The 3 Monthly Spend

[Kombibuddie]

1 minute ago, smcc said:

It seems to have escaped your notice that the intention is to pay back the ring fenced £50K in a fairly short space of time, thus reinstating the share purchase fund.

It seems to have escaped your notice that no it hasn't. 

Welcome to the discussion but have you read back?

If you had, you'd have read my thoughts on what the purpose of the ring fence is and what the £10's were to be used for.

 

It seems to have escaped your notice, that SMISA themselves said  this

29 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

"The £2 pot was money we always budgeted to spend. The £10s are budgeted for the share purchase and we are well ahead of target on that"

they said nothing about the using an excuse of the £10's gathering dust, to dip into it  and they certainly said nothing about borrowing from the ring fenced pot when the club asked.  The money is ring fenced and like the £2 pot was always budgeted to spend, the £10 pot was always budgeted to gather dust until the time was right to Buy the Buds. That seems to have escaped your notice too.

You don't see much but as I said, welcome to the discussion.

 

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Bazil85?
Easy to click yes on an online vote!
Willing to put money where your mouth is?

My overdraft is at the limit snd credit card not too healthy.

Not been abroad for a couple of years as can't afford it.

Despite that, I am willing to financially contribute to the purchase of astroturf if it means protecting ring-fenced money for the share purchase.

Are you in?

If this vote fails and they suggest this then yes I'll match your money. Even if it passes I don't see why we can't do this anyway to quicker replace some of the ring-fence if fans have appetite to pay more in. A lot of fans might not though. Got to remember a lot of good people already pay in over and above with SMISA, 1877 club, magazine subscriptions etc. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, garzo said:

"""would reduce the core budget available for the first team and the club's day-to-day operation

=  if you don’t do it the playing budget will be affected.

So our share of the pitch upgrade at Ralston would – over time – be paid for entirely from £2 and discretionary money –
but we would use funds which would otherwise be sitting in the bank to let it happen sooner."""

is emotional blackmail :-)

It's sitting in the bank for a reason!!!

How is it emotional blackmail?  That's the answer to the question and it would be question 1 on most peoples list. Would you rather they just didn't answer?

[TsuMirren]

1 hour ago, FTOF said:

Really?

From the subtle and not so subtle personal attacks on our current board and SMISA members, in several of the posts on this matter, I'd suggest that not everyone is simply posting on the aforementioned premise. 

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, comes to mind.........................

There have been some great posts though from people without a personal agenda, who are obviously quite passionate about this type of matter.

 

Of course, even supporting the proposal is an agenda. As is wanting all cash on the pitch, not voting, etc etc. Let's just address the elephant in the room, be adult, and admit we all have an agenda. I think it's mostly been quite constructive, healthy. 

[Sonny]

In any type of organisation when people have legitimate concerns then those concerns should be listened to and addressed and not dismissed out of hand otherwise you are alienating members of your organisation. There are concerns over this proposal and being constantly told 'don't worry' is not addressing those concerns. Hearing is not the same as listening and SMiSA should maybe start listening. Those who have concerns have proposed two votes (one for using ring-fenced funds and two for spending it on a pitch) which could have the same outcome as the one proposal being muted. The difference is everyone would then be on board. Not having the capacity to listen is what causes most breakups of any kind of relationship.

[Kombibuddie]

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 There is very very very little risk in giving the money up front given the current membership numbers.

There is every risk, the pot gathering dust gets dipped into again & again & again.

I gave the analogy a few days back of Mrs Poz's telly fund and Poz (the scoundrel) dipping into it for a new set of golf clubs. There are loads of clubs/committees throughout the land, who can site experiences of their funds being used for other things and it puts their whole purpose at risk.

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

What you're suggesting there is absolutely fine.

Great, we are agreed.

However, that is what should have been proposed. As you quite rightly have pointed out, if the SMISA vote says no, he club will foot that £50K.

My alternative proposal, would, I believe, ensure greater support from the SMISA membership to support and over the next 10 quarters, guarantee St Mirren FC PLC income generation of £50000  that could be budgeted for the betterment of the club.

Whether that be playing budget, sports scientists, HoF Boards, Giant screens, TV screens in the vomitories or even upgrading the PA system.

Oi OI! there's a thought, how is the PA system these days? Is it sorted or is it still gash? SMISA £2 pot to upgrade that. get it on a vote. 

24 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 I'm guessing as a person you're pretty risk averse?

Playing guessing games can be ill advised. In this instance, you are not correct but I am averse to selling something on a promise and then changing that promise and I am averse to f**king about with other peoples money when I made a promise to do one specific thing with it.

Give us a definite guarantee that the £10 pot won't be dipped into again or again & I'll go on my merry way. But this explains things pretty well and is just not a cry of "it's ring fenced"

1 hour ago, pozbaird said:

To my eyes, the whole situation reminds me of Barcelona and shirt sponsorship. Firstly it was ‘we will never sully the jersey with advertising’ - then they slipped on a charity logo and said it was a one-off, but then it progressed to ‘Qatar Foundation’, a hybrid between ‘proper’ sponsorship and charity..... then, having had shirts ‘sullied’ with some sort of wording on it, fans accepted it, and they just went full-on, and now have chest and sleeve sponsorship like everyone else.

