The 3 Monthly Spend

[St.Ricky]

9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

 

 Thats the option i took this time as well.

i get the good cause that is Option 3, its just the bit where its Smisa money going into the club via another route, why cant the club, like many others fund this dinner? 

Surely the Club,  SMISA and the Trust have to kick start things.  For my money,  I might even join if I saw signs of real progress there. 

[madball]

Option 3 is the best option put forward for quite some time, although I'm swithering between that and retaining the money.

Like others said it would be good to know the process followed in shortlisting the options as it is very opaque about what has been suggested and there have been concerns raised regarding supporting specific agendas.

What I would also like to see is the options curtailed to 3 on future ballots, 1 for club requests, 1 for community activity and 1 for do nothing, for at least that way it would squash noise about fairness and weighting on ballot options.

[st jock]

Three options, each tie into the top three priorities as picked by members. Some people are never happy  

Option one for me.

I'm not allowed an opinion? I didn't think that my SMISA money would be used to pay for routine maintenance Basil. I think it's a joke. Can you show me the results of the vote where people asked for cold air hand dryers? Cheers.

 

[Gruffalo]

So we have 4 options presented to vote on.

Option 1 masquerades as a youth option

Option 2 is a blatant club/ground option

Option 3 is a community option

Option 4 is a save option

To some fans none of these options are good enough.

In option 3 we are being asked to fund a community idea of Christmas Dinner for vulnerable members of our society where the local Salvation Army will give up their time, the club will give them access to the facilities etc but it is being perceived that the club are still getting something out of it. I get LPM berating the SMISA vote at every opportunity. However to then twist in my opinion what to date is the best idea of community involvement in to some sort of club stealing agenda is  really scraping the barrel.

The community option gets my vote provided Wardrop and Scott are not getting a free meal that day.

I'm away to wash my hands and dry them on my trousers 

 

[Gruffalo]

1 hour ago, madball said:

Option 3 is the best option put forward for quite some time, although I'm swithering between that and retaining the money.

Like others said it would be good to know the process followed in shortlisting the options as it is very opaque about what has been suggested and there have been concerns raised regarding supporting specific agendas.

What I would also like to see is the options curtailed to 3 on future ballots, 1 for club requests, 1 for community activity and 1 for do nothing, for at least that way it would squash noise about fairness and weighting on ballot options.

The good thing about debate is that I get to disagree with you. I would prefer more options on the ballot.

Problem with a limited option of 3 is that you could set the vote up to ensure that one is presented as an out and out winner. It is noted however that with a shorter list you have a final decision that is representative of the greater membership.

With more options on the list then real winner comes through. Problem with more options is that a minority could win.

More options also has the consequence of raising the blood pressure of many of the posters on the forum.

 

[madball]

The good thing about debate is that I get to disagree with you. I would prefer more options on the ballot.
Problem with a limited option of 3 is that you could set the vote up to ensure that one is presented as an out and out winner. It is noted however that with a shorter list you have a final decision that is representative of the greater membership.
With more options on the list then real winner comes through. Problem with more options is that a minority could win.
More options also has the consequence of raising the blood pressure of many of the posters on the forum.
 

No worries on disagreeing, good healthy debate is positive.

I'd prefer ultimately to see a full list of what was proposed for any given quarter and then the top 3-5 as agreed by the committee, at least then we can all see the transparency of what has not been taken forward. But in absence of transparency it would at least be an option to ensure that something for a community option appears on the ballot.

As things stand we get 2 or more things the club wants, perhaps 1 or 2 ideas from elsewhere with no background to who put forward and no view of what the other requests not on the ballot were.

My thinking behind placing categories on it would stop the domination of the list with club requests which seem to be polarising opinions.

[Lord Pityme]

An easy solution to make the votes more appealing would be to stop adding the ridiculous bill & maintenance options the club puts in to just hoover up the money. 

What is a constant failing of the smisa committee is to put forward any options that were actually an idea from smisa members! They all come from Gordon's shopping list, or a.n. Other body who have asked the club for funding, to which the club have slopy-shouldered it onto smisa.

they just arent the ideas of the people whose money it is.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[lovestlegend]

An easy solution to make the votes more appealing would be to stop adding the ridiculous bill & maintenance options the club puts in to just hoover up the money. 
What is a constant failing of the smisa committee is to put forward any options that were actually an idea from smisa members! They all come from Gordon's shopping list, or a.n. Other body who have asked the club for funding, to which the club have slopy-shouldered it onto smisa.
they just arent the ideas of the people whose money it is.

