Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I'm on nights, just woke up...

How is Groundhog Day today?

Bazil still vehement that if you vote no, you are voting to harm the club?
Bazil refusing to accept a fair bit of opinion that giving The Club ring fenced money is not what they were sold or signed up to & if they vote no, they are half brained?
Poz doesn't really like Pings & Mrs Poz is no nearer that new telly?

The upshot of this discussion is, hopefully SMISA will get the message that a fair number of members will not act like sheep (no slight intended, it's a turn of phrase) and just blindly follow?

If folk start cancelling their memberships because of this proposal, there is only 1 group of people responsible for that and that is the SMISA committee itself.

They put a half brained proposal (imo) to the members hoping a vast majority would swallow their reasoning & vote in favour.
Unfortunately for them, if this thread is anywhere near indicative of members not wanting to be treated like sheep, they could have caused considerable damage to the vehicle born to buy the buds.

They have failed to filter the wheat from the chaff before putting it before the members

If enough members think similarly to Toots and his/her mate and cancel their membership and it jeapordises Buy the Buds. There is only the SMISA committee to blame.

Some disagree, seeing it differently but I think SMISA would be ill advised not to take notice of the numbers on here expressing their views against this proposal.

It turns out to be more than just a Yes or No vote.

It looks like SMISA have loaded a gun and are willing to play Russian Roullette with members money.

The dissenting voices are clearly saying, they are prepared to hold the SMISA committee accountable for this clusterf**k of a proposal.

Okay very last thing I’ll say... Maybe. If there’s a majority in favour of this, will the toys out the pram merchants accept they’re in a minority? Or will the majority still be expected to bow down and not go for something they see as a positive for the club? 

Two way street pal. What if people start cancelling because it’s a no? 

Wish people would just accept that members are getting the choice to keep things the same or change them. Simple as that.

I firmly believe the vast majority will though. This was always sold as a long term plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Okay very last thing I’ll say... Maybe. If there’s a majority in favour of this, will the toys out the pram merchants accept they’re in a minority? Or will the majority still be expected to bow down and not go for something they see as a positive for the club? 
Two way street pal. What if people start cancelling because it’s a no? 
Wish people would just accept that members are getting the choice to keep things the same or change them. Simple as that.
I firmly believe the vast majority will though. This was always sold as a long term plan. 
Do people are now "toys out the pram merchants" rather than fans electing to make their own decision as is their right?

A fine way to retain or build membership indeed.

You didn't answer my last question about collateral damage... AVOIDABLE collateral damage.

Should we not be listening rather than losing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Okay very last thing I’ll say... Maybe. If there’s a majority in favour of this, will the toys out the pram merchants accept they’re in a minority? Or will the majority still be expected to bow down and not go for something they see as a positive for the club? 

Two way street pal. What if people start cancelling because it’s a no? 

Wish people would just accept that members are getting the choice to keep things the same or change them. Simple as that.

I firmly believe the vast majority will though. This was always sold as a long term plan. 

The “majority” issue is a complete irrelevance to the whole thing. This is not a political referendum that people must abide by. If people don’t like the outcome they don’t need to pay their cash. 

It is therefore incumbent on the SMISA board that they present proposals that are palatable (I.e.not necessarily what they want, but at least understandable) to as many members as possible. Controversial proposals (and particularly those that are not nesessary) will always result in ill-will. 

If SMISA loose members it is SMISA’s issue, no one else’s. 

Edited by civilsaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay very last thing I’ll say... Maybe. If there’s a majority in favour of this, will the toys out the pram merchants accept they’re in a minority? Or will the majority still be expected to bow down and not go for something they see as a positive for the club? 
Two way street pal. What if people start cancelling because it’s a no? 
Wish people would just accept that members are getting the choice to keep things the same or change them. Simple as that.
I firmly believe the vast majority will though. This was always sold as a long term plan. 
People will pay into it whilst they believe it is the right thing to do.

Folk will leave and folk will join each year for differing reasons.

Some may have cancelled because of how they viewed previous votes.

