Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie

Recommended Posts


4 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:


 

 


Discussed this to death, the club is awash with money right now in comparison to quite recent times.
I'd go as far as to say 'possibly never had it so good financially'

It will soon be The Club AGM and the finances of the club will be presented to the shareholders.

Obviously, the accounts will not show income/expenditure for the financial year we are in now but from what I recall, there's only been the astro replacement, a £75K transfer fee paid and Mr Stubbs' (& assistants) payoffs that could be considered substantial spends since April.

If, as you suggest could be happening Basil,
the club would be taking advantage of SMISA by continually asking for the quarterly pot to fund anything, if it has the finances to fund the items itself.

There appears to be a slight shift in thought about the £2 pot.
If that shift continues, it would be amiss of SMISA to ignore a turning tide.

With just under 8 years until this projects end/next phase, there's time for that shift to become considerable.

Bazil, I'll buy you a beer after the SMISA AGM if you make it. emoji2.png
 

 

SMiSA should be in the position to buy out GLS in 4 years time (thereis no agreement for the 10years) so the AGM in 3years time should lay the foundations for the club going forward. At the takeover SMISA  should own 85per cent of the shares  , so could sell 34 percent to raise cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

So yet again you contradict the very issue you have banged on about for months. That being the results of a democratic vote should stand!

except in you're and smisa's books it doesnt, infact you are both all for issuing vote after vote to try and hide you're embarrassment that yet again a very worthy community option was voted down in favour of paying for yet another set of goalposts.

Smisa have created this unholy mess by their continued deference to smfc, instead of being the 'Independent' organisation their constitution and legal framework dictate. Smisa are responsible for the very worthy Christmas dinner project NOT being funded by continually being complicit in putting forward a list of club bills, dressed up as community projects, then crying their eyes out when they realise how bad it makes them look, and suddenly finding £500 in loose change down the back of the sofa to try and cover their deserved shame.

from lending the club £15k without asking its members, to going back on the foundation pledge to 'ringfence' funds for the majority shareholding purchase, to being the club's 'Bank of Smisa' for paying any old bill, to trying to get a hold of members money, for the club to replace hand dryers....

still we shouldnt be surprised with their obvious display of embarrassment at the shame they have brought apon themselves, they never stop moving the goalposts!

Yet again, you twisting words doesn't change facts. 

Being open to exceptions to set processes depending on circumstance is not a contradiction, in fact it is the way the vast majority (if not all) companies have to work. You having an idealistic view on this subject because you have to be negative about SMISA yet lambasting them in other votes that have followed process because they haven't benefited the community, is in fact the clear contradiction here. 

You have changed your agenda on community benefit in order to keep up your necessity to be negative about SMFC/ SMISA. 

There is no embarrassment here, just a clear agenda that SMFC benefits are the most popular for paying members. Something you have to just accept has been once again proven in this vote. Them doing an additional vote for an unrelated £500 to support vulnerable members of our society is not embarrassing, it's admirable and you should be ashamed at holding your negativity in higher regards than vulnerable people. 

Third paragraph is you wanting to take away the democratic will of the paying members because you don't agree with it (even though we have now established without question you do not care about community options, only about being negative to SMISA) 

You're basically saying they did a proposal for the club then regretted it because it won over the community option. No proof, no evidence, no clue 

The only shameful part of all this is you and your crying over SMISA wanting to help the community. Poor show 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Yet again, you twisting words doesn't change facts. 

Being open to exceptions to set processes depending on circumstance is not a contradiction, in fact it is the way the vast majority (if not all) companies have to work. You having an idealistic view on this subject because you have to be negative about SMISA yet lambasting them in other votes that have followed process because they haven't benefited the community, is in fact the clear contradiction here. 

You have changed your agenda on community benefit in order to keep up your necessity to be negative about SMFC/ SMISA. 

There is no embarrassment here, just a clear agenda that SMFC benefits are the most popular for paying members. Something you have to just accept has been once again proven in this vote. Them doing an additional vote for an unrelated £500 to support vulnerable members of our society is not embarrassing, it's admirable and you should be ashamed at holding your negativity in higher regards than vulnerable people. 