As an outsider looking in, the ring-fenced money, if dipped into for the astroturf project following any ‘yes’ vote, is like Barcelona first dipping into shirt sponsorship with the charity logo. Once folk got used to it, there was no going back. I see the club dipping into it again, if they get a yes to astroturf this time. They will come up with something else, then something else..... one of which I bet you will be the suggestion of funding a player purchase. Then, in my opinion, we will head to a place where any thought of fan ownership as it is currently being mooted, will simply not happen. GLS and Co will become the new SG and Co, with a role for SMiSA somewhere in the boardroom. The club will be run along traditional lines, and having shown all the stuff the SMiSA members monies bought over recent years, a ‘new deal’ will be worked on to continue with monthly monies being collected, pooling the £2s and &10s into a ‘buy stuff FOR the Buds’ fund, rather than a ‘Buy the Buds’ fund. If we are doing OK as a top flight club, that kind of arrangement may well be good for everyone, and as I said in a previous post or two, I’d rather buy into that if it was upfront and honest. I wouldn’t mind it simply being a fund that shows clear benefit to all with St Mirren at heart.... so, while under those circumstances I would absolutely vote ‘yes’ to astroturf, I would also hope projects would be put to the vote for funding that also were directly benefitting fans I.E. maybe installing TVs around concourses, upgrade the PA system, get a bigger better scoreboard, all sorts could be put to a vote.

I simply think if there’s a yes vote for the astroturf, having never firstly asked fans about the principle of dipping into their ring-fenced money, then once folk accept the shirts being sullied, they won’t mind it happening all the time. As things stand, my personal preference would be for GLS and Co to simply become the new SG and Co, with a SMiSA role, but for fcuk sake, don’t allow them to run the whole shooting match.

Just my opinion, but admittedly I have been drinking.... coffee.

 

[Kombibuddie]

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

You see right there!

thats a thought through, considered proposal. Unfortunately the Smisa committee jump to what ever tune Scott is whistling, before we had even signed up one person on the BTB campaign he was already saying in regards to the ring fenced funds "that money will just be gathering dust"....

personally i thought and still believe we picked the right horse with BTB, as for the jockey..? 

If I lived local, I'd have wanted to be in the saddle too. Pesky London living.

[Lord Pityme]

Worth noting that the deception of the portion of your subscription going into the ring fenced fund is still the line being used by Smisa to recruit new members! Its here on this link in black & white (&red)... this is not simply misleading, but breaks the rules set out by the FCA, in addition to breaking tne asset lock in the Smisa constitution..!

its beyond what you, or me see as being ok, or not. or are happy to go along with.. its an illegal proposal to access ring fenced funds, in a Community Benefit Society protected by an asset lock. The fact that the Smisa committee actually put this forward begs the question of stunning incompetence in not being able to take five minutes to check the legal implications before putting it forward, or, more worringly knowing the legal status, but hoping to 'Wing It' on good will, emotional ties, and the " aye but we're just doing this part time, we're saints fans, I'm jist a joiner" pally, pally approach.

https://www.smisa.net/signup

And from the constitution:

1. 4.5  operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;

2. APPLICATION OF SURPLUS

   7. The surpluses of the Society are not to be distributed either directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever among members of the Society but shall be applied: 

   1. 7.1  to maintain prudent reserves;

   2. 7.2  on expenditure to achieve the Society’s objects;

   3. 7.3  in paying interest on or repaying issued share capital in accordance with the provisions of these Rules. 

   4. ASSET LOCK

      8. Restriction on use: Pursuant to regulations made under section 1 of the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014:

      All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.

      1. 8.1  The society must not use or deal with its assets except-

         1. 8.1.1  where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for the benefit of the community;

         2. 8.1.2  to pay a member of the society the value of his withdrawable share capital or interest on such capital;

         3. 8.1.3  to make a payment pursuant under section 36 (payments in respect of persons lacking capacity) 37 (nomination by members of entitlement to property in society on member’s death), 40 (death of a member: distribution of property not exceeding £5,000) of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014;

         4. 8.1.4  to make a payment in accordance with the Rules of the society to trustees of the property of bankrupt members or, in Scotland, members whose estate has been sequestrated;

         5. 8.1.5  where the society is to be dissolved or wound up, to pay its creditors; or

         6. 8.1.6  to transfer its assets to one or more of the following:

            1. 8.1.6.1  a prescribed community benefit society whose assets have been made subject to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred; 

            2.  

               1. 8.1.6.2  a community interest company;

               2. 8.1.6.3  a registered social landlord which has a restriction on the use of its assets which is equivalent to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred;

               3. 8.1.6.4  a charity (including a community benefit society that is a charity) ;or

               4. 8.1.6.5  a body, established in Northern Ireland or a State other than the United Kingdom, that is equivalent to any of those persons.

               1. 8.2  Any expression used in this Rule which is defined for the purposes of regulations made under section 1 of the 2003 Act shall have the meaning given by those regulations.] 

   When. BTB was launched everyone who signed up was made aware that £2 from your subscription was not going into the asset locked surplus, but was being made available at members discretion to spend on club/community based projects.

   the remainder of your subscription was the deposited in an asset locked Community Benefit Society, as you can see it contravenes the Smisa constitution, and therefore the relevant legislation to transfer funds from an asset locked CBS to what SMFC is a PLC.

   it is wholly and without doubt illegal, the members cannot, even if they chose vote on disapplying the asset lock! Smisa have waded into a puddle of shit here and they dont have big enough boots on to stop it all slopping in ove the top!

[bazil85]

49 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

There is every risk, the pot gathering dust gets dipped into again & again & again.

I gave the analogy a few days back of Mrs Poz's telly fund and Poz (the scoundrel) dipping into it for a new set of golf clubs. There are loads of clubs/committees throughout the land, who can site experiences of their funds being used for other things and it puts their whole purpose at risk.