Did they not say the hand drier suggestion came from a member?

And nothing to stop more members from making requests.

[djchapsticks]

I voted option 4. The only other viable thing was option 3.

The first two are things the club should be budgeting for themselves. 

[bazil85]

4 hours ago, st jock said:

I'm not allowed an opinion? I didn't think that my SMISA money would be used to pay for routine maintenance Basil. I think it's a joke. Can you show me the results of the vote where people asked for cold air hand dryers? Cheers.

 

Top priorities were youth academy, community and improve matchday experience.  New hand driers that are better than the old ones would improve the facilities (matchday experience) if people don’t like that option though, don’t vote for them, very simple.

I don’t think it’s a good option and haven’t voted for it  I’m not going to cry over it and ignore the positivity regarding the other varied options presented though. 

People focusing on that, proves some people will only ever focus  on negatives . 

I maintain anyone dropping out of BTB purely on options for the £2 spend (a fraction of the important £10/ £23 that’s actually going towards securing the club we all supports long term future) is exceptionally shortsighted. 

[bazil85]

3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

An easy solution to make the votes more appealing would be to stop adding the ridiculous bill & maintenance options the club puts in to just hoover up the money. 

What is a constant failing of the smisa committee is to put forward any options that were actually an idea from smisa members! They all come from Gordon's shopping list, or a.n. Other body who have asked the club for funding, to which the club have slopy-shouldered it onto smisa.

they just arent the ideas of the people whose money it is.

Do you mean the options that always seem to win? What a ridiculous comment. ‘Don’t put in options that members vote most for’ 

hand driers was an option a member proposed so yet another of your points is redundant. 

[bazil85]

5 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

 

 Thats the option i took this time as well.

i get the good cause that is Option 3, its just the bit where its Smisa money going into the club via another route, why cant the club, like many others fund this dinner? 

Us Vs them comment. Against absolutely anything SMISA present that might benefit the club you ‘support’ baffling. 

[st jock]

Top priorities were youth academy, community and improve matchday experience.  New hand driers that are better than the old ones would improve the facilities (matchday experience) if people don’t like that option though, don’t vote for them, very simple.
I don’t think it’s a good option and haven’t voted for it  I’m not going to cry over it and ignore the positivity regarding the other varied options presented though. 
People focusing on that, proves some people will only ever focus  on negatives . 
I maintain anyone dropping out of BTB purely on options for the £2 spend (a fraction of the important £10/ £23 that’s actually going towards securing the club we all supports long term future) is exceptionally shortsighted. 

I get that new dryers will enhance match day experiences and I get that you won't be voting for them so we are in agreement. I just think it's a routine maintenance cost. I'm not being negative I'm being concerned. I think soft quilted toilet paper would enhance the experience too [emoji1]
Anyhoo I voted for option 3. Hope you did.

[buddiecat]

11 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Option 1 - why is a professional football club, in the premier division of its league structure asking its fans to purchase goals for its academy? Things like this should be budgeted for and before even considering it, if what Buddiecat says is true (not doubting you fella) the Club should be asked

I maintain, the option on every 3 monthly spend vote,  should be available to Save the pot for when the buds is bought.

 

It is true, i had my picture in the PDE when they were presented at Ralston, and there was a bit of debate on here at the time regarding the fan council and SMiSA sharing the cost of the goals

[Stevie88]

I like option 3,particularly the Xmas dinner idea.It should win hands down.

It won my vote.

[buddiecat]

8 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having visited the academy there is a number of goals there of various sizes. Next time I'm there I'll look to see if there's a set with provided by SMISA on them.

I've checked eBay and none for sale fitting the description.

One of the benefits of having portable goals is the reduction of wear on the new surface ie goalmouth. So increasing the lifespan of the new surface.

Graeme your involved with youth football, if you were to get additional funding would you decline it as you've not budgeted for it. AM has asked for the funding as it will give him a larger budget. If he wasn't trying to increase his budget by any legal means I'd be more disappointed.

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1292056487478336&set=pb.100000219913039.-2207520000.1540508400.&type=3&size=2048%2C1365

[Lord Pityme]

11 hours ago, lovestlegend said:

 

Did they not say the hand drier suggestion came from a member?

And nothing to stop more members from making requests.

 

Not aure about that?

they, are far as i can see are using the catch all statement they asked members to vote as an option of "enhancing the matchday experience"... which covers somewhere to piss, a gate, seats etc..etc...

[madball]

Did they not say the hand drier suggestion came from a member?