Third paragraph is you wanting to take away the democratic will of the paying members because you don't agree with it (even though we have now established without question you do not care about community options, only about being negative to SMISA) 

You're basically saying they did a proposal for the club then regretted it because it won over the community option. No proof, no evidence, no clue 

The only shameful part of all this is you and your crying over SMISA wanting to help the community. Poor show 

 

Now thats what i call a very contradictory and confused meltdown!

the reason Community options are not voted through is part of Smisa's shame in seeking to hand all of its funds to the company it is actually trying to buy control of. Its got a very specific name in the city this sort of practice! And there is always a reckoning!

cant wait for that classic line of defence "oh, we are just new to this and didnt realise continually breaching our constitution, and the legal framework that governs a CBS was wrong"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Now thats what i call a very contradictory and confused meltdown!

the reason Community options are not voted through is part of Smisa's shame in seeking to hand all of its funds to the company it is actually trying to buy control of. Its got a very specific name in the city this sort of practice! And there is always a reckoning!

cant wait for that classic line of defence "oh, we are just new to this and didnt realise continually breaching our constitution, and the legal framework that governs a CBS was wrong"

Nothing confusing about it. Being open to having to change processes is not a meltdown. Crying and rambling because you’re running out of things to be negative about is probably closer to a meltdown. 

They aren’t voted through because it’s not the will of the majority. This vote once again confirms that. 

No breach to constitution. See FCA telling Stuart to jog on... and I’d also probably see the definition of ‘breach’ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Nothing confusing about it. Being open to having to change processes is not a meltdown. Crying and rambling because you’re running out of things to be negative about is probably closer to a meltdown. 

They aren’t voted through because it’s not the will of the majority. This vote once again confirms that. 

No breach to constitution. See FCA telling Stuart to jog on... and I’d also probably see the definition of ‘breach’ 

A vote was held, the members voted. Why then have another vote? What you are anti democracy now?

we know the answer is shame and embarrassment on Smisa's behalf, but they should look at past vote results and instead of always weighting it in the club's favour, actually have checks and balances to ensure the community options have a chance of being voted through!

but hey now Smisa have bought a second set of goalposts, and we had the vote on buying matchballs, logic may conclude that if you get a set of nets thrown in with every purchase of goalposts??? Then the next vote should see the club putting forward a fully costed option on getting some new Line Paint bought from the smisa bank!

either that, or an option to replace the toilet blocks in the urinals, or an upgrade on the shite paper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

A vote was held, the members voted. Why then have another vote? What you are anti democracy now?

we know the answer is shame and embarrassment on Smisa's behalf, but they should look at past vote results and instead of always weighting it in the club's favour, actually have checks and balances to ensure the community options have a chance of being voted through!

but hey now Smisa have bought a second set of goalposts, and we had the vote on buying matchballs, logic may conclude that if you get a set of nets thrown in with every purchase of goalposts??? Then the next vote should see the club putting forward a fully costed option on getting some new Line Paint bought from the smisa bank!

either that, or an option to replace the toilet blocks in the urinals, or an upgrade on the shite paper. 

A vote was had, a separate vote is now taken place on an additional £500 we have to see if we want to help the most vulnerable in our society.

Because it’s an exception to current process, you don’t think these people are important enough for us to make a very slight (and still democratic) change to our process. You should be ashamed at such a pathetic viewpoint. 

On one hand you’re saying SMISA are ashamed that the vote went a certain way. On the other hand you’re critical of them for the options they put to members. Make your mind up, we know you have to be negative about everything but at least try to be a tiny bit consistent. 

You're also yet again saying ‘remove the most popular vote so the community vote can go through’ you’ve shown with absolutely no doubt you don’t care about the community.

It’s done, your above comments are evidence you care more about your anti SMISA/ SMFC agenda than vulnerable people. Awful. 

Mask has slipped 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:


 

 


Discussed this to death, the club is awash with money right now in comparison to quite recent times.
I'd go as far as to say 'possibly never had it so good financially'

It will soon be The Club AGM and the finances of the club will be presented to the shareholders.

Obviously, the accounts will not show income/expenditure for the financial year we are in now but from what I recall, there's only been the astro replacement, a £75K transfer fee paid and Mr Stubbs' (& assistants) payoffs that could be considered substantial spends since April.