Great, we are agreed.

However, that is what should have been proposed. As you quite rightly have pointed out, if the SMISA vote says no, he club will foot that £50K.

My alternative proposal, would, I believe, ensure greater support from the SMISA membership to support and over the next 10 quarters, guarantee St Mirren FC PLC income generation of £50000  that could be budgeted for the betterment of the club.

Whether that be playing budget, sports scientists, HoF Boards, Giant screens, TV screens in the vomitories or even upgrading the PA system.

Oi OI! there's a thought, how is the PA system these days? Is it sorted or is it still gash? SMISA £2 pot to upgrade that. get it on a vote. 

Playing guessing games can be ill advised. In this instance, you are not correct but I am averse to selling something on a promise and then changing that promise and I am averse to f**king about with other peoples money when I made a promise to do one specific thing with it.

Give us a definite guarantee that the £10 pot won't be dipped into again or again & I'll go on my merry way. But this explains things pretty well and is just not a cry of "it's ring fenced"

 

1. The pot won't get dipped into again and again unless paying members vote it's the right thing. I also wouldn't say that's a valid reason to shoot down this proposal. 

2. Answered in above point, we'd be voting on whatever happens. I think it's unfair to assume SMISA members would open the floodgates to more risky asks just because they've agreed something with such little risk. If I put £10 on St Mirren to win the league on Tuesday it doesn't mean I'll put £500 on us beating Livi on Saturday

3. There's a difference between saying something has merit and 'agreeing' on it. I think it has merit if I had a straight choice between it and the current proposal I would 'agree' with the current proposal being the best one going forward. 

4. Your next suggestions makes assumptions that other fans (majority) paying their money would want them over the £50k given to the pitch. I'd be very skeptical on that. Big TVs at the ground Vs the opportunity to save St Mirren £50k for our first season back in the SP. Absolutely no contest what I'd vote on (and if previous votes are anything to go by, dare I say other fans feel the same) 

5. Guessing games can be ill advised yes but your next point isn't valid. No one has changed any promise, they've simply asked fans to vote on a new proposal. Changing the promise would be saying 'it's happening end of.' 

6. Why should there be a definite guarantee? That's taking away voting rights of the SMISA paying population. I'd say the opposite, give me a guarantee that'll never happen. 

Out of interest, few people on here I've been going back and forward, are you all still paying the monthly Direct Debit? Obviously feel free not to answer. 

[smcc]

1 hour ago, Graeme Aitken said:

It seems to have escaped your notice that no it hasn't. 

Welcome to the discussion but have you read back?

If you had, you'd have read my thoughts on what the purpose of the ring fence is and what the £10's were to be used for.

 

It seems to have escaped your notice, that SMISA themselves said  this

they said nothing about the using an excuse of the £10's gathering dust, to dip into it  and they certainly said nothing about borrowing from the ring fenced pot when the club asked.  The money is ring fenced and like the £2 pot was always budgeted to spend, the £10 pot was always budgeted to gather dust until the time was right to Buy the Buds. That seems to have escaped your notice too.

You don't see much but as I said, welcome to the discussion.

 

I have read every post in this thread and I think that you are nit-picking.

The  share-purchase fund will  be replenished over the next two years which is well in advance of the proposed fans takeover date.

The following is a direct quote from the SMISA proposal:- "The proposal – which we would like you to vote on – can be summarised as follows:
- SMISA would – this summer – make £50,000 of existing funds from our share purchase pot (ie the £10 portion of your monthly membership) available to the club.
- we would then ‘reinstate’ that £50,000 by committing £5,000 from each of the next nine quarterly spends – plus £5,000 available now of leftover funds which pre-date the #BuyTheBuds campaign. "

Edited April 9, 2018 by smcc

[bazil85]

22 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Worth noting that the deception of the portion of your subscription going into the ring fenced fund is still the line being used by Smisa to recruit new members! Its here on this link in black & white (&red)... this is not simply misleading, but breaks the rules set out by the FCA, in addition to breaking tne asset lock in the Smisa constitution..!

its beyond what you, or me see as being ok, or not. or are happy to go along with.. its an illegal proposal to access ring fenced funds, in a Community Benefit Society protected by an asset lock. The fact that the Smisa committee actually put this forward begs the question of stunning incompetence in not being able to take five minutes to check the legal implications before putting it forward, or, more worringly knowing the legal status, but hoping to 'Wing It' on good will, emotional ties, and the " aye but we're just doing this part time, we're saints fans, I'm jist a joiner" pally, pally approach.

https://www.smisa.net/signup

And from the constitution:

1. 4.5  operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;

2. APPLICATION OF SURPLUS

   7. The surpluses of the Society are not to be distributed either directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever among members of the Society but shall be applied: 

   1. 7.1  to maintain prudent reserves;

   2. 7.2  on expenditure to achieve the Society’s objects;

   3. 7.3  in paying interest on or repaying issued share capital in accordance with the provisions of these Rules. 

   4. ASSET LOCK

      8. Restriction on use: Pursuant to regulations made under section 1 of the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014:

      All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.