And nothing to stop more members from making requests.

Well Gordon is a member after all, so it is accurate to say all the club requests come from members too [emoji6]

[TsuMirren]

Great to see a community option, but to have SMiSA funding the Community Trust? Does this mean SMiSA will no longer look to run their own community projects? More worrying, are the Community Trust now the second club related Trust incapable of securing community funding? 

[Kombibuddie]

19 hours ago, bazil85 said:

We get that, but is no one allowed to debate/discuss or offer alternative opinions on the options. But continually, we have you rattling the SMISA sabre and dismissing others opinions as folk "never being happy"

Where's the debate in people moaning about options they don't agree with? Not seen anyone that had previously moaned about lack of/ quality of the community option, praise the option for this quarters vote. Instead it's an automatic focus on a perceived negative.

• Does debate not come from a differing of opinions? Continually, you want to stifle anything negative where the club and SMISA are concerned and anyone who says ought negative is wrong

When I signed up, I don't recall agreeing to agree with everything SMISA suggested.

I am not enthused by the options repeatedly being offered by SMISA, the lack of transparency in how options get put on the vote. Once again, for £1440, the least I expected would be minutes of meetings (not just the AGM minutes) being communicated out to the membership, providing some trail and subsequent understanding of things being discussed/considered/agreed by SMISA.

Options are suggested, priced and presented. I don't see anything in these options that don't give enough information. Some people like yourself might want to see every single detail but it's not practical. My understanding is Q&A sessions and open meetings would answer your questions if you wanted to attend. 

• Show us the evidence. I've not seen it. Any of it. Options being Suggested? By whom? Priced?? does anything go out to tender, looking for competitive prices?  Presented? to the membership for the vote? I'd expect your spin on that is 1 out of 3 aint bad and what are we going on about.
• Back to the evidence. Where is the transparency? SMISA has a responsibility to keep it's members informed. 1 AGM a year doesn't cut it and neither does your dismissive comment about going to the meetings or Q&A sessions.  I can't just pop along to a meeting or a Q&A session as I live in London but what about the  proper Far Flung Buds?  Not so easy just to pop down to any of it.

Underwhelmed by the current options available.

Option 1 - St Mirren FC should buy their own goals.

Some people (including myself) have made it clear their number one choice is anything that saves the club money to re-invest in the squad. Option is perfectly fine to have even if you don't think it should be on there. To take a popular option off would be to impact the democratic option. 

• Some people (including myself) have made it clear, their number one option is now to prepare for the future when The Buds is Bought. To dismiss that option with "the money was always intended to be spent" 
• I have concerns for a body (SMISA) that refuses to even consider adjusting its position. The inception of the £2 pot was during a time when St Mirren were in a far worse financial position than it is now. Which brings us back to The Club budgeting for the essentials required to function as a football club.
• SMISA should have an ongoing review process and be willing to consider (with member approval) suggested changes. It doesn't. It is a blanket "The money was always intended to be spent.
• When the Buds is Bought, where's the money for all the maintenance coming from? Will the SMISA pot of gold cash still be as healthy as it is now? No doubt, some folk will continue paying into SMISA, some won't. Where is the evidence of how many will and what money is projected to be available via SMISA once the buds is bought?

Option 2 - St Mirren should buy their own hand driers or get a contract for a company to provide that service.

See previous point, exact same for paying members that want to see facilities improved and save the club money. 

• See previous point. The Club is in a far better financial position now than when it was when BTB was conceived. The Club, under SMISA ownership will need to find the funds to pay for Youth Academy goals, for hand driers, for astro replacement, for kit for youth coaches, for footballs the manager wants, for maintenance within the ground, for, for for. SMISA' refuses to even consider the future with the line "the money was always intended to be spent". No room for a rethink is short sighted.

Option 3 - Christmas meal is a cracking idea but where's the finer details, Being £1750 short. Short of what? and what is the total sum of money required to run the event? Also, how many people will the Christmas Dinner be for.

Again it's an overview, if you want finer details speak to a rep, ask at a Q&A or attend meetings. Most fans seem happy with high level details. 

• If they want to hold a meeting or Q&A session in East London, I'll be there, along with a few London Saints too. But until such a time, transparency being communicated through minutes of meetings is not an unreasonable ask.
• No evidence of costings so we (all members) are being asked to vote on a suggestion. Without the finer details, it is not an informed choice. "Most members" may be happy with that. This member is not.