If, as you suggest could be happening Basil,
the club would be taking advantage of SMISA by continually asking for the quarterly pot to fund anything, if it has the finances to fund the items itself.

There appears to be a slight shift in thought about the £2 pot.
If that shift continues, it would be amiss of SMISA to ignore a turning tide.

With just under 8 years until this projects end/next phase, there's time for that shift to become considerable.

Bazil, I'll buy you a beer after the SMISA AGM if you make it. emoji2.png
 

 

If a shift moves towards saving, that’s what we’ll see. Right now though, members are still voting short-term club benefits. 

If helping elderly people get a Christmas dinner, isn’t winning over a goalpost option, I don’t see the changing tides changing all that quickly. But we’ll see 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2018 at 6:54 PM, bazil85 said:

It could Aye, fans have voted to do it through SMISA funding though. Don’t see much difference in our £2 from BTB and putting £2 in a collection box tbh 

When was the decision made that £500 could be spent on the meal ? do you have inside info ? i never even got to read the email before i read this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A vote was had, a separate vote is now taken place on an additional £500 we have to see if we want to help the most vulnerable in our society.
Because it’s an exception to current process, you don’t think these people are important enough for us to make a very slight (and still democratic) change to our process. You should be ashamed at such a pathetic viewpoint. 
On one hand you’re saying SMISA are ashamed that the vote went a certain way. On the other hand you’re critical of them for the options they put to members. Make your mind up, we know you have to be negative about everything but at least try to be a tiny bit consistent. 
You're also yet again saying ‘remove the most popular vote so the community vote can go through’ you’ve shown with absolutely no doubt you don’t care about the community.
It’s done, your above comments are evidence you care more about your anti SMISA/ SMFC agenda than vulnerable people. Awful. 
Mask has slipped 


Fair play to you Basil for having the patience to continue responding to this absolute cretin who obviously got drummed out of the SMISA committee for being an absolute walloper and seems to have made it his life’s work to try to get some sort of petty revenge by sniping at every single thing they do. Imagine taking pot shots at trying to provide money for a Christmas dinner for vulnerable people. An absolute roaster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 4:02 PM, bazil85 said:

even though it still is following a democratic process? horrible viewpoint 

as Buddiecat has pointed out, you've said it's a done deal.

Although I fully expect resounding support for donating £500 to the Christmas meal for vulnerable people, your suggestion that it is a done deal brings this democratic process you keep harping on about into question. "Mask has slipped" was a term you used very recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, buddiecat said:

When was the decision made that £500 could be spent on the meal ? do you have inside info ? i never even got to read the email before i read this post.

 

Looks like members of BTB are being shafted by SMISA and the club,  How much of our £ 2  has been spent in the community !  Seems like the poodles are spending cash that should have  been earmarked for spending on worthwhile  causes are being spent on a professional football clubs  upkeeps instead  of what it was initially meant for, that in itself  is a fcking disgrace l   Basil 85  you sound like that wee scroat KTF  from  the CIC era  , a crawling  snake that is so far up GLS arse , That it would take a world renowned  plastic surgeon to remove you from his Anus, You sir are an ace arse liker, Hope this helps  !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

SMiSA should be in the position to buy out GLS in 4 years time (thereis no agreement for the 10years) so the AGM in 3years time should lay the foundations for the club going forward. At the takeover SMISA  should own 85per cent of the shares  , so could sell 34 percent to raise cash.

SMISA promoted/advertised BTB with 'a legal agreement to buy GLS out within 10 years'

If I was in GLS's position, I wouldn't be in any rush to conclude the buyout and I'd go for the whole 10 years.  Only time will tell if it gets stretched to the whole 10 years or BTB comes to fruition soon after the "ringfenced" money required is reached to conclude the deal.

With 1200+ members, it will be achieved well within that time frame and as you say, the AGM in 3 years time should lay the foundations for the buyout to happen.

Edited by Graeme Aitken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, buddiecat said:

When was the decision made that £500 could be spent on the meal ? do you have inside info ? i never even got to read the email before i read this post.

It hasn’t yet, the voting is ongoing. They haven’t decided to do it, they’ve put it to a vote.