      1. 8.1  The society must not use or deal with its assets except-

         1. 8.1.1  where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for the benefit of the community;

         2. 8.1.2  to pay a member of the society the value of his withdrawable share capital or interest on such capital;

         3. 8.1.3  to make a payment pursuant under section 36 (payments in respect of persons lacking capacity) 37 (nomination by members of entitlement to property in society on member’s death), 40 (death of a member: distribution of property not exceeding £5,000) of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014;

         4. 8.1.4  to make a payment in accordance with the Rules of the society to trustees of the property of bankrupt members or, in Scotland, members whose estate has been sequestrated;

         5. 8.1.5  where the society is to be dissolved or wound up, to pay its creditors; or

         6. 8.1.6  to transfer its assets to one or more of the following:

            1. 8.1.6.1  a prescribed community benefit society whose assets have been made subject to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred; 

            2.  

               1. 8.1.6.2  a community interest company;

               2. 8.1.6.3  a registered social landlord which has a restriction on the use of its assets which is equivalent to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred;

               3. 8.1.6.4  a charity (including a community benefit society that is a charity) ;or

               4. 8.1.6.5  a body, established in Northern Ireland or a State other than the United Kingdom, that is equivalent to any of those persons.

               1. 8.2  Any expression used in this Rule which is defined for the purposes of regulations made under section 1 of the 2003 Act shall have the meaning given by those regulations.] 

   When. BTB was launched everyone who signed up was made aware that £2 from your subscription was not going into the asset locked surplus, but was being made available at members discretion to spend on club/community based projects.

   the remainder of your subscription was the deposited in an asset locked Community Benefit Society, as you can see it contravenes the Smisa constitution, and therefore the relevant legislation to transfer funds from an asset locked CBS to what SMFC is a PLC.

   it is wholly and without doubt illegal, the members cannot, even if they chose vote on disapplying the asset lock! Smisa have waded into a puddle of shit here and they dont have big enough boots on to stop it all slopping in ove the top!

Okay we get it, you're not a fan but there is nothing illegal happening here. 

ASSET LOCK
8. Restriction on use: Pursuant to regulations made under section 1 of the Co-operatives and 
Community Benefit Societies Act 2014:
All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.
8.1 The society must not use or deal with its assets except-
8.1.1 where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for 
the benefit of the community;

https://communityshares.org.uk/resources/handbook/asset-lock-provisions Whole bunch of details on asset lock here. 

There is both a direct and indirect community benefit therefore nothing illegal. 

[bazil85]

30 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Worth noting that the deception of the portion of your subscription going into the ring fenced fund is still the line being used by Smisa to recruit new members! Its here on this link in black & white (&red)... this is not simply misleading, but breaks the rules set out by the FCA, in addition to breaking tne asset lock in the Smisa constitution..!

its beyond what you, or me see as being ok, or not. or are happy to go along with.. its an illegal proposal to access ring fenced funds, in a Community Benefit Society protected by an asset lock. The fact that the Smisa committee actually put this forward begs the question of stunning incompetence in not being able to take five minutes to check the legal implications before putting it forward, or, more worringly knowing the legal status, but hoping to 'Wing It' on good will, emotional ties, and the " aye but we're just doing this part time, we're saints fans, I'm jist a joiner" pally, pally approach.

https://www.smisa.net/signup

And from the constitution:

1. 4.5  operating democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same;

2. APPLICATION OF SURPLUS

   7. The surpluses of the Society are not to be distributed either directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever among members of the Society but shall be applied: 

   1. 7.1  to maintain prudent reserves;

   2. 7.2  on expenditure to achieve the Society’s objects;

   3. 7.3  in paying interest on or repaying issued share capital in accordance with the provisions of these Rules. 

   4. ASSET LOCK

      8. Restriction on use: Pursuant to regulations made under section 1 of the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014:

      All of the society's assets are subject to a restriction on their use.

      1. 8.1  The society must not use or deal with its assets except-

         1. 8.1.1  where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for the benefit of the community;

         2. 8.1.2  to pay a member of the society the value of his withdrawable share capital or interest on such capital;

         3. 8.1.3  to make a payment pursuant under section 36 (payments in respect of persons lacking capacity) 37 (nomination by members of entitlement to property in society on member’s death), 40 (death of a member: distribution of property not exceeding £5,000) of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014;

         4. 8.1.4  to make a payment in accordance with the Rules of the society to trustees of the property of bankrupt members or, in Scotland, members whose estate has been sequestrated;

         5. 8.1.5  where the society is to be dissolved or wound up, to pay its creditors; or

         6. 8.1.6  to transfer its assets to one or more of the following:

            1. 8.1.6.1  a prescribed community benefit society whose assets have been made subject to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred; 

            2.  

               1. 8.1.6.2  a community interest company;

               2. 8.1.6.3  a registered social landlord which has a restriction on the use of its assets which is equivalent to a restriction on use and which will apply that restriction to any assets so transferred;

               3. 8.1.6.4  a charity (including a community benefit society that is a charity) ;or

               4. 8.1.6.5  a body, established in Northern Ireland or a State other than the United Kingdom, that is equivalent to any of those persons.

               1. 8.2  Any expression used in this Rule which is defined for the purposes of regulations made under section 1 of the 2003 Act shall have the meaning given by those regulations.] 

   When. BTB was launched everyone who signed up was made aware that £2 from your subscription was not going into the asset locked surplus, but was being made available at members discretion to spend on club/community based projects.

   the remainder of your subscription was the deposited in an asset locked Community Benefit Society, as you can see it contravenes the Smisa constitution, and therefore the relevant legislation to transfer funds from an asset locked CBS to what SMFC is a PLC.

   it is wholly and without doubt illegal, the members cannot, even if they chose vote on disapplying the asset lock! Smisa have waded into a puddle of shit here and they dont have big enough boots on to stop it all slopping in ove the top!