The 1st team footballs
Glenvale
Sports scientist
Player budget
Ladies team etc

From recollection, i think the only proposal that has galvanised opinion was the disabled supporters platform (there may be others, i cannot think of right now)

I haven't agreed or supported every proposal but accepted the results of each vote.
I am more likely to cancel my SMISA membership because they've spelt my name wrong on the SMISA wall.
Has anyone seen an H in my name? Anyone? Anyone?

Fella's, enoy your night tonight & whilst your heading to Dundee or for the tranny. Spare a wee thought for your Buddies who can't get there.
Me, i'll be bombing up the A12 to try keep the good people of Chelmsford in good health.
Have a great night. COYS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Okay very last thing I’ll say... Maybe. If there’s a majority in favour of this, will the toys out the pram merchants accept they’re in a minority? Or will the majority still be expected to bow down and not go for something they see as a positive for the club? 

Two way street pal. What if people start cancelling because it’s a no? . 

Good points.

So essentially the proposal is so ill-considered and divisive that, regardless of the outcome of the vote, SMiSA's custodians will probably have created a lose / lose situation for themselves and their members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main thing that annoys me about the £2 spend vote is that we never get to see the official voting sites results, we only get told what they are. I asked to see the voting sites results when i was on the committee was told i could only to find out all i could see was that i voted, after that my request was simply ignored. I have asked again by email and await an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, buddiecat said:

The main thing that annoys me about the £2 spend vote is that we never get to see the official voting sites results, we only get told what they are. I asked to see the voting sites results when i was on the committee was told i could only to find out all i could see was that i voted, after that my request was simply ignored. I have asked again by email and await an answer.

So, if a committee member wasn't allowed to see the results, who did? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

Running a proper fundraising campaign focused on the target of 50K for the purpose of contributing to the new 4G pitch surface. The club, SMISA board and SMISA committee have known about this for at least 9 months. Plenty of time to put the work in, plus if it truly does have community benefit then SMISA could have gained some funding. There may have been marquee contributors waiting out there, but we'll never know because "we're all volunteers". Far easier to sit it out and put this vote out at the last moment.

It has always been the way it's done Kenny, "give them as little time to think about it as possible" is a phrase i recall being well used by the Cabal. I am fully convinced now that the group negotiating the deal with Gordon had agreed to do what they could to allow him access to funds, that may well be good for the club in the present but it leaves us with less money when we buy the shares and by then there could be a good deal of upgrading work needed at the stadium and Ralston.

I am thinking of keeping my money in the bank and making it available to SMiSA at the time of the share purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I don't think the plan will depreciate by 200-300 members which we're currently over by. The plan was set for 1,000 £12 members with the assumption there would be drop off from this number. I've considered it I assure you. 
I meant the club, not smisa
Depreciation and planned rewnewal of things like a strong turf pitches, domes, under soil heating and also smaller cost items.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

So, if a committee member wasn't allowed to see the results, who did? 

The group of committee members who all vote together to get everything passed i'd assume, i know at least three of them got to see the official election runner pages, don't know about the rest of them, my requests were ignored and no reason was ever given as to why, that in itself is not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Okay very last thing I’ll say... Maybe. If there’s a majority in favour of this, will the toys out the pram merchants accept they’re in a minority? Or will the majority still be expected to bow down and not go for something they see as a positive for the club? 

Two way street pal. What if people start cancelling because it’s a no? 

Wish people would just accept that members are getting the choice to keep things the same or change them. Simple as that.

I firmly believe the vast majority will though. This was always sold as a long term plan. 

Well done Bazil85.  You stood up to that onslaught extremely well,  I feared  the vultures were gonna have you for breakfast at times, but just like our super team you stood your ground and found a way to win all the points,  :notworthy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, buddiecat said:

The group of committee members who all vote together to get everything passed i'd assume, i know at least three of them got to see the official election runner pages, don't know about the rest of them, my requests were ignored and no reason was ever given as to why, that in itself is not right.

If this is true, and I've no reason to disbelieve you as, over the years, the odd "drunken post" apart, you've been pretty reliable. :rolleyes:

Certainly another concern, as it seems a very closed shop and has become a vehicle to be used as a few see fit.

