The 3 Monthly Spend

[bazil85]

22 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Withdraw support??

I'd prefer SMISA manage the funds like they presented. They gave assurrances of what the £10 would be used for.

Could this be a misappropriation of funds? As they are not being used for what they are intended for.

& £25000 a season to get the SMISA name on 1 (yes one) youth teams shirts. They are having a laugh

Things change but only at the will of the members. SMISA have proposed a change to the way they hold the £10 fund to support a financial need of our club that will benefit the team, a proposal at this stage, nothing more. If we say no let's keep it the same fine, if we vote to say yes we're happy with that, also fine. You do realise that companies, trustees, etc have got the right to change yeah? 

If you'd prefer they stay as presented vote no. It'll pass if you're in the majority. 

[Lord Pityme]

1 minute ago, Sonny said:

I have far more faith in Scott running the Club than SMiSA. The difference in the Club over the last 15 months has been remarkable and long may it continue. But as SMiSA will take over some day then of course they have to work very closely with the current BOD. It should not be 'them and 'us' but 'we'.

I agree with your sentiment, but surely others must now be concerned the only shareholders putting money into the club are Smisa members. How has the club burned through a million quid in transfer money..?

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

I get the feeling I've sat in meetings with you.

I have been praised for my logic and attention to facts in meetings I have to say. 

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I agree with your sentiment, but surely others must now be concerned the only shareholders putting money into the club are Smisa members. How has the club burned through a million quid in transfer money..?

I raised this point last night, without the figure of a million quid.

Cash that couldn't have been budgeted so surely has to be a surplus to any planned spend? 

Be interesting to see where this has been spent?

I'm far from suggesting anything sinister, just interested. 

[Lord Pityme]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

I have been praised for my logic and attention to facts in meetings I have to say. 

Great... so can you ascertain the facts as to where a million quid in transfer money has gone, and the logic of trying to break a legally binding agreement with 1200 odd smisa members..?

[BuddieinEK]

I have been praised for my logic and attention to facts in meetings I have to say. 

No you don't.
You most certainly do not "have" to say.
Sadly, you repeatedly "choose" to do so! [emoji14]

[Lord Pityme]

Just now, faraway saint said:

I raised this point last night, without the figure of a million quid.

Cash that couldn't have been budgeted so surely has to be a surplus to any planned spend? 

Be interesting to see where this has been spent?

I'm far from suggesting anything sinister, just interested. 

Exactly.... how have we burned through all that unbudgeted, additional income in the championship..?

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Simple question? Do you not also wonder why a Championship club, we are told that lives within its means, and that has pulled in around £1million pounds in transfer fees in a year needs to syphon £50k of The memberships money from a pot that was GUARANTEED to be ring-fenced..?

wheres the million quid gone..?

Simple question with an even simpler answer. So simple in fact it was highlighted in the comms. The club could afford this and will fund it if we vote no but it will come out of the player budget/ club running cost... Exactly where the transfer funds (£1 million) have been going. GS doesn't run the club to make profit, the money is invested back into the club.

Also people hear terms like 'external borrowing.' and 'loans' and assume they're bad things. In reality any business is wise to utilise external borrowing to a certain extent. If the chiefs at St Mirren think £50k external borrowing then 1/3 each SMISA/ Club is best way to do it, I have faith. 

I've said earlier, plans change. As it stands right now that money is GUARANTEED to be ring-fenced. All we have right now is a proposal to change that approach. We have a right to vote on this as members and change the proposal. It would be more of a worry for me if they didn't give us this right, that wouldn't be a democracy. 

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

He's no very clever at hiding his i.d.... ha, ha...

looks like his response was pre-written..?

My ID? eh

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

You never disappoint.
If only bet365 had offered odds on you being the first and this party line being your response.

We get it.

You are a true fan.

We are knicker wetters and boo boys for daring to show concern about the legal complexities being brushed aside here!

Well said number one fan.

None of you have been able to highlight one thing wrong with giving members a vote on this proposal or the proposal itself. Bet365 wouldn't even give odds on that being the case though. 

[bazil85]

13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I agree with your sentiment, but surely others must now be concerned the only shareholders putting money into the club are Smisa members. How has the club burned through a million quid in transfer money..?

