you in the industry Stuart? I think it’s very curious you still question this having such little professional knowledge of the finance sector.

Trust me, you won’t be able to stay clear of the organisations I’m involved in unless you start getting paid in cash and hiding it under the mattress. Exceptions and breaches are part of everyday finance. Comes back to your idealistic view that big organisations can be 100% compliant all of the time.

 I suggest you do a wee bit of reading on items like GDPR and PSD2 if you want good insight to have an actual beneficial debate about legislative and regulatory compliance  

You’re still not grasping exception processes at all are you? 

Again we’ll wait for the FCA to sign off the deal. Unless you’re in the school of thought that regulators don’t care about being able to issue fines?

Another strange thing is you said you got legal advice on this, you believed that person because they seemed to mirror your views but don’t believe the FCA will uncover the same wrongdoing... Also it’s even more curious that the ‘professional’ that gave you legal advice has not reported the illegal activity to the regulator. That’s what we would call in the industry gross misconduct.  

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Now THAT's a fact!

[emoji16]

[Guest TPAFKATS]

That 88% of voting SMISA members voted yes to the proposal? 
Ah Now I understand why you think basic sense is ‘nonsense’ 

This is different to your previous posts that I quoted.

[StuD]

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Are you in the industry Stuart? I think it’s very curious you still question this having such little professional knowledge of the finance sector.

Trust me, you won’t be able to stay clear of the organisations I’m involved in unless you start getting paid in cash and hiding it under the mattress. Exceptions and breaches are part of everyday finance. Comes back to your idealistic view that big organisations can be 100% compliant all of the time.

 I suggest you do a wee bit of reading on items like GDPR and PSD2 if you want good insight to have an actual beneficial debate about legislative and regulatory compliance  

You’re still not grasping exception processes at all are you? 

Again we’ll wait for the FCA to sign off the deal. Unless you’re in the school of thought that regulators don’t care about being able to issue fines?

Another strange thing is you said you got legal advice on this, you believed that person because they seemed to mirror your views but don’t believe the FCA will uncover the same wrongdoing... Also it’s even more curious that the ‘professional’ that gave you legal advice has not reported the illegal activity to the regulator. That’s what we would call in the industry gross misconduct.  

Im currently in the energy industry Scott. I've told you this before. It doesn't preclude me or anyone else from being able to read a constitution or an Act of law. I have worked in financial services before but i dont see why that is relevant. After all I don't need to be a lawyer or a detective to know when I've been ripped off. 

I didn't say i got legal advice. I said I'd got outside advice from people who are way more experienced than me in the SEN sector. 

Finally this positive vision you complain no-one else has is just a fallacy. Far be it for me to comment on behalf of others but for me there was a fantastic opportunity to use SMISA funds to create facilities that could be used by fans and the community alike to profit SMiSA and the Football Club. Ive cited a few examples in the past as have others but it seems you haven't noticed cause your zenith is raiding ring fenced funds to boost players wages. 

[bazil85]

35 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

That 88% of voting SMISA members voted yes to the proposal? 
Ah Now I understand why you think basic sense is ‘nonsense’ 

This is different to your previous posts that I quoted.

 

[bazil85]

22 minutes ago, StuD said:

Im currently in the energy industry Scott. I've told you this before. It doesn't preclude me or anyone else from being able to read a constitution or an Act of law. I have worked in financial services before but i dont see why that is relevant. After all I don't need to be a lawyer or a detective to know when I've been ripped off. 

I didn't say i got legal advice. I said I'd got outside advice from people who are way more experienced than me in the SEN sector. 

Finally this positive vision you complain no-one else has is just a fallacy. Far be it for me to comment on behalf of others but for me there was a fantastic opportunity to use SMISA funds to create facilities that could be used by fans and the community alike to profit SMiSA and the Football Club. Ive cited a few examples in the past as have others but it seems you haven't noticed cause your zenith is raiding ring fenced funds to boost players wages. 

The matter of fact is what you think SMISA should do in creating these facilities differs from the majority. All votes have been passed with significant majorities. You then only see the negative because people don’t agree with you to the point where you feel ‘misled’ And are beyond stubborn to consider other people’s interpretation of community benefits. Very high level negativity about fan ownership because of your short-term mindset over a poxy £2 which is less than 15% of the what BTB funding is all about. 

You compound this negativity with claims of illegal aciticity, breaking promises, constitutional failings and a refusal to accept that any community benefit that remotely helps the club you claim to support is justified. 

When faced with evidence that contradicts you such as: No FCA action, testimony from people that actually work in this field as their profession, legislative information, exception guidelines and overwhelming evidence that the outcome would be the same regardless of changing the approach, you still refuse to see even a shred of positivity in BTB or St Mirren football club as a whole. 