From that link:

Community benefit societies that have chosen not adopt the restrictions set out in the 2006 Regulations are free to amend their rules regarding the use of assets, subject to FCA approval. A community benefit society might prefer the flexibility of this form of asset lock, because it could in the future amend its rules and apply to become a charitable community benefit society, something which a society with the prescribed asset lock could not do. 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

8.1.1

I believe I quoted that days ago.

I'm sure LPM will amend his false statement regarding the illegality he actually provide the legal proof for the use.

haha yeah, I just went in and bumped it from your previous post instead of snipping it from his. I'm surprised he went full self-defeatist there. 

[Kombibuddie]

38 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Out of interest, few people on here I've been going back and forward, are you all still paying the monthly Direct Debit? Obviously feel free not to answer. 

Been in it from the start and no desire t change that. Because I don't agree with something/ this proposal, doesn't mean my toys are getting chucked but I will argue my beliefs and my case.

You have not said anything that has had any effect on me changing my mind and clearly, I haven't said ought that has affected you changing yours. I doubt, either of us will budge on this.

Lets see what the majority of the SMISA members that vote think. We won't have to like the outcome but, if it's not my preferred decision, i'll respect it and crack on.

[Lord Pityme]

Wont waste my typing with Basil et al... but the simple legal fact is that money is in an asset lock and cannot be transferred to a Private Limited Company. The FCA will see through, like several posters on here (who are saints fans through & through) the wafer thin promise of a Community Benefit angle. Its so pathetic you can read in the vote proposal how unsure smisa are of it.

having personally signed up several saints fans to BTB, i can from real time experience tell you to a man & lady the main question they wanted assurance on as i walked them through an online application was "is this money ring fenced, is it just going to buy the club"...

as a Smisa committee member, with decades of experience in the type of organisation smisa is i was able to say "apart from your £2 discretionary pot, yes.. the other £10 or £23 is going into an asset lock in our community benefit society, and is ring fenced for one purpose only... to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC"

presumably i can also be called to answer why i mislead those smisa members as to the intentions of Smisa & SMFC to use their money for purposes other than they were assured it would be used for..?

[bazil85]

25 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Wont waste my typing with Basil et al... but the simple legal fact is that money is in an asset lock and cannot be transferred to a Private Limited Company. The FCA will see through, like several posters on here (who are saints fans through & through) the wafer thin promise of a Community Benefit angle. Its so pathetic you can read in the vote proposal how unsure smisa are of it.

having personally signed up several saints fans to BTB, i can from real time experience tell you to a man & lady the main question they wanted assurance on as i walked them through an online application was "is this money ring fenced, is it just going to buy the club"...

as a Smisa committee member, with decades of experience in the type of organisation smisa is i was able to say "apart from your £2 discretionary pot, yes.. the other £10 or £23 is going into an asset lock in our community benefit society, and is ring fenced for one purpose only... to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC"

presumably i can also be called to answer why i mislead those smisa members as to the intentions of Smisa & SMFC to use their money for purposes other than they were assured it would be used for..?

You don't need to, you're argument has been defeated by your own doing just fine. As for the community benefit being wafer thin, it's really not. Feel free to contact the FCA, as I said earlier on this thread, you'll get the same response as our friend Mr D. 

As for the rest of your waffle, for the millionth time there is no miss-leading and nothing underhanded. It's a proposal paying members are being asked to vote on. And a very low risk one from that matter. 

[Lord Pityme]

34 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You don't need to, you're argument has been defeated by your own doing just fine. As for the community benefit being wafer thin, it's really not. Feel free to contact the FCA, as I said earlier on this thread, you'll get the same response as our friend Mr D. 

As for the rest of your waffle, for the millionth time there is no miss-leading and nothing underhanded. It's a proposal paying members are being asked to vote on. And a very low risk one from that matter. 

Oh well... here goes.

a Community Benefit Society CANNOT transfer money out of its asset lock to a plc.

the wafer thin thing about perhaps being some community benefit in it wont wash. The pitch is primarily for the use of SMFC, and the academy. Members of the academy pay to be in it, for youth, or are SMFC employees and come from near and far. Every st mirren fan knows that.

smisa state the main benefit of transferring the £50 k for smisa members is the sponsorship of the facility... again Community Benefit Society's cannot transfer assets to a plc. Smisa cannot pay out of this fund to sponsor a plc.

smisa has no real influence, or is consulted on the operations at SMFC (yes we all knew and accepted that). So it has no influence on what, if any community benefit is derived from transferring assets to a plc. You think we will be anle to get the money back if we dont think its open to the community? Ha, ha, ha.....

and just to wrap this up for you, i note with some amusement your continual stance that "its a one off, in isolation, one time thing. And members can say yes or no"

Soz mate by Smisa have already (and this they know) broken the asset lock by transferring £15k to the club to fix the USH, again without any consultation. And again as has been pointed out by other posters all they needed to do was put it up for two £2 pot votes as it wasnt fixed for months after the £15k was transferred.

in addition they have, or will break the asset lock again by opening up an additional £50k lending facility (with no payback term) to SMFC..!

that £115k of the money promised to smisa members to be ring fenced, asset locked for one purpose only... to BTB

yeah its just in isolation.... ffs not wasting my time trying to convince you! But all Smisa members need to sit up and pay attention or we will all be guilty of sleepwalking into a crisis. No one on the board are putting money into SMFC, is any coming out?