Option 4 - Save the money. A cracking idea but only to be spunked at a later date (not such a good idea)

Says who? Could be an option down the line to add it to the buyout or continually role it over. This option (or add to buyout) has never won. I don't see a great point in dwelling on an option, most people never seem to want. 

• Me (there are other folk who express opinions on the validity of options being put forward but I cannot speak for them saying "spunked") please refer to previous posts on options I consider the pot being spunked on.
• Add to buyout was fully costed (it costs nothing (£0) to save the money. Unfortunately, it was put on 1 vote (if I remember correctly), can't remember which one though. If most people don't seem to want, why not have it as a standing option. It is the only option that is worth having as a standing option. Always retaining an option to save the money for when the Buds is Bought. See my points above.

differing opinion and debate is healthy but you dismiss folk who don't agree with the options as never being happy. You are happy enough for those peoples opinions to be removed.

No issue with people disagreeing, only with the negativity and people pushing for ideas to be removed so their agenda has a better chance. 

• Sometimes, ideas/options need to grow arms and legs. If we always dismiss the negative comments, the potential for development can be stifled. Negative comments are not always a bad thing. SMISA should be reading these threads and taking things on board, learning from the discussions and going forward. 
• SMISA should welcome the good and bad comments as it gives the opportunity to evolve/develop and ultimately improve. It gives SMISA a better chance.

I think we've said before, sometimes, some folks minds can be changed by debate when the discussion brings up ideas/suggestions that haven't been thought of. One thing for sure, I won't be changing my mind that St Mirren FC should be budgeting for and funding the essential requirements of a football club, goals and footballs being 2 of the 3 main ingredients.

Correct and that's why debate is healthy, so debate for your preference, don't slaughter options.

• "Slaughter" or justifying objections to that option? If an option is not agreed with, first question should be "why" don't you like it?
• SMISA shouldn't be afraid of members not agreeing with the options but, back to give us the evidence of what options were put forward, how it was decided that A, B & C made the ballot and X, Y & Z didn't. If they provided minutes (& evidence) SMISA would close the door to a number of arguments being repeated here.

your view no issue, that's fine, don't vote for what you don't want. Doesn't mean the options aren't perfectly valid. 

• Evidence is the recurring them through here. That and transparency. Please refer to my previous comment about SMISA communication evidencing the options and decision making process. Job done for both them & me/us.
•  If SMISA produced evidence of their decision making process, it would negate the chance for negative comments and be so much easier for all of us to choose either Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 or Option 4.

Have I mentioned evidence and transparency yet? It's a good thing and extinguishes fears, concerns and negativity from the outset. SMISA should try it.

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Graeme Aitken
typo

[Lord Pityme]

15 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

 

This.

i expect the only 'evidence' smisa cite will be who's Gordon's pick to be the next Fan Director.

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, st jock said:

I get that new dryers will enhance match day experiences and I get that you won't be voting for them so we are in agreement. I just think it's a routine maintenance cost. I'm not being negative I'm being concerned. I think soft quilted toilet paper would enhance the experience too
Anyhoo I voted for option 3. Hope you did.

I voted for option 1.

My point is, the voting choices mean options, I can't see how it's a bad thing. People might not think the money should be spent on items they feel the club should be buying but others might think it's an absolutely fine reason. The beauty of democracy.  

[bazil85]

26 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

We get that, but is no one allowed to debate/discuss or offer alternative opinions on the options. But continually, we have you rattling the SMISA sabre and dismissing others opinions as folk "never being happy"

Where's the debate in people moaning about options they don't agree with? Not seen anyone that had previously moaned about lack of/ quality of the community option, praise the option for this quarters vote. Instead it's an automatic focus on a perceived negative.

• Does debate not come from a differing of opinions? Continually, you want to stifle anything negative where the club and SMISA are concerned and anyone who says ought negative is wrong
• Difference of opinion is fine, my issue is with people saying that certain peoples opinion is wrong. The options here are diverse and in line with different opinion. For people to say 'that shouldn't be an option' is what I take issue with, not on peoples preference over the different options. I have no issue with negativity, relentless negativity on the other hand...

When I signed up, I don't recall agreeing to agree with everything SMISA suggested.

I am not enthused by the options repeatedly being offered by SMISA, the lack of transparency in how options get put on the vote. Once again, for £1440, the least I expected would be minutes of meetings (not just the AGM minutes) being communicated out to the membership, providing some trail and subsequent understanding of things being discussed/considered/agreed by SMISA.

