The 3 Monthly Spend

[billyg]

Someone like me? Someone with a varying opinion you mean? I'm not trying to make anyone's mind up for them, just having a discussion and raising some views based on or built around facts/my experiences. "Agendas", you've got an agenda, you've got to have an agenda, just accept stuff and move on, etc. Of course it'll be carried, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT ALREADY! 
Just so I know, let's make this a learning tree and sit under the branches of your wisdom, what do you perceive my agenda to be? I've no intention of joining again, don't want back on the committee,  don't want the deal to fall apart, feel no need to bask in praise and certainly don't want the club to struggle. So, let's say I'm intrigued by this side show you've created. Or do you, like so many people in society today, just not know?
Anyway,  come on Morton!

Good man , just shut up then [emoji108]

[pozbaird]

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I really don’t know how I can put this any different. I’m seriously struggling.

Clearly.

[guinness]

As a member who does not get involved in the minutiae of smisa I have previously said I would stop voting in these events as the outcome was a foregone conclusion. However this just seems to go Against the grain. The £10 was for buying the club and nothing else.  I cannot believe these funds can be used for anything else. It was proposed the £2 spend was put aside until needed. This would have been perfect use of those funds instead of balls ect. What is there to guarentee the club will not suddenly need £100,000.for something.would that come out of ring fenced funds? Sorry but this should be voted down. 

 

[garzo]

22 minutes ago, guinness said:

As a member who does not get involved in the minutiae of smisa I have previously said I would stop voting in these events as the outcome was a foregone conclusion. However this just seems to go Against the grain. The £10 was for buying the club and nothing else.  I cannot believe these funds can be used for anything else. It was proposed the £2 spend was put aside until needed. This would have been perfect use of those funds instead of balls ect. What is there to guarentee the club will not suddenly need £100,000.for something.would that come out of ring fenced funds? Sorry but this should be voted down. 

 

 

[BuddieinEK]

As a member who does not get involved in the minutiae of smisa I have previously said I would stop voting in these events as the outcome was a foregone conclusion. However this just seems to go Against the grain. The £10 was for buying the club and nothing else.  I cannot believe these funds can be used for anything else. It was proposed the £2 spend was put aside until needed. This would have been perfect use of those funds instead of balls ect. What is there to guarentee the club will not suddenly need £100,000.for something.would that come out of ring fenced funds? Sorry but this should be voted down. 
 

You have a good head on you Guinness!

[TsuMirren]

The danger of not voting on foregone conclusions is, of course, that approval of options seems higher and that gives support to the belief that everything is okay. 

If the plan was target 1,000 and buy in ten years, then hitting 1,300 should have seen a revisit of the plan or at least a semblance of an appetite to do so. But, that's another debate from the one around use of the £10 and the £2 funds. 8K to vote on is a very powerful tool, we've already seen that and opinions aside it has seen a wide range of uses.  The process was well and truly tested during the Glenvale option vote (I'll avoid digging in to that again just now), which was all a healthy and necessary part of the overall process. Just picking up every request from the club and going "how can we fund that from what we have to hand" isn't healthy. Even the sponsorship options don't make sense on this 50K request as they're basically freebies. The 50K goes to the club, it pays for 1/3rd of the quoted price for the 4g park replacement...so what's paying for the sponsorship? That's surely sponsorship that could be sold by the club and is potentially taking money away from the club and away from the overall budget.

Plus, if it is actually community benefit and meets the community benefit that a CBS should be providing then surely SMISA therefore finally are able to display the necessary credentials to qualify for community funding from community lenders. 50K for 4g, club can maintain the academy operations, local youth players can, through their own boys club, aspire to get on to that pathway and as such it leads to more determined players, possibly fitter and healthier players, wanting to play better and progress. The St Mirren community gets better players, but the wider community should see more players with a drive and passion to progress. That won't only see benefits to St Mirren, it'll possibly see the local clubs progress as their squads develop and more kids not in teams want to join. SMISA could even use slots at Ralston to offer training, not drop-in sessions, to some age levels having also paid for a few SMISA members to get coaching badges.

But, what do people like me know?   