Yul.... no like them apples... ho, ho silver.

edit: just an additional LoL on the smisa the club extolling the non existent community benefit angle.... yeah the club chairman was all over the community benefit angle on the Glenvale vote on or own £2 pot... what a laugh!

Edited April 9, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[TediousTom]

On ‎21‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 5:43 PM, melmac said:

Tbh, i think smisa guys now need to be more visible on here (or are they already?), simply providing one email address for the whole membership to use doesn't cut it, there needs an ongoing conversation and whether the best way to do that is by having a separate members forum, I'm not sure. Beer time, mmm.

Chapter 1 - The answer to the simple question

Naw they don't.  By Christ they do not.  By the sword of Odin, No.  In the name of the wee man, naw.  By the light of the silvery moon it's a negative.  As sure as eggs are eggs and Greenock is a dump I must say no. 

 

Chapter 2 - What are Smisa really

This is a forum for all supporters of the Saint Mirren professional football club pte ltd co and not just a small section and Smisa ARE a small section.  Something akin to a cult or sect and like all cults or sects they crave power and recognition and will stop at nothing to achieve said aims whilst inevitably alienating those who are not in said cult or sect. 

 

Chapter 3 - The Smisa cult doth grow

Oh yes just now it's just a bit of one upmanship and mutual back patting but soon the cult/sect will slowly become more aggressive in it's aims, shunning less important supporters, ensuring non Smisa supporters pay higher season ticket prices before the inevitable beatings will start.  Soon non Smisa members will have symbols painted on there front doors to identify them and we will be forced to wear special non Smisa badges.  Slowly but surely shops/pubs etc will start to refuse us service, around this time the forehead tattoos of non sect/cult members will be enforced with violence.  As the sect/cult grows it's ambition will grow in line with it's strength until we are all forced to vote for Smisa candidates in unfair council elections.  Smisa will have by then recruited a militia of boot boys, a perversion of the drummer boy and his group who will roam the streets of Paisley and demand randomly that citizens produced a Smisa ID card or risk being shot as an unbeliever.  Rival protest groups will be ruthlessly shut down with violence and murder, groups like "The communist Buddies" and "St Mirin peace brigade" will have there shops and businesses burnt out with all male members being put to death whilst female members will have there heads shaved at Paisley cross and SMISA 4EVA tattooed upon there heathen foreheads.  Black and white leather coats will be worn by high ranking Smisa officials, also know as "the Smisa Polis" who will pick up non Smisa supporters in open top cars and drive them off toward the braes where they are never seen again.  Smisa will grow and grow under a ruthless and ideological fitba junta and have all of Paisley firmly under it's jackboot.

 

Chapter 4 - How the mighty fall

History tells us that such power hungry cults/sects are doomed to failure.  Even Christianity with its roots as a Roman Empire sect and having it's inquisition and all that evil in its past will also fade as it is doing today.  Smisa, although destined to be powerful and ruthless will also ultimately die the death of the zealot cult.  Eventually darkness will give way to light, dusk becomes dawn and Paisley will eventually step out of the shadow cast so violently by it's Smisa oppressor's.  Just like all doctrines before, Smisa will slowly but absolutely be doomed by education.  Scholars and martyrs will pose uncomfortable questions to a regime struggling with it's public image such as "why can't we just buy season tickets like we used to" and "but I only go to the odd game as I have to work to feed my starving family, please Smisa overlords let me just buy a ticket now and again".  Like the collapse of the Berlin wall Smisa's wall of oppression will be pulled down, a wall built over a long period of time with fear, violence and oppression will quickly and absolutely lose its power as the enlightened people of Paisley  rise up and take back the freedom that is "can I no just go to the fitba". 

 

Chaper 5 - How will you be remembered

Many a good person will find themselves enforcing Smisa ideology, especially in the early days before the full horror of Smisa domination is released upon an unsuspecting public.  Smisa will have its own heroes and martyrs and in the short term these people will be celebrated by Smisa peers and an afraid public but in time these heroes of society will be written into the history books as the villains they ultimately are.  The fans council (who will be forced to meet in secret much like the Catholics of the reformation) will be vilified and hunted ruthlessly and when caught dragged through the streets to kangaroo courts in the Bankhouse, Langs and the Argylle bar.  The fans council will of course be the beacon of light that even Smisa cannot dull.  The fans council will become increasingly popular amongst  radical students and before too long peaceful protect will turn to ugly riots with tree hugging, greasy haired, spotty, vegetarian students of the "Reid Kerr Fans Cooncil" clashing with with Smisa's elite "Supra brigade".  The fans council will of course lose all the battles as intellect and reason is not particularly good in a pitched battle against the ultra violent Supra's.  Like the Americans during there own revolution the Fans Council will ultimately win the day, not by winning but by returning to the fight time and time again.  Smisa, whilst continuing to inflict heavy losses on the fans council will slowly lose it's ruthless grip on power as it's own band of thugs is slowly depleted by a weaker force that keeps returning reinforced with more and more "lefties" answering the call.  Smisa will eventually fall to a fans council who have been battle hardened and will be unforgiving in its mercy as Smisa officials are tried and convicted of war crimes in those same Kangaroo courts of the Bankhouse, Langs and the Argylle. 