Options are suggested, priced and presented. I don't see anything in these options that don't give enough information. Some people like yourself might want to see every single detail but it's not practical. My understanding is Q&A sessions and open meetings would answer your questions if you wanted to attend. 

• Show us the evidence. I've not seen it. Any of it. Options being Suggested? By whom? Priced?? does anything go out to tender, looking for competitive prices?  Presented? to the membership for the vote? I'd expect your spin on that is 1 out of 3 aint bad and what are we going on about.
• Back to the evidence. Where is the transparency? SMISA has a responsibility to keep it's members informed. 1 AGM a year doesn't cut it and neither does your dismissive comment about going to the meetings or Q&A sessions.  I can't just pop along to a meeting or a Q&A session as I live in London but what about the  proper Far Flung Buds?  Not so easy just to pop down to any of it.
• What exactly do you want to see? If you want to be that much involved, then get involved with the meetings and lend your services to SMISA. It is completely unrealistic to have every shred of information regarding the proposals just because you might not believe some fans want to see funds spent on our facilities or youth academy. I'm more than confident if you reached out to SMISA they could answer your questions. 
• What have you actively done then to get the questions you require? I feel SMISA give enough evidence in their updates, if you want more, I'd expect you to be proactive about it but instead you just bang on about it on here from what I can tell. 

Underwhelmed by the current options available.

Option 1 - St Mirren FC should buy their own goals.

Some people (including myself) have made it clear their number one choice is anything that saves the club money to re-invest in the squad. Option is perfectly fine to have even if you don't think it should be on there. To take a popular option off would be to impact the democratic option. 

• Some people (including myself) have made it clear, their number one option is now to prepare for the future when The Buds is Bought. To dismiss that option with "the money was always intended to be spent" 
• I have concerns for a body (SMISA) that refuses to even consider adjusting its position. The inception of the £2 pot was during a time when St Mirren were in a far worse financial position than it is now. Which brings us back to The Club budgeting for the essentials required to function as a football club.
• SMISA should have an ongoing review process and be willing to consider (with member approval) suggested changes. It doesn't. It is a blanket "The money was always intended to be spent.
• When the Buds is Bought, where's the money for all the maintenance coming from? Will the SMISA pot of gold cash still be as healthy as it is now? No doubt, some folk will continue paying into SMISA, some won't. Where is the evidence of how many will and what money is projected to be available via SMISA once the buds is bought?
• Rolling over or saving money has never once won a vote in over two years. You might like it but it's never a popular choice and I wouldn't be surprised if yet again it's shown not to be popular with option 4 this vote. They tried roll over and add to the BTB pot before, both options got trounced 
• See above, I'm assuming though you've submitted this suggestion to SMISA if you feel so passionately about it though?
• See above
• When the buddies are bought we will run the club as a business as we have done practically the whole history of our football club. People forget the £2 pot is an absolutely tiny fraction of our turnover and the good things it's able to do, would not be sink or swim for our football club if we didn't. We have never had a sugar daddy owner in the past that stumps up money. That's the same as the vast majority of clubs at our level. They make money, they spend money. If we have isolated events in the future we will deal with them but the concern is completely unfounded when the evidence used relates to an £8k pot a quarter. That's probably slightly more than we pay a first team player.  We actually have an added advantage when we're fan owned over a number of other clubs, we won't have an owner using the club profits as a source of their own income, have you considered that or just the negatives as usual? 

Option 2 - St Mirren should buy their own hand driers or get a contract for a company to provide that service.

See previous point, exact same for paying members that want to see facilities improved and save the club money. 

• See previous point. The Club is in a far better financial position now than when it was when BTB was conceived. The Club, under SMISA ownership will need to find the funds to pay for Youth Academy goals, for hand driers, for astro replacement, for kit for youth coaches, for footballs the manager wants, for maintenance within the ground, for, for for. SMISA' refuses to even consider the future with the line "the money was always intended to be spent". No room for a rethink is short sighted.
• Yet again, none of those expenses are sink or swim, we're talking about a very small bonus pot of money that we've been able to do good with. We managed before without it, we'll manage again without it (and the extra funds going back into the club that wouldn't be going to an owners profits). Again the option you want, that's your choice, no issue with it but it hasn't been a popular choice in over two years, so where's your evidence that it would be now? Just because you don't like the other choices, doesn't mean they shouldn't be there. Funds to support the club have always been most popular. I'd be happy with an option to save money for completion, I don't think it would win any vote though

Option 3 - Christmas meal is a cracking idea but where's the finer details, Being £1750 short. Short of what? and what is the total sum of money required to run the event? Also, how many people will the Christmas Dinner be for.

