Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie
 Share

Recommended Posts


18 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

and you are not correct in that assumption.

 You have brought absolutely nothing different or of benefit to this discussion.

How arrogant.

Excellent credentials for future SMISA board membership according to some.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

and you are not correct in that assumption.

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

I think you're right in that it has become a lot like Groundhog day. Bottom line is there are always going to be different opinions and different takes on where money should be spent for a club like St Mirren that are never going to have the sugar daddy luxury we see at some other clubs. 

It won't lesson my enjoyment of winning the league anymore if the vote is a no and it won't cancel my monthly direct debit. In football terms I'll always priorities what I think is best for St Mirren as I'm sure is the mindset of most if not all fans on here.

The view of what's best might be different but not the virtue. COYS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

Or maybe you are right and everyone else is wrong 

Thats a good point! But given (and i really should know better) you are the only poster i am responding to, yet you! Are responding to mutiple posters.... which of us does the above best fit..?

you know the Smisa committee will take the jersey off you for conceeding so many OG's. 

Tatty By Baz, Yul... get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

and you are not correct in that assumption.

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

Don’t like Pings. Currently using Cobra drivers....

I may however be persuaded that putting £10 a month towards a set of the new Callaway Rogue drivers would be worth doing - unless someone comes along later and says they want to dip into my fund for a set of Dunlop shite fae’ Sports Direct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Thats a good point! But given (and i really should know better) you are the only poster i am responding to, yet you! Are responding to mutiple posters.... which of us does the above best fit..?

you know the Smisa committee will take the jersey off you for conceeding so many OG's. 

Tatty By Baz, Yul... get over it.

I don't see many screaming IT'S ILLEGAL! When I say everyone else is wrong, I'm referring to a significantly larger proportion than the four or five people against it on here. St Mirren reps, board, legal advice and the same for SMISA would all have to be wrong if what you were saying was true. It also is quite staggering you stand by it with the evidence it's not... Especially when it was you that posted said evidence :lol:

As Columbo would say 'Just one more thing.' Given your previous post, can you give me something that you'd consider an 'indirect' community benefit that would be a legal use for the money if not this proposal? Not something you'd be happy with, I just mean from a legal perspective. 

I also assure you, I'm not on the SMISA committee... I do know that's your go to point right enough :P

Edit *I'm not saying the people on here against it are wrong, it's just their opinion. Anyone saying it's illegal though, is most definitely wrong. As the FCA will confirm if a complaint is raised. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I don't see many screaming IT'S ILLEGAL! When I say everyone else is wrong, I'm referring to a significantly larger proportion than the four or five people against it on here. St Mirren reps, board, legal advice and the same for SMISA would all have to be wrong if what you were saying was true. It also is quite staggering you stand by it with the evidence it's not... Especially when it was you that posted said evidence :lol:

As Columbo would say 'Just one more thing.' Given your previous post, can you give me something that you'd consider an 'indirect' community benefit that would be a legal use for the money if not this proposal? Not something you'd be happy with, I just mean from a legal perspective. 

I also assure you, I'm not on the SMISA committee... I do know that's your go to point right enough :P

Smisa can only legally transfer funds out of the £2 pot. So its pretty much fair game for any indirect community benefit.

they cannot transfer from any other fund, its that simple. Its not an opinion, or a preference they are legally constrained to do otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Smisa can only legally transfer funds out of the £2 pot. So its pretty much fair game for any indirect community benefit.

they cannot transfer from any other fund, its that simple. Its not an opinion, or a preference they are legally constrained to do otherwise.

Okay that clears it up for us all. You just don't understand. See AGAIN the extract about moving restricted funds (£10 pot)  

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;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

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 

 

I was playing 5's down at Power League last week, some of the pitches are looking pretty terrible.  Fancy using some of the cash in the bank to pay for new Power League pitches?