All this nonsense about democracy shrouds a system that's very much loaded in favour of the proposers who, I'm sure, are aware many will go with the flow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done Bazil85.  You stood up to that onslaught extremely well,  I feared  the vultures were gonna have you for breakfast at times, but just like our super team you stood your ground and found a way to win all the points,  :notworthy
Yeah Baz, been a great discussion.

It's a pity other discussions denigrate into slanging matches whereas this discussion has been fairly healthy, all sets of opinion have argued their point and counter argued without folk falling out (as happens alot)

Enjoy tonight & the rest of the season. Hopefully, the only sore head you get is a resounding No vote on this proposal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Do people are now "toys out the pram merchants" rather than fans electing to make their own decision as is their right?

A fine way to retain or build membership indeed.

You didn't answer my last question about collateral damage... AVOIDABLE collateral damage.

Should we not be listening rather than losing?

Yes I did, to rephrase. No collateral damage, just spit the dummy merchants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, civilsaint said:

The “majority” issue is a complete irrelevance to the whole thing. This is not a political referendum that people must abide by. If people don’t like the outcome they don’t need to pay their cash. 

It is therefore incumbent on the SMISA board that they present proposals that are palatable (I.e.not necessarily what they want, but at least understandable) to as many members as possible. Controversial proposals (and particularly those that are not nesessary) will always result in ill-will. 

If SMISA loose members it is SMISA’s issue, no one else’s. 

I wouldn’t of cancelled my membership but I would have been severely pissed off if SMISA, said no to the request from our club without consulting fans. If fans are crying and cancelling their membership because of a democratic vote, do you not think it’s likely we’d have cancellations if SMISA had chosen NOT to have a vote and made the decision for paying members? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Good points.

So essentially the proposal is so ill-considered and divisive that, regardless of the outcome of the vote, SMiSA's custodians will probably have created a lose / lose situation for themselves and their members.

It’s certainly part of what I meant as in it’s a bit lose lose. Ill considered... not so much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I wouldn’t of cancelled my membership but I would have been severely pissed off if SMISA, said no to the request from our club without consulting fans. If fans are crying and cancelling their membership because of a democratic vote, do you not think it’s likely we’d have cancellations if SMISA had chosen NOT to have a vote and made the decision for paying members? 

So every time the club ask for money, it should go to a fans vote? What about my request for £15k for a new Fiesta? 

What if the club ask for £100k for a new board room table (complete with beer taps), should that go to a fans vote as well?

You continue to simply ignore the points raised and instead just keep spouting the phase "democratic vote" no matter the context of the question. That veneer rubbed off long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, civilsaint said:

So every time the club ask for money, it should go to a fans vote? What about my request for £15k for a new Fiesta? 

What if the club ask for £100k for a new board room table (complete with beer taps), should that go to a fans vote as well?

You continue to simply ignore the points raised and instead just keep spouting the phase "democratic vote" no matter the context of the question. That veneer rubbed off long ago.

We should have faith in our club and SMISA to be sensible with their requests in regards to what they are and the costing to repay. I don’t think votes like this would be very common but if they were I’d have faith in the paying members base to vote sensibly. For example in this instance, we have a very real benefit and a very sensible costed repayment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has all become terribly confusing on here for the ordinary fan who bought in to the idea of buying the club.  Quite frankly, I and I suspect many other fans are sick of seeing personal vendettas from either inside or outside of SMISA.  Some of it may be factual and very valid points but it is so difficult for the ordinary fan member to separate fact from fake news.  The forum is an open debating shop but for many fans it is also a way of keeping up with what is going on within the wider St Mirren world.

In the  past, I bought a small amount of shares to do my thing in supporting the club.  The £12 spend seemed a natural thing to do. If honest, I didnt really look at the constitution when I signed up this time.  I suspect most of us just want to see a future for the Club.  Happy to assume our money is gathering in a big bucket to be handed over to Gordon and at that point we will have a real discussion about how the members run the club.  Unfortunately it is that naivity that many of the hard liners either within SMISA or on the fringe are depending on to let them have their way.