Again it's an overview, if you want finer details speak to a rep, ask at a Q&A or attend meetings. Most fans seem happy with high level details. 

• If they want to hold a meeting or Q&A session in East London, I'll be there, along with a few London Saints too. But until such a time, transparency being communicated through minutes of meetings is not an unreasonable ask.
• No evidence of costings so we (all members) are being asked to vote on a suggestion. Without the finer details, it is not an informed choice. "Most members" may be happy with that. This member is not.
• Email them, contact someone, ask your questions

Option 4 - Save the money. A cracking idea but only to be spunked at a later date (not such a good idea)

Says who? Could be an option down the line to add it to the buyout or continually role it over. This option (or add to buyout) has never won. I don't see a great point in dwelling on an option, most people never seem to want. 

• Me (there are other folk who express opinions on the validity of options being put forward but I cannot speak for them saying "spunked") please refer to previous posts on options I consider the pot being spunked on.
• Add to buyout was fully costed (it costs nothing (£0) to save the money. Unfortunately, it was put on 1 vote (if I remember correctly), can't remember which one though. If most people don't seem to want, why not have it as a standing option. It is the only option that is worth having as a standing option. Always retaining an option to save the money for when the Buds is Bought. See my points above.
• As previously said, if it never wins and is never popular why should it be a standing option over other way more popular options, like say for example, give the money to the club. Any money going to the club in some form always wins, so why not have that as a standing option? Is it because you don't agree with it?

differing opinion and debate is healthy but you dismiss folk who don't agree with the options as never being happy. You are happy enough for those peoples opinions to be removed.

No issue with people disagreeing, only with the negativity and people pushing for ideas to be removed so their agenda has a better chance. 

• Sometimes, ideas/options need to grow arms and legs. If we always dismiss the negative comments, the potential for development can be stifled. Negative comments are not always a bad thing. SMISA should be reading these threads and taking things on board, learning from the discussions and going forward. 
• SMISA should welcome the good and bad comments as it gives the opportunity to evolve/develop and ultimately improve. It gives SMISA a better chance.
• Relentless negativity has no basis for being a good thing and that's exactly what we see. This vote is a perfect example. Four varied options and we see the usual suspects finding something negative as always. 

I think we've said before, sometimes, some folks minds can be changed by debate when the discussion brings up ideas/suggestions that haven't been thought of. One thing for sure, I won't be changing my mind that St Mirren FC should be budgeting for and funding the essential requirements of a football club, goals and footballs being 2 of the 3 main ingredients.

Correct and that's why debate is healthy, so debate for your preference, don't slaughter options.

• "Slaughter" or justifying objections to that option? If an option is not agreed with, first question should be "why" don't you like it?
• SMISA shouldn't be afraid of members not agreeing with the options but, back to give us the evidence of what options were put forward, how it was decided that A, B & C made the ballot and X, Y & Z didn't. If they provided minutes (& evidence) SMISA would close the door to a number of arguments being repeated here.
• Are you justifying objections or pushing for popular options to be removed from paying members choices? I fail to see how anyone can justify it being a negative when money goes to help the football team we all supposedly 'support' 
• Email them 

your view no issue, that's fine, don't vote for what you don't want. Doesn't mean the options aren't perfectly valid. 

• Evidence is the recurring them through here. That and transparency. Please refer to my previous comment about SMISA communication evidencing the options and decision making process. Job done for both them & me/us.
•  If SMISA produced evidence of their decision making process, it would negate the chance for negative comments and be so much easier for all of us to choose either Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 or Option 4.
• So if option 5 - Carry the money over until BTB is completed was on this months communication. Would you have banged on about evidence to why that's an option? Seems perfectly clear to me you're using evidence and transparency as a safety blanket for ideas you don't like. 

Have I mentioned evidence and transparency yet? It's a good thing and extinguishes fears, concerns and negativity from the outset. SMISA should try it.

 

[bazil85]

38 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

This.

i expect the only 'evidence' smisa cite will be who's Gordon's pick to be the next Fan Director.

Which you yet again base on absolutely nothing. Negative for the sake of negative - Usual 

[barrhead saint]

17 hours ago, st jock said:

I'm not allowed an opinion? I didn't think that my SMISA money would be used to pay for routine maintenance Basil. I think it's a joke. Can you show me the results of the vote where people asked for cold air hand dryers? Cheers.

 

Agreed, what next, bog roll for the toilets, petrol for the lawnmower ?

Option 4 for me.