Has it not crossed your mind it might be your negative attitude more than it’s everyone else is wrong? given that BTB is one in a long, long, long line of St Mirren associated activities you’ve been profoundly negative about and been debated against by literally 100s of people on here for the best part of two decades? You still insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong which is always your way stuart. Have you ever once put your hands up and admitted you were wrong about anything? In life! 

You might come back and say similar about me. Everything I’ve said is backed up by the majority of active voting members, the club, SMISA, my professional experience and most importantly the regulator. 

[Kombibuddie]

1. Not my 88% the information is in the email communication, to which I’m aware many of you aren’t in.  
2. It’s an interesting point in itself, not being SMISA members, your viewpoints are welcome but ultimately I’m more concerned with how actual members that support long-term fan ownership feel (note the irony in your short-term comment given that not supporting BTB because you don’t like some of the decisions from people running it here and now (especially for the £2 pot which is a tiny aspect of the grand plan) is massively short-term given the plan is to secure SMFC future as a fan owned community club for GENERATIONS to come, not in this 10 year period) 
3. Regardless of your thoughts on saving funds, carrying funds and anything else, the majority of paying members favour short-term club benefits. Even in that one vote where they changed the options for members they thought didn’t have the intelligence to understand a no vote meant the money would carry. That vote still favoured short-term spending (considerably), which tells me exactly what I was saying along. The kind of paying fan that doesn’t understand what yes and no means doesn’t exist. Now you might not agree with spending the money short-term but that’s matter of opinion many like myself look at it, that the money is a tiny fraction of our funds, that’s a wee bonus, so why not use it? Like I say, opinions  
4. Personally i’ll Be happy to keep paying after the deal completes. I might change from £25 to £12 but I won’t miss it. I imagine many will feel the same but if they don’t, it won’t be a big deal. Fears about ‘what we do after’ IMO are misguided. ‘After’ we’ll have a fan owned club where the people running it do it, not for profit. How great is that? How many clubs in Scottish football don’t have a chairman and shareholders that ultimately want to earn income? We’ll be in a great position, we’ll budget as we always have done and as any club should do. Will we have one off big expenses out of the blue that take us by surprise? The question is, does any club on the planet never experience such things? We’ll be fine, I’m sure. Some people just need to see only the negative in the future. In fact I don’t think I’ve seen a positive comment about the future on here from a single one of the minority that don’t support the £50k, not one! 

Your interpretation or misinterpretations are astounding.

As said before, I hope your outcomes come come true. Don't see it myself but as you have said, time & again and a few times more, that's your opinion.
I have given mine.
Groundhog day repeating the same old line is not my idea of superfan engagement.

Let's see how all this pans out. I'll be the first to say 'phew' if my concerns prove unfounded.
Will we see you in 7,8 or 9 years to discuss how it panned out?

[Kombibuddie]

Are you in the industry Stuart? Exceptions and breaches are part of everyday finance.

Is it these kind of failures that eventually get banks in serious trouble. Most recently the TSB

Or is that all part of the risk you keep banging on about?

[StuD]

29 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The matter of fact is what you think SMISA should do in creating these facilities differs from the majority. All votes have been passed with significant majorities. You then only see the negative because people don’t agree with you to the point where you feel ‘misled’ And are beyond stubborn to consider other people’s interpretation of community benefits. Very high level negativity about fan ownership because of your short-term mindset over a poxy £2 which is less than 15% of the what BTB funding is all about. 

You compound this negativity with claims of illegal aciticity, breaking promises, constitutional failings and a refusal to accept that any community benefit that remotely helps the club you claim to support is justified. 

When faced with evidence that contradicts you such as: No FCA action, testimony from people that actually work in this field as their profession, legislative information, exception guidelines and overwhelming evidence that the outcome would be the same regardless of changing the approach, you still refuse to see even a shred of positivity in BTB or St Mirren football club as a whole. 

Has it not crossed your mind it might be your negative attitude more than it’s everyone else is wrong? given that BTB is one in a long, long, long line of St Mirren associated activities you’ve been profoundly negative about and been debated against by literally 100s of people on here for the best part of two decades? You still insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong which is always your way stuart. Have you ever once put your hands up and admitted you were wrong about anything? In life! 

You might come back and say similar about me. Everything I’ve said is backed up by the majority of active voting members, the club, SMISA, my professional experience and most importantly the regulator. 

The very first survey SMiSA sent out showed a very high percentage of members thought facilities was their spending priority - even with facilities splot into three different options. The same survey also showed that spending the money on the first team wasn't an appropriate use of funds. 