After all, a strong Power League is good for the community... Indirect benefit. Youths from community playing on pitch... Direct benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Okay that clears it up for us all. You just don't understand. See AGAIN the extract about moving restricted funds (£10 pot)  

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;

So are the Community going to be able to play on the 3G pitch?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, civilsaint said:

 

I was playing 5's down at Power League last week, some of the pitches are looking pretty terrible.  Fancy using some of the cash in the bank to pay for new Power League pitches?

After all, a strong Power League is good for the community... Indirect benefit. Youths from community playing on pitch... Direct benefit.

You'd easily be able to make an argument for that I'm sure... Not sure what your point is however the great thing about this proposal is it benefits the community and the football club we all support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Okay that clears it up for us all. You just don't understand. See AGAIN the extract about moving restricted funds (£10 pot)  

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;

You miss out the fact the proposal is to transfer the assets to a plc, therfor breaking the asset lock, and that even today on the Smisa website there is a clear commitment outside the £2 pot all the rest of your subscription is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in smfc. And the fact Smisa have sold this as buying sponsorship in a plc.. its a big no, no... 

you cant run a CBS and just decide to swap the rules to suit at any given time. They are in place to protect the MEMBERS assets. These assets do not belong to SMFC and that is a point that some people still haven't grasped.

none of this is my opinion, it is the rules each member, and the Smisa committee willingly signed up to.

they could stop this omnishambles today, cancel the vote, and set a new one asking if members agree, or not to setting aside £5k (if there is £8k total available from the next ten £2 votes to fund the astroturfing. That would be both legal and respectful of their members rights and wishes.

i have a question for you. Do you actually think this, as it stands will end well..? At a time when all we should be doing is revelling  in our imminent glory, both club & smisa have conspired to breach the trust of smisa members. It just wasn't necessary, but follows a pattern of Scott getting what he wants, i.e, other peoples money!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, civilsaint said:

 

I was playing 5's down at Power League last week, some of the pitches are looking pretty terrible.  Fancy using some of the cash in the bank to pay for new Power League pitches?

After all, a strong Power League is good for the community... Indirect benefit. Youths from community playing on pitch... Direct benefit.

And anyone in the community can access them, unlike Ralston!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rea said:

So are the Community going to be able to play on the 3G pitch?

 

The proposal highlights that young people from the local area use it plus other post and links have highlighted St Mirren in the community use Ralston so I don't see why they wouldn't use the pitch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Pityme said:

You miss out the fact the proposal is to transfer the assets to a plc, therfor breaking the asset lock, and that even today on the Smisa website there is a clear commitment outside the £2 pot all the rest of your subscription is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in smfc. And the fact Smisa have sold this as buying sponsorship in a plc.. its a big no, no... 

you cant run a CBS and just decide to swap the rules to suit at any given time. They are in place to protect the MEMBERS assets. These assets do not belong to SMFC and that is a point that some people still haven't grasped.

none of this is my opinion, it is the rules each member, and the Smisa committee willingly signed up to.

they could stop this omnishambles today, cancel the vote, and set a new one asking if members agree, or not to setting aside £5k (if there is £8k total available from the next ten £2 votes to fund the astroturfing. That would be both legal and respectful of their members rights and wishes.

i have a question for you. Do you actually think this, as it stands will end well..? At a time when all we should be doing is revelling  in our imminent glory, both club & smisa have conspired to breach the trust of smisa members. It just wasn't necessary, but follows a pattern of Scott getting what he wants, i.e, other peoples money!  

Its not a PLC btw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
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 
A strong St. Mirren is good for the community ????
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The proposal highlights that young people from the local area use it plus other post and links have highlighted St Mirren in the community use Ralston so I don't see why they wouldn't use the pitch. 