[BuddieinEK]

The danger of not voting on foregone conclusions is, of course, that approval of options seems higher and that gives support to the belief that everything is okay. 
If the plan was target 1,000 and buy in ten years, then hitting 1,300 should have seen a revisit of the plan or at least a semblance of an appetite to do so. But, that's another debate from the one around use of the £10 and the £2 funds. 8K to vote on is a very powerful tool, we've already seen that and opinions aside it has seen a wide range of uses.  The process was well and truly tested during the Glenvale option vote (I'll avoid digging in to that again just now), which was all a healthy and necessary part of the overall process. Just picking up every request from the club and going "how can we fund that from what we have to hand" isn't healthy. Even the sponsorship options don't make sense on this 50K request as they're basically freebies. The 50K goes to the club, it pays for 1/3rd of the quoted price for the 4g park replacement...so what's paying for the sponsorship? That's surely sponsorship that could be sold by the club and is potentially taking money away from the club and away from the overall budget.
Plus, if it is actually community benefit and meets the community benefit that a CBS should be providing then surely SMISA therefore finally are able to display the necessary credentials to qualify for community funding from community lenders. 50K for 4g, club can maintain the academy operations, local youth players can, through their own boys club, aspire to get on to that pathway and as such it leads to more determined players, possibly fitter and healthier players, wanting to play better and progress. The St Mirren community gets better players, but the wider community should see more players with a drive and passion to progress. That won't only see benefits to St Mirren, it'll possibly see the local clubs progress as their squads develop and more kids not in teams want to join. SMISA could even use slots at Ralston to offer training, not drop-in sessions, to some age levels having also paid for a few SMISA members to get coaching badges.
But, what do people like me know?   

Enough to have my ear and my respect.

[linwood buddie]

I thought the 50K being converted into shares was a better suggestion , ultimately that is what its for anyway is it not? 

[TsuMirren]

19 minutes ago, linwood buddie said:

I thought the 50K being converted into shares was a better suggestion , ultimately that is what its for anyway is it not? 

It's a decent suggestion, no real mechanism for it at the moment. I was going to say no appetite, but I can't 100% say Gordon would say no or that SMISA's board wouldn't try. I have never seen the takeover agreement documents (how can you operate as a board member, etc...yes I know) and I forget the exact ins and outs of the various %'s. Really obvious issue would be that the 50K would, most easily, be for Gordon's shares and therefore not actually paid to the club so not available to cover the 1/3rd portion of the quote. Other option is to make another 50K of shares available, but does that then make all other shares less valuable just by the fact everyone then has a lower % of the overall value...I'm no expert on that. So, ultimately it is the intended use of the funds though it's to pay Gordon for his shares and not to finance the club. 

SMISA can release community shares, but again not entirely sure the value of them or even the point. Other football club aligned societies have done it.

[billyg]

I was talking to few about the situ today , they all were very meh-ish about the whole thing , one of them actually said they can do what they want with the money as long as it helps the club ,I'm probably in the same boat !

[Kombibuddie]

I was talking to few about the situ today , they all were very meh-ish about the whole thing , one of them actually said they can do what they want with the money as long as it helps the club ,I'm probably in the same boat !

Billy,
That's the danger.
You, I, the few you were talking to & every other member are putting in a minimum of £1440 and we all want to see the club flourish.
"but it's helping the club" is the emotional attachment that many will not look beyond.

I've looked beyond it and if the ring fenced money gets used once, it might get used again (& again & again)

We signed up to BTB because we believe, fan ownership is the best thing for the club.
Ensuring the ring fenced money stays ring fenced for its intended purpose is the best help for the club. That is the bottom line.

I believe, every ordinary SMISA member should vote this down.

[davidg]

7 hours ago, linwood buddie said:

I thought the 50K being converted into shares was a better suggestion , ultimately that is what its for anyway is it not? 

If used for a share purchase the 50k would go straight to GLS or the selling consortium, not to the club and towards buying the 4G pitch. 

[madball]

I've voted no for this as I'm uncomfortable with funds which were included as part of the sales pitch as being ring-fenced being now seen as fair game when the club comes calling.

I wouldn't have ruled it out if there was an earlier conversion into shares as part of the deal, but understand the practicalities of a share issue would've diluted numbers and purchasing from GLS would not have raised capital for the club.

SMISA are asking members here to take a leap of confidence that income will continue to accrue at a rate to repay the ring-fenced monies. That seems a great deal for the club in reducing their exposure and risk, at the detriment of a group of shareholders currently owning less than 30%.

From the outset I was always clear in my mind around why I joined BTB and it was initially about obtaining a block of shares to prohibit an individual enough control over the shares that they could override minority shareholders. Once that was achieved I would reconsider where I was financially and see if the direction, not goal, of SMISA matched with mine before continuing. As things stand I'm not quite ready to call it quits yet, but I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of transparency and the willingness of SMISA to bend and be compliant with the whims of the board of the club.

[garzo]

2 hours ago, davidg said:

If used for a share purchase the 50k would go straight to GLS or the selling consortium, not to the club and towards buying the 4G pitch. 

Shares would be transferred between shareholders in lieu of investments by another shareholder when only 1 of them makes the investment.  

All money would go to the club but GS would transfer shares to SMISA as he’s not directly investing .