They haven't

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Great... so can you ascertain the facts as to where a million quid in transfer money has gone, and the logic of trying to break a legally binding agreement with 1200 odd smisa members..?

club running costs and budget including budget for next season. It hasn't vanished, as very clearly stated in the proposal St Mirren would fund this out of the clubs budget if we say no. The budget includes the income for the year (including transfer income) Very simple stuff IMO. 

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

No you don't.
You most certainly do not "have" to say.
Sadly, you repeatedly "choose" to do so!

I would be very interested to know who you think I am. I've never tried to hide who I am , in fact a lot of people on here know me outside of football... Come to think about it I've never been openly asked, not sure why anyone would. 

[BuddieinEK]

None of you have been able to highlight one thing wrong with giving members a vote on this proposal or the proposal itself. Bet365 wouldn't even give odds on that being the case though. 

Because offering this vote in itself breaks the very agreement to which all members signed up.

If they want to change that then put an amendment to the agreement on the table for a vote.

If that is passed, then a vote on the use of the formerly ring fenced cash can take place as opposed to the misuse of it.

Enough time has passed since this was first discussed that it could well have been talked about openly and discussed with the membership.

[BuddieinEK]

I would be very interested to know who you think I am. I've never tried to hide who I am [emoji38], in fact a lot of people on here know me outside of football... Come to think about it I've never been openly asked, not sure why anyone would. 

I honestly don't care one iota who you are.
Not sure the relevance of your self importance here!

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I honestly don't care one iota who you are.
Not sure the relevance of your self importance here!

Nothing to do with that, more the people alluding to my identity which I'm pretty sure they've gotten wrong. 

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Because offering this vote in itself breaks the very agreement to which all members signed up.

If they want to change that then put an amendment to the agreement on the table for a vote.

If that is passed, then a vote on the use of the formerly ring fenced cash can take place as opposed to the misuse of it.

Enough time has passed since this was first discussed that it could well have been talked about openly and discussed with the membership.

No it doesn't, it's a proposal to change it to members, exactly as you've written .  By your logic Abbey National broke the agreement to its members when it voted to become a bank over a mutual. Given members of an organisation a vote on a change is not breaking agreements. Crazy comment.  

[Lord Pityme]

11 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Simple question with an even simpler answer. So simple in fact it was highlighted in the comms. The club could afford this and will fund it if we vote no but it will come out of the player budget/ club running cost... Exactly where the transfer funds (£1 million) have been going. GS doesn't run the club to make profit, the money is invested back into the club.

Also people hear terms like 'external borrowing.' and 'loans' and assume they're bad things. In reality any business is wise to utilise external borrowing to a certain extent. If the chiefs at St Mirren think £50k external borrowing then 1/3 each SMISA/ Club is best way to do it, I have faith. 

I've said earlier, plans change. As it stands right now that money is GUARANTEED to be ring-fenced. All we have right now is a proposal to change that approach. We have a right to vote on this as members and change the proposal. It would be more of a worry for me if they didn't give us this right, that wouldn't be a democracy. 

The simple answer is 'Trust'

that is what the smisa membership gave their committee to manage the society and specifically the proposal to become the majority shareholder in SMFC. To follow the legally binding process that all members signed up to, to ensure the funds to make the share purchase were ring-fenced SOLELY for that purpose.

now that Trust is gone, thrown away because Scott has repeatedly stated 'well the smisa share purchase fund is just sitting there' and has set about getting his hands on as much of it as possible which jeopardises the entire BTB campaign. And the committee just roll over and give him access to funds he should be no where near..! This is exactly the type of stunt that sees well intentioned endeavours at football clubs slide into sleazy, turgid, bitter endings.

the committee have no mandate to ask the membership to vote on spending the ring-fenced funds on anything other than the agreed purpose. Lets be clear.... its not the membership asking to spend the money they thought was earmarked solely to become majority shareholders.... its the majority shareholder trying to use the future owners money to fund something that he took on responsibility for.

it is shameless!

the Smisa committee have managed to eradicate the trust in them so readily.