SMiSA ignored that. In the next vote the only option was to spend it on first team wages. Maybe I wasnt in a minority at all. Its just the SMiSA board keep ignoring what they were told. 

You keep banging on about SMiSA being free of wrong doing because the FCA hasnt stopped them yet. However as we've established you could never state that with any confidence because you won't know if an investigation is going on due to its confidential nature

[bazil85]

52 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

 

 

Your interpretation or misinterpretations are astounding.

As said before, I hope your outcomes come come true. Don't see it myself but as you have said, time & again and a few times more, that's your opinion.
I have given mine.
Groundhog day repeating the same old line is not my idea of superfan engagement.

Let's see how all this pans out. I'll be the first to say 'phew' if my concerns prove unfounded.
Will we see you in 7,8 or 9 years to discuss how it panned out?

 

Yep happy with that. Maybe even six though given how far ahead of plan we curreny are. 

[bazil85]

30 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

 

 

Is it these kind of failures that eventually get banks in serious trouble. Most recently the TSB

Or is that all part of the risk you keep banging on about?
 

 

Every bank on the planet will have monthly breach reporting, an exceptions log and functions in place to manage risk and compliance. Yep some banks have rightfully got a bad name for themselves over the last 10/11 years through poor governance (different think from breach reporting) but there isn’t one that’s 100% complaint all the times. They’re businesses and it’s simply not financially viable. 

That full paragraph doesn’t just go for banks though, goes for all businesses.  

[Kombibuddie]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Yep happy with that. Maybe even six though given how far ahead of plan we curreny are. 

aye, will be nice and I genuinely hope it happens in the timeframe. It was suggested that GLS has stated he is going nowhere for 10 years at least.

I wouldn't be surprised if he put himself up for chairman on a SMISA owned club. With things as they are, he'd likely have the majority vote then too.

 

[bazil85]

29 minutes ago, StuD said:

The very first survey SMiSA sent out showed a very high percentage of members thought facilities was their spending priority - even with facilities splot into three different options. The same survey also showed that spending the money on the first team wasn't an appropriate use of funds. 

SMiSA ignored that. In the next vote the only option was to spend it on first team wages. Maybe I wasnt in a minority at all. Its just the SMiSA board keep ignoring what they were told. 

You keep banging on about SMiSA being free of wrong doing because the FCA hasnt stopped them yet. However as we've established you could never state that with any confidence because you won't know if an investigation is going on due to its confidential nature

The spend on wages was still passed on a vote by a fair majority. Just because people vote one way at a point of time, does that mean they must be held to that? Why bother with general elections? People clearly never change their position. 

Oh stuart, you’re confusing your pessimism with my faith that the FCA will do their job. 

[bazil85]

Just now, Graeme Aitken said:

aye, will be nice and I genuinely hope it happens in the timeframe. It was suggested that GLS has stated he is going nowhere for 10 years at least.

I wouldn't be surprised if he put himself up for chairman on a SMISA owned club. With things as they are, he'd likely have the majority vote then too.

 

Will see how it pans out. I haven’t heard he isn’t leaving before 10 years but if so, so be it. That’s what I signed up for. 

Id even say it was a positive. After the money is saved up give fans the option to keep paying with all the money going to st Mirren/ community in some way following members votes. 

Let’s hope it works out for the best, all signs right now with member numbers seem positive. Happy to pick this up down the line. 

[StuD]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

The spend on wages was still passed on a vote by a fair majority. Just because people vote one way at a point of time, does that mean they must be held to that? Why bother with general elections? People clearly never change their position. 

Oh stuart, you’re confusing your pessimism with my faith that the FCA will do their job. 

The losing option was the only option offered while facilities have been ignored completely since the platform was built. Thats how "bent"  this "democracy" is.

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, StuD said:

The losing option was the only option offered while facilities have been ignored completely since the platform was built. Thats how "bent"  this "democracy" is.

Apart from the option to vote no to it... which never came close to winning. Club benefits always get more votes than anything else. Just the way the voting demographic is i’m afraid Stuart.

You base your argument on one vote where using the money for the club wasn’t a top priority, yet ignore all subsequent votes that shows they have been. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

 

Well done. Now do you understand the difference?

[bazil85]

42 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

23 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 

Well done. Now do you understand the difference?

no, 88% of voting members voted yes, that's the fact. The vast majority of members either support or are indifferent. Not sure what you're struggling with here... 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

no, 88% of voting members voted yes, that's the fact. The vast majority of members either support or are indifferent. Not sure what you're struggling with here... 

Yes that is a fact. Surely you can now see its not the same as the previous post you quoted.