In proportion & by agreement of course. Business like ye ken.

otherwise it’s a loan or sponsorship & that’s not the purpose for the money.

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by garzo

[Buddymarvellous]

I reckoned the question can be condensed into two issues

 

1 Is it okay to donate the majority of the next 9 quarterly pots (9 X £5K) to the club to help buy a new astoturf pitch 

2 Is it okay to ‘borrow’ the total £50K from the main ring-fenced fund meantime.

Some folk may be okay with the principal of helping the club out on the first part but are uncomfortable with the second part.

For me I have voted no because I feel the club should be managing such capital investments and not be using the SMISA £2 pot as a cash cow.

I also think the second issue would be a deal breaker for me.

 

[davidg]

3 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

4 hours ago, davidg said:

If used for a share purchase the 50k would go straight to GLS or the selling consortium, not to the club and towards buying the 4G pitch. 

I thought the OP was meaning for it to buy new issued shares rather than existing ones.

There’s no chance this will happen. 

[BuddieinEK]

I reckoned the question can be condensed into two issues
 
1 Is it okay to donate the majority of the next 9 quarterly pots (9 X £5K) to the club to help buy a new astoturf pitch 
2 Is it okay to ‘borrow’ the total £50K from the main ring-fenced fund meantime.
Some folk may be okay with the principal of helping the club out on the first part but are uncomfortable with the second part.
For me I have voted no because I feel the club should be managing such capital investments and not be using the SMISA £2 pot as a cash cow.
I also think the second issue would be a deal breaker for me.
 

Thank feck someone sees these as two separate issues.
Dug wi a bone boy had almost worn me down.

[buddiecat]

On 07/04/2018 at 8:11 AM, melmac said:

Yes but was there a positive actual "hands up" vote? Was the resolution passed as below?

Power of certain societies to disapply section 83

(1)A registered society may by resolution disapply section 83 (duty to appoint auditors) in respect of a year of account if—

(a)the total value of its assets at the end of the preceding year of account did not exceed £2,800,000, and

(b)its turnover for that preceding year did not exceed £5,600,000.

(2)The resolution must be passed at a general meeting at which—

(a)less than 20% of the total votes cast are cast against the resolution, and

(b)less than 10% of the society's members for the time being entitled under its rules to vote cast their votes against the resolution.

 

It was hands up but no counting took place.

[Lord Pityme]

Before during and after the game yesterday everyone i spoke to were genuinely upset at the content, tone and complete betrayal in trust that this shambolic voting option has caused.

there is now a genuine lack of trust in smisa as it seeks to simply walk all over the core promise it made to 'ring fence' the funds for share purchase on its watch. Furthermore there was genuine disbelief at the proposal put forward of giving the club £50k of share purchase money, which... its then proposed the membership make good from their own pockets somewhere down the line.

this propsal breaks another promise that perhaps smisa wish to go unnoticed..? If its voted through, and £50k is given for the club to buy a new carpet it will in effect put Smisa into debt..! An internal debt of its own creation spending beyond its means as it relies on an un guaranteed continuous and future source of funding to pay off this debt.

its been clear to me for quite some time that the influence held over the Smisa committee will lead to a crash, we saw the same happen at Dundee a few years ago when again after a short period club influence was exerted to change the very essence of what the membership had set out to achieve.

we need as the membership to not only reject this ill conceived, bad option. But also call on the Smisa committee to withdraw this bad vote, consult with the membership and gauge if there is any appetite whatsoever to dis-apply the asset lock around the ring-fenced funds. If the committee decline this request then it wil be time to look towards other options including the removal of the committee, and installing a new board who will actually work within the guidelines the membership lay down.

Real Smisa...? Anyone..?

 

[FTOF]

Some posts might drive you to vote yes.

 

[BuddieinEK]

Before during and after the game yesterday everyone i spoke to were genuinely upset at the content, tone and complete betrayal in trust that this shambolic voting option has caused.
there is now a genuine lack of trust in smisa as it seeks to simply walk all over the core promise it made to 'ring fence' the funds for share purchase on its watch. Furthermore there was genuine disbelief at the proposal put forward of giving the club £50k of share purchase money, which... its then proposed the membership make good from their own pockets somewhere down the line.
this propsal breaks another promise that perhaps smisa wish to go unnoticed..? If its voted through, and £50k is given for the club to buy a new carpet it will in effect put Smisa into debt..! An internal debt of its own creation spending beyond its means as it relies on an un guaranteed continuous and future source of funding to pay off this debt.
its been clear to me for quite some time that the influence held over the Smisa committee will lead to a crash, we saw the same happen at Dundee a few years ago when again after a short period club influence was exerted to change the very essence of what the membership had set out to achieve.
we need as the membership to not only reject this ill conceived, bad option. But also call on the Smisa committee to withdraw this bad vote, consult with the membership and gauge if there is any appetite whatsoever to dis-apply the asset lock around the ring-fenced funds. If the committee decline this request then it wil be time to look towards other options including the removal of the committee, and installing a new board who will actually work within the guidelines the membership lay down.
Real Smisa...? Anyone..?
 