 

Edited by rea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

You miss out the fact the proposal is to transfer the assets to a plc, therfor breaking the asset lock, and that even today on the Smisa website there is a clear commitment outside the £2 pot all the rest of your subscription is ring fenced to buy the majority shareholding in smfc. And the fact Smisa have sold this as buying sponsorship in a plc.. its a big no, no... 

you cant run a CBS and just decide to swap the rules to suit at any given time. They are in place to protect the MEMBERS assets. These assets do not belong to SMFC and that is a point that some people still haven't grasped.

none of this is my opinion, it is the rules each member, and the Smisa committee willingly signed up to.

they could stop this omnishambles today, cancel the vote, and set a new one asking if members agree, or not to setting aside £5k (if there is £8k total available from the next ten £2 votes to fund the astroturfing. That would be both legal and respectful of their members rights and wishes.

i have a question for you. Do you actually think this, as it stands will end well..? At a time when all we should be doing is revelling  in our imminent glory, both club & smisa have conspired to breach the trust of smisa members. It just wasn't necessary, but follows a pattern of Scott getting what he wants, i.e, other peoples money!  

1. Not going to a PLC, it's going to a third party company in exchange for goods. We're buying something that meets the criteria (direct/ indirect community benefit) 

2. Nothing has been agreed, nothing has been decided, we're in the middle of the vote to see if paying members want to approve the proposal. Imagine website will be updated after 

3. no one is changing rules, yet again 8.1 clearly states ALL assets fall under the exclusions where they can legally be used (community direct/ indirect benefit) 

4. Yes I think it'll end perfectly well. I think the vast majority of fans won't take issue with it (because there isn't an issue outside the one you've created in your head) regardless of it being a yes or no. 

5. Groundhog day again but not trust has been breached IT'S A DEMOCRATIC VOTE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
2 hours ago, bazil85 said:
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 

A strong St. Mirren is good for the community?

Yes of course it is. Means we can do more events where school kids go free, panda club that offers discounts, free tickets for vulnerable groups, community spirit, income, charity work. That's the indirect benefit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

As good and clear a summary as you will find amongst the extensive debate on this thread.  Well done! 

My own simple thoughts are that St. Mirren FC should always be run as a break even club. This should take into account player budgets and club running costs. Something like a 4G training pitch has a lifespan and cost associated with it and is therefore a planned spend. So are things like training balls.  This is the clubs responsibility to budget for these. 

Any additional revenue boosts (player sales, cup runs, higher league finish than budgeted, etc.)  should primarily be banked into the club accounts to cover tougher times but may also allow for a very modest loosening of the playing budget to provide opportunity for improvement. 

Here we have a situation where we have received the most transfer income in many years and cup revenue last season. None of which budgeted for.  We're looking at winning the league now and coming out on top for revenue for the league this season alongside increased attendances. 

Still, we're being told that finances aren't sufficiently rosy.

If that's the case then it's indicative that the spending on the player budget this season has been a gamble. It may have worked out but I don't like that precedent. 

Already we have someone saying that this £50k is needed as it will indirectly support that playing budget next season. The figures for league placings were dropped in to show the huge financial disadvantage from 1st in Championship vs the SPL teams who will be our competitors next season.  I'm sorry but the recent transfer revenues received more than make up that difference and could have been the springboard for providing a comparable playing budget for Year 1 in the SPL if we really want to get involved in that game.

If the money is needed for playing budget then ask the members to vote based on that. The whole approach to this from SMISA seems a bit of a mess.

I don't blame Gordon in asking for the cash and other proposals but I do question how wise it is to respond so favourably. The extent of this SMISA cash (cow) resource wasn't so readily available to the previous board. Had it been available previously it would have made their job as Chairman/Board considerably easier and  easier to get a more expensive and higher quality product on the pitch. 

We've got an ambitious chairman but  I think the SMISA group need to tread very carefully. 

 

2 hours ago, smcc said:

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

 

As far as I understand I don't think SMISA has marketed itself (to date) as anything other than a vehicle for the takeover. 

I think it's fully expected that members will drop off as others have also said. SMISA should be making an effort in my opinion to push the vision of the benefits to the club for continuing membership beyond the 10 year period. I think this should have been promoted from the outset. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...