Edit - See what you mean man, my response wasn't clear. Should have put that I was talking about fan appetite for short-term funding over long-term saving from this pot. 

The outcome of this vote has either not been completed or not been made public (although I do expect a landslide yes) 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

as Buddiecat has pointed out, you've said it's a done deal.

Although I fully expect resounding support for donating £500 to the Christmas meal for vulnerable people, your suggestion that it is a done deal brings this democratic process you keep harping on about into question. "Mask has slipped" was a term you used very recently.

Apologise, it’s not a done deal. I was referring to Shull take that the money should be saved and a majority of members favouring short-term plans. 

Can see how my post was misleading but it isn’t a done deal, the vote is ongoing as far as I can tell from the email. 

I also expect an overwhelming yes though 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

It hasn’t yet, the voting is ongoing. They haven’t decided to do it, they’ve put it to a vote.

Edit - See what you mean man, my response wasn't clear. Should have put that I was talking about fan appetite for short-term funding over long-term saving from this pot. 

The outcome of this vote has either not been completed or not been made public (although I do expect a landslide yes) 

Aye, the mask has slipped right enough!

shame on Smisa for kiboshing the vote to properly fund this dinner, no wonder they and Bonkers Baz are so embarrassed and shamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Aye, the mask has slipped right enough!

shame on Smisa for kiboshing the vote to properly fund this dinner, no wonder they and Bonkers Baz are so embarrassed and shamed.

I've put my hands up  and admitted my mistake that my comment wasn't clear. If you want to jump on that and twist it be me being 'embarrassed and ashamed' at their attempt to democratically support a great cause, it says more about yourself than it does me. 

Not only are  you shamefully against helping the most vulnerable in society, you're embarrassing yourself at how low you'll go to try and spread your poisonous anti SMFC/ SMISA agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Feegie Saint said:

 

Looks like members of BTB are being shafted by SMISA and the club,  How much of our £ 2  has been spent in the community !  Seems like the poodles are spending cash that should have  been earmarked for spending on worthwhile  causes are being spent on a professional football clubs  upkeeps instead  of what it was initially meant for, that in itself  is a fcking disgrace l   Basil 85  you sound like that wee scroat KTF  from  the CIC era  , a crawling  snake that is so far up GLS arse , That it would take a world renowned  plastic surgeon to remove you from his Anus, You sir are an ace arse liker, Hope this helps  !

Well done in highlighting in one post your complete lack of understanding for what BTB is and a clear distain for democracy.

The unquestionable truth is paying members favour club benefit spend over community spend. unless that changes, SMISA have a duty to the will of their members (after all its their money). They put a very clear and worthwhile community option on the poll and it was beaten.

Instead of praising them for saying ‘look we know you said no to the big pot but how about we give them £500 we have extra?’ You have chosen to hammer them for following the democratic process they said they’d do from days one.

Hope that helps in clearing up your miss-understanding. I would ask you to explain why me thinking it’s correct that SMISA do what the majority of members want them to do, makes me a brown noser but we all know you couldn’t.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Or volunteers to help. I wouldn’t mind giving some time Christmas Day to support this. 

 

44 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

Hopefully promoted better through the community trust/charity for all supporters to donate emoji106.png

Time at Christmas, I cannot give (due to work) but money, I'd happily chip in. I think meals for vulnerable people in our communities is a belter.

Edited by Graeme Aitken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

 

Time at Christmas, I cannot give (due to work) but money, I'd happily chip in. I think meals for vulnerable people in our communities is a belter.

It's a great idea, would be a very positive step from the club and benefit to all.  No downside... Unless you're LPM and feel it's more important to hate SMISA that help the needy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Perhaps SMISA (with members approval) could work something out with the organisers for SMISA to support the community Christmas meal every year.

It's been organised by St Mirren community trust, but they are puting a penny in, the Salvation army are providing the meals, the SPFL are contributing  financially and there is a crowdfunding site set up, do they really need SMiSA cash?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

It's been organised by St Mirren community trust, but they are puting a penny in, the Salvation army are providing the meals, the SPFL are contributing  financially and there is a crowdfunding site set up, do they really need SMiSA cash?

 

If the SMISA cash helps for more meals and support on the day then I'd say 100% yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...