Ultimately Smisa members will be scarcely remembered by history with only tales of its most horrific members used as propaganda by the now ruling fans council.  The history books will of course be emblazoned with heroic stories of the fans council victors.  Stories of the fans council 1st Brigade "Crossing the Cart" will hang proudly in Paisley museum much like Washington crossing the Delaware.  Children will learn one sided accounts of "the massacre at Gilmour street" and "the battle of the Bull Inn" where fans council leaders wear hippy t-shirts and squinty flat bunnet's against the evil Smisa and its black and white leather coats and big boots.  In generations to come all Paisley families will claim to have ancestors who fought in the Paisley revolutionary wars but ALL will celebrate the family members of the fans council and airbrush the Smisa members from there own genealogy.  Smisa will become an insult and children's nursery rhymes will reference the evil Smisa and righteous fans council/

History will remember Smisa as it recalls many a failed dictarship, with hatred and lies!

 

Chaper 6 - What can we do to stop the inevitable hellish rise of Smisa?

Nothing, Smisa and its doctrines all already up and running.  We can however curtail the sect/cult before it grows into the tyrannical power that it is destined to be.  I the meantime I would suggest that Smisa have a members forum (if they don't already) where Smisa people can debate Smisa issues in a Smisa environment populated by there Smisa peers. This will keep the evils of Smisa away from the normal public whilst petty in house Smisa squabbles are fought and various factions viie for power.  The downside of the Smisa forum would be that certain Smisa members would be unable to show off at being Smisa members to us more peasant like non Smisa members who merely support the club in a peasantry style way that marks as less valuable to the human race as Smisa members.  The doctrine is laid out and the future may well be bleak, bleak indeed.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

A few thoughts.
1. We seem to have smisa changing the T&C of the £10 spend.
2. There is no guarantee that this won't happen again, particularly when the reason in support is that it will benefit the playing budget in our return to the top flight.
3. The club need to start living within its means and not looking for handouts from a supporters group whenever a need to spend arises.
4. The above is particularly concerning given that we are in a period of pretty much unprecedented additional income for the club - transfer fees, additional attendance, upcoming league postion money.
5. These additional monies can't be relied upon and we need to start saving for rainy days. IMO, Smisa should be doing this now as they will (relatively) soon find themselves as the major shareholder of the club and won't be able to turn to members for 'bailouts' so readily as now. Particularly as the membership will in all probability drop off once the club is purchased.

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Oh well... here goes.

a Community Benefit Society CANNOT transfer money out of its asset lock to a plc.

the wafer thin thing about perhaps being some community benefit in it wont wash. The pitch is primarily for the use of SMFC, and the academy. Members of the academy pay to be in it, for youth, or are SMFC employees and come from near and far. Every st mirren fan knows that.

smisa state the main benefit of transferring the £50 k for smisa members is the sponsorship of the facility... again Community Benefit Society's cannot transfer assets to a plc. Smisa cannot pay out of this fund to sponsor a plc.

smisa has no real influence, or is consulted on the operations at SMFC (yes we all knew and accepted that). So it has no influence on what, if any community benefit is derived from transferring assets to a plc. You think we will be anle to get the money back if we dont think its open to the community? Ha, ha, ha.....

and just to wrap this up for you, i note with some amusement your continual stance that "its a one off, in isolation, one time thing. And members can say yes or no"

Soz mate by Smisa have already (and this they know) broken the asset lock by transferring £15k to the club to fix the USH, again without any consultation. And again as has been pointed out by other posters all they needed to do was put it up for two £2 pot votes as it wasnt fixed for months after the £15k was transferred.

in addition they have, or will break the asset lock again by opening up an additional £50k lending facility (with no payback term) to SMFC..!

that £115k of the money promised to smisa members to be ring fenced, asset locked for one purpose only... to BTB

yeah its just in isolation.... ffs not wasting my time trying to convince you! But all Smisa members need to sit up and pay attention or we will all be guilty of sleepwalking into a crisis. No one on the board are putting money into SMFC, is any coming out?

Yul.... no like them apples... ho, ho silver.

Oh my days, okay you're right! SMISA are wrong, the club are wrong, those that give legal advice all wrong. This is illegal. We're breaking the law and putting BTB in jeopardy over how much Messi makes in a day  Come on mate, have a think. 

As for the USH, yet again you've humped yourself. That money did NOT come from the asset lock, it came from cash reserves. 

'We would reassure members we have cash reserves which can comfortably cover the sum in question, and as the money will be paid back in full, our long-term financial planning is not affected.'

Don't know how much clearer it can be made to you that a community benefit argument can very easily be made. If you don't agree contact FCA. We'll just wait here for their response  

Another note, the money isn't being transferred to a PLC, it's going on a purchase of a new surface. 

[Lord Pityme]

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Oh my days, okay you're right! SMISA are wrong, the club are wrong, those that give legal advice all wrong. This is illegal. We're breaking the law and putting BTB in jeopardy over how much Messi makes in a day  Come on mate, have a think. 

As for the USH, yet again you've humped yourself. That money did NOT come from the asset lock, it came from cash reserves. 

'We would reassure members we have cash reserves which can comfortably cover the sum in question, and as the money will be paid back in full, our long-term financial planning is not affected.'

Don't know how much clearer it can be made to you that a community benefit argument can very easily be made. If you don't agree contact FCA. We'll just wait here for their response  

Another note, the money isn't being transferred to a PLC, it's going on a purchase of a new surface. 