[garzo]

If this money is paid for this purpose, which on principle I don't agree with at the moment but lets go with this for now - a share transfer agreement should be drawn up to download (in proportion) in favour of SMISA. 
This is the only way this deal should be taken forward.
Shareholders investment should be in proportion to share holding.
Otherwise money is in gift, loan or sponsorship with benefits gained.
We need to start thinking business like, shareholders first, not as fans.

This internal SMISA loan (without being 100% knowledgeable on constitution) does not seem constitutional and contains elements of risk we should resist.
Might not be a popular view but is my view and I'll vote accordingly.

 

[BuddieinEK]

No it doesn't, it's a proposal to change it to members, exactly as you've written [emoji38].  By your logic Abbey National broke the agreement to its members when it voted to become a bank over a mutual. Given members of an organisation a vote on a change is not breaking agreements. Crazy comment.  

You choose not to be willing to even consider trying to possibly comprehend logic so really no point in trying to have a debate.

 

We are talking SMISA, not Abbey National. "Crazy" seems to be your speciality subject.

 

The money is "ring-fenced" by mutual agreement!

 

Get an agreement to change that and THEN specific uses can be discussed.

 

Not hard to understand for anyone willing to do so!

 

 

 

[bazil85]

32 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

The simple answer is 'Trust'

that is what the smisa membership gave their committee to manage the society and specifically the proposal to become the majority shareholder in SMFC. To follow the legally binding process that all members signed up to, to ensure the funds to make the share purchase were ring-fenced SOLELY for that purpose.

now that Trust is gone, thrown away because Scott has repeatedly stated 'well the smisa share purchase fund is just sitting there' and has set about getting his hands on as much of it as possible which jeopardises the entire BTB campaign. And the committee just roll over and give him access to funds he should be no where near..! This is exactly the type of stunt that sees well intentioned endeavours at football clubs slide into sleazy, turgid, bitter endings.

the committee have no mandate to ask the membership to vote on spending the ring-fenced funds on anything other than the agreed purpose. Lets be clear.... its not the membership asking to spend the money they thought was earmarked solely to become majority shareholders.... its the majority shareholder trying to use the future owners money to fund something that he took on responsibility for.

it is shameless!

the Smisa committee have managed to eradicate the trust in them so readily.

Trust is in no way gone. It would be gone if they came out and said 'we're doing this end of.' I'm not sure why you don't support about a democratic vote on changing something that will benefit the club.

I'd also love to see your evidence that it 'jeopardises' BTB when the plan is very clear about re-paying the money to the £10 pot. 

Also the committee has a full mandate to ask the members to spend the funds. No paying member has signed legal documents retracting this right.

[BuddieinEK]

Trust is in no way gone. It would be gone if they came out and said 'we're doing this end of.' I'm not sure why you don't support about a democratic vote on changing something that will benefit the club.
I'd also love to see your evidence that it 'jeopardises' BTB when the plan is very clear about re-paying the money to the £10 pot. 
Also the committee has a full mandate to ask the members to spend the funds. No paying member has signed legal documents retracting this right.

Simply proposing this breaks an agreement by which people signed up.

It really is NOT hard to understand if you are willing.

This is undemocratic.

Democracy would be getting a majority agreement to give a mandate for change

You really are unwilling to lusten, aren't you.

[bazil85]

20 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

You choose not to be willing to even consider trying to possibly comprehend logic so really no point in trying to have a debate.

 

We are talking SMISA, not Abbey National. "Crazy" seems to be your speciality subject.

 

The money is "ring-fenced" by mutual agreement!

 

Get an agreement to change that and THEN specific uses can be discussed.

 

Not hard to understand for anyone willing to do so!

 

 

 

Have a look at who the mutual agreement is between and the people that have made the proposal... Have a goooood look. 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

Simply proposing this breaks an agreement by which people signed up.

It really is NOT hard to understand if you are willing.

This is undemocratic.

Democracy would be getting a majority agreement to give a mandate for change

You really are unwilling to lusten, aren't you.

Is that not the same people that get to vote on if it's changed? 

[linwood buddie]

I'm not in SIMSA so i'm neutral in this but the feeling I get is that if its passed to change the agreement for "ring-fenced monies" to use on this occasion then it will become a regular occurance IMO. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by linwood buddie