 The role of SMISA in this whole affair has always confused me.  Paying my £12, am I a member of SMISA or simply an outsider funding them?  How are we going to get a responsible board out of a group that struggles to get sufficient support to fill its committee?  Not fully their fault, we are mostly apathetic when it comes to stepping forward to support such groups even if we like what they do for our club. 

The £2 spend is a commendable idea, but even there, it is becoming more contentious as every quarter goes by.   I sometimes read some of the ideas, question their relevance and wonder whose personal hobby horse it really is.

 I am an early voter.  I tend to read the papers as they come out and trust what I read to base my decision on.  Yes I am guilty of being an uninformed voter.  Having seen this months ensuing debate that situation will certainly change going forward.

 

This recent spate of posting has just brought home to me how fragile this whole set up is.  I know SMISA dont post on forum, fair point, but perhaps a formal statement to clarify the legality of it all is needed.  That wasnt fully clarified in the original proposal. Part of me feels sorry for SMISA, they could in fact be doing a great job and this is simply somebody stirring things.  I do however think that given the mud slinging regarding the legal situation of what is a substantial sum, they do need to respond.

 

There is a lot of reference to SMISA being a community group with obligations to the wider community around the club.  That is all well and fine, but they are also custodians of my and many other peoples money in our attempt to take the club in to fan ownership.  Perhaps they need to be careful in not mixing up these two objectives.  The £2 spend they can play with to meet their community responsibilities but the £10 is to be managed to buy the club shares as soon as possible.  

The 3 monthly spend has been contentious for a while now and if we are not careful it will only get worse.

I sadly am one of those remote fans who doesnt stay in Paisley and cant attend games or SMISA events, but that doesnt mean I dont care how my money is being managed toward a dream of fans owning the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't be that confusing. The "hard liners" you refer to are simply those who read and absorbed the literature that was available before Gordon Scott took over the club - and they want SMISA to live up to their promises. 

If it was always SMISA's intention to be a fund raising vehicle for St Mirren FC Ltd then the Community Benefit Society model was the wrong one to use. If the intention was to spend the "discretionary fund" on Sports Scientists, players wages, and consumables for St Mirren FC Ltd, then the fund should have been set up outwith the Community Benefit Society and SMISA should have been much clearer in it's literature that this money would only some times be used to benefit the local community. 

Here we see SMISA breaking yet another promise. The proposal is that protected, ring-fenced funds that are supposed to be kept safe for the eventual take over of the club from Gordon Scott, is to be loaned to St Mirren FC Ltd and repaid, not by St Mirren FC Ltd, but by the members of SMISA. 

I am a strong supporter of community ownership of football clubs. I always believed passionately that it would be very much to the betterment of the sport if senior football clubs were much more closely linked to their local communities and if resources from the community and from the football club could be shared to cut costs and increase revenue. I wanted BTB to be done properly and for it to be a success. Unfortunately SMISA has reverted to type, lost focus, gone back to the days where it bought t-shirts and towels for the club and forgot completely it's commitment to be the fans representatives on the football club board. It's abused it's Third Sector status and the benefits given to Community Benefit Societies and I can't see anything but a tumbling house of cards as awareness of the abuse grows. 

What I will say though is that I commend the debate that has happened on here over the last few days. It shouldn't be suppressed like others tried to do last time. It's certainly been enlightening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bazil85 said:

We should have faith in our club and SMISA to be sensible with their requests in regards to what they are and the costing to repay. I don’t think votes like this would be very common but if they were I’d have faith in the paying members base to vote sensibly. For example in this instance, we have a very real benefit and a very sensible costed repayment. 

Again you didn’t actually answer my questions and continue spouting whatabouttery. 

Another question to add to the unanswered list: Do you consider putting out a proposal to spend the “ring fenced” cash (the cornerstone of the whole scheme) as being “sensible”? 

So now that the rest of your arguments have failed to be persuasive you’re resorting to “faith”. Unlikely to be the most convincing position. 

What’s your PIN number? You can trust me, I’m affiliated to SMISA! Nah, I didn’t think so. 

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...