All smisa money (assets) with clear and specific exception of the £2 discretionary vote pot are protected by an asset lock. Please keep up, despite what you may hope, smisa is a Community Benefit Society and is governed by law as such. Reserves, surplus etc are assets.

hi, ho silver lining.., lol

edit: re your last line, does that mean its an even clearer breach of the BTB ring fenced funds and asset lock if the Smisa committee are now buying one third shares in big green carpets??? You keep setting them up, and I'll keep hammering them into the onion sack son.... we're on our way, we're on our way... to the premier league.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Lord Pityme

[smcc]

13 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

A few thoughts.
1. We seem to have smisa changing the T&C of the £10 spend.
2. There is no guarantee that this won't happen again, particularly when the reason in support is that it will benefit the playing budget in our return to the top flight.
3. The club need to start living within its means and not looking for handouts from a supporters group whenever a need to spend arises.
4. The above is particularly concerning given that we are in a period of pretty much unprecedented additional income for the club - transfer fees, additional attendance, upcoming league postion money.
5. These additional monies can't be relied upon and we need to start saving for rainy days. IMO, Smisa should be doing this now as they will (relatively) soon find themselves as the major shareholder of the club and won't be able to turn to members for 'bailouts' so readily as now. Particularly as the membership will in all probability drop off once the club is purchased.

Why should the membership drop off once the fans are the club owners?

[bazil85]

10 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

All smisa money (assets) with clear and specific exception of the £2 discretionary vote pot are protected by an asset lock. Please keep up, despite what you may hope, smisa is a Community Benefit Society and is governed by law as such. Reserves, surplus etc are assets.

hi, ho silver lining.., lol

edit: re your last line, does that mean its an even clearer breach of the BTB ring fenced funds and asset lock if the Smisa committee are now buying one third shares in big green carpets??? You keep setting them up, and I'll keep hammering them into the onion sack son.... we're on our way, we're on our way... to the premier league.

See (again) 8.1.1 

That big green carpet represents a community benefit. A strong St Mirren is good for the community... Indirect benefit. Youths from community playing on pitch... Direct benefit 

Or maybe you are right and everyone else is wrong 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Why should the membership drop off once the fans are the club owners?

The whole point of the Buy the Buds scheme is to buy the controlling share in the club. It is entirely reasonable to expect that over the course of the number of years it takes to achieve this the membership may drop. This would be another reason to save extra monies for a rainy day IMO.
It is also to be expected that once the goal is achieved some will stop paying the monthly fee, particularly when that is the reason most signed up.

[Kombibuddie]

2 hours ago, smcc said:

 I think that you are nit-picking.

and you are not correct in that assumption.

2 hours ago, smcc said:

I have read every post in this thread and I think that you are nit-picking.

The  share-purchase fund will  be replenished over the next two years which is well in advance of the proposed fans takeover date.

The following is a direct quote from the SMISA proposal:- "The proposal – which we would like you to vote on – can be summarised as follows:
- SMISA would – this summer – make £50,000 of existing funds from our share purchase pot (ie the £10 portion of your monthly membership) available to the club.
- we would then ‘reinstate’ that £50,000 by committing £5,000 from each of the next nine quarterly spends – plus £5,000 available now of leftover funds which pre-date the #BuyTheBuds campaign. "

it's like groundhog day. You have brought absolutely nothing different or of benefit to this discussion.

and we'll go back to the terms & conditions that SMISA sold BTB to us regarding money being ring fenced. Of it being asset locked for 1 purpose and the purpose of the £2 pot being used on St Mirren and wider community projects. It makes not one iota of difference that the "intention" is to pay it back with our own money. It shouldn't need to and it doesn't need to be paid back and here is why.

Income is up due to increased supports. Merchandise sales are up due to increased supports, the 1877 club is thriving and revenue is being created from it (for the club), dare I say, match day hospitality is as popular as it has ever been (more revenue) and to top them all off, the club has generated roughly 1 million pounds in transfer fees in the past year or so. And, we've not even touched the prize money for winning or coming second in the league (no gun jumped there).

it all adds up to money money money coming into The Club and no one could have predicted how well it has gone or what additional revenue could have been realised from our good fortunes this season.

I'll say it again, No One could have predicted the additional money coming into the club this season and as it is unexpected, could not have been budgeted for.

Could not have been budgeted for. There's a thought.

Oi Oi, we've got a few extra quid that's come as a bit of a surprise. What shall we do with it? I know

• lets see what needs doing that we've not been able to get done
• or
• lets ask SMISA for their money, it's only gathering dust and the sheep will buy into it. It's for the good of the club after all.

and here we are, SMISA members are being asked to abandon the Asset lock, tear down the ring fence and "show us the money" and have the privilege of repaying it's own debt to itself.

£50K coming out of the additional income the club has unexpectedly happened upon will not be detrimental to our chances in the SPL next season. You see, there'll be more income coming in due to bigger home and away crowds (visiting support to Greenhill Road). Hospitality prices will resume at SPL prices and I expect will generate more income. Merchandise will shift, more season tickets, 1877 Club will be busier. Prize money from whichever place we finish in will considerably greater than what we get this year. have I said, TV revenue yet, I expect SPL clubs get more from that deal than Championship clubs get from the championship TV deal.

Nit picking! you say?? do me a favour. St Mirren FC does not need to dip into St Mirren' protected funds at all.

I never did like Groundhog day & until someone comes up with a good enough argument, I'll take my leave.

Basil et al, it's been a pleasure debating the ins & outs of this. I respect your opinions and thoughts etc on the matter but I have a very different viewpoint.

I'll be up from London on the 21st for the Morton match and will be using my 1877 membership for the 2nd time, I'll be having a pint with BinEK (he's buying), if you fancy a pint, come over, give us a kick and we'll share a beer. All the best buds.

Poz, if you are in the 1877, i'll tell you how to get a new set of Pings without touching the TV money and getting the wives blessing

Edited April 9, 2018 by Graeme Aitken