The People's Front of SMISA?

I jest, of course.

You make a very valid point.

I still fear the vote will overwhelmingly be voted through simply because it is cloaked in "good for the team" and ultimately we all want what is good for the team.

Stealing candy! That easy.
That is a huge concern.

[bazil85]

56 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Before during and after the game yesterday everyone i spoke to were genuinely upset at the content, tone and complete betrayal in trust that this shambolic voting option has caused.

there is now a genuine lack of trust in smisa as it seeks to simply walk all over the core promise it made to 'ring fence' the funds for share purchase on its watch. Furthermore there was genuine disbelief at the proposal put forward of giving the club £50k of share purchase money, which... its then proposed the membership make good from their own pockets somewhere down the line.

this propsal breaks another promise that perhaps smisa wish to go unnoticed..? If its voted through, and £50k is given for the club to buy a new carpet it will in effect put Smisa into debt..! An internal debt of its own creation spending beyond its means as it relies on an un guaranteed continuous and future source of funding to pay off this debt.

its been clear to me for quite some time that the influence held over the Smisa committee will lead to a crash, we saw the same happen at Dundee a few years ago when again after a short period club influence was exerted to change the very essence of what the membership had set out to achieve.

we need as the membership to not only reject this ill conceived, bad option. But also call on the Smisa committee to withdraw this bad vote, consult with the membership and gauge if there is any appetite whatsoever to dis-apply the asset lock around the ring-fenced funds. If the committee decline this request then it wil be time to look towards other options including the removal of the committee, and installing a new board who will actually work within the guidelines the membership lay down.

Real Smisa...? Anyone..?

 

Bet you were a little ray of sunshine at the game yesterday. Haha

it’s actually laughable you think a democratic vote is a ‘betrayal in trust’ 

the rest of the waffle in that post will all be answered if this vote passes. It’ll show the paying members have faith in SMISA to continue as is and are happy in changing the ring fence terms.

If it’s voted down, it’ll simply show the system works. No one at SMISA has any power in this, it’s paying members. Overwhelmingly clear. 

You just seem to like being negative about BTB and all doom and gloom about what might happen in the future. Wonder if you’ll be one of the toys out the pram if the vote doesn’t go your way... 

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, BuddieinEK said:

The People's Front of SMISA?

I jest, of course.

You make a very valid point.

I still fear the vote will overwhelmingly be voted through simply because it is cloaked in "good for the team" and ultimately we all want what is good for the team.

Stealing candy! That easy.
That is a huge concern.

In what way is it ‘cloaked’? It is good for the club, nothing cloaked about it. 

As for a huge concern, if everyone continues to pay as they do now there’s no risk and no concern. If they stop, only have themselves to blame when the funds can’t be replaced. 

[BuddieinEK]

Bet you were a little ray of sunshine at the game yesterday. Haha
it’s actually laughable you think a democratic vote is a ‘betrayal in trust’ 
the rest of the waffle in that post will all be answered if this vote passes. It’ll show the paying members have faith in SMISA to continue as is and are happy in changing the ring fence terms.
If it’s voted down, it’ll simply show the system works. No one at SMISA has any power in this, it’s paying members. Overwhelmingly clear. 
You just seem to like being negative about BTB and all doom and gloom about what might happen in the future. Wonder if you’ll be one of the toys out the pram if the vote doesn’t go your way... 

For the umpteenth time... Voting on the use of ring-fenced money bypasses a vote on ring-fenced money being used at all and is therefore NOT a democratic vote on whether ring-fenced money can be freed up and used gor sny other purpose.

You seem to have the same idea of democracy as America who think it is appropriate to impose democracy on other nations!

[bazil85]

Just now, BuddieinEK said:

For the umpteenth time... Voting on the use of ring-fenced money bypasses a vote on ring-fenced money being used at all and is therefore NOT a democratic vote on whether ring-fenced money can be freed up and used gor sny other purpose.

You seem to have the same idea of democracy as America who think it is appropriate to impose democracy on other nations!

For the umpteenth time, that is utter rubbish and you show no faith in your fellow St Mirren fans to know what a yes vote means. Do you genuinely think we have dribbling idiots voting yes to using the ring fenced funds that will turn round and go ‘oh does that mean we’re using the ring fenced money?’ 

Oh my days mate, someone have a word. Haha