Jump to content

Kombibuddie

The 3 Monthly Spend

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bonzoboys said:

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.

Chapeau!

Never mind the inticrate details of some constitution, this post sums up in practical terms why it is essential that the scheme is managed in a way that makes it simple and clean. 

The simpler it is the easier it is for fans to understand and the less likely for accusations to be levelled. 

Once you start cutting and carving what is happening to the cash (even if it is completely legitimate) it opens the door for all sorts of accusations, suspicion or misunderstandings to manifest. 

 

Edited by civilsaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours 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? 

 

10 hours ago, bazil85 said:

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

I'm glad you say that you're not affiliated to SIMSA's board , comments like these are snide  and are only damaging to its image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, civilsaint said:

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. 

Yes I do, that's my answer. My reasoning is, paying it back is very well costed and it would take a big number of fans dropping out to put it at risk. If that happens which I very much doubt, fans that drop out will only have themselves to blame for any harm that follows to our football club. BTB was always a long-term proposal. 

None of my arguments have failed, they all stand up perfectly. I have faith in the majority of paying members to recognise BTB remains long-term. I have confidence that the plan is well costed based on evidence. They're two different things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I see members dropping out (unless due to financial reasons)  as being their issue, extremely shortsighted and counterproductive to St Mirren football club. Now that’s plenty, league business time 

Surely the short-sightedness is within SMiSA by making such a ham-fisted problem out of a very simple situation. Absolutely none of these people should be lost by poor decision making and riding rough-shod over the membership. It should so obviously be a two part scenario if the legality of what is proposed is watertight:-

Part 1)   Does the membership wish for the £10.00 (or £21.00) part of the monthly contribution to remain absolutely ring-fenced for purchasing shares as was the original process.

No mention of what the monies might be spent on should have been mentioned or that the club had plans for the money.....if answer is yes then that should be final, if no then......

Part 2)   Does the membership agree that £50,000.00 of "ring-fenced" money should be given to the club (again not sure of the legality here but honest enough to admit it) in a lump sum and replenished from the next 5/6 quarterly "pots" with the understanding that it will leave no room for any other "community" or "club" based projects.

 

For the record I voted Yes but to me it is  obvious that if that process had been followed, without the emotional knowledge of what the money would be spent on, at least the members who may feel aggrieved from the current deviation from the original plan could have put their "due process" opinions into the debate at the correct stage. Any loss of numbers, in my opinion, lies at the feet of the SMiSA Board..............when I signed up my hope was that we would have "supporter" influence on the St Mirren Board and not the other way round.

 

You may well be working  in "Risk Management" Baz but your debating style may need re-modelling if you wish to carry others, with differing opinion, over to your side of the fence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Surely the short-sightedness is within SMiSA by making such a ham-fisted problem out of a very simple situation. Absolutely none of these people should be lost by poor decision making and riding rough-shod over the membership. It should so obviously be a two part scenario if the legality of what is proposed is watertight:-

Part 1)   Does the membership wish for the £10.00 (or £21.00) part of the monthly contribution to remain absolutely ring-fenced for purchasing shares as was the original process.

No mention of what the monies might be spent on should have been mentioned or that the club had plans for the money.....if answer is yes then that should be final, if no then......

Part 2)   Does the membership agree that £50,000.00 of "ring-fenced" money should be given to the club (again not sure of the legality here but honest enough to admit it) in a lump sum and replenished from the next 5/6 quarterly "pots" with the understanding that it will leave no room for any other "community" or "club" based projects.

 

For the record I voted Yes but to me it is  obvious that if that process had been followed, without the emotional knowledge of what the money would be spent on, at least the members who may feel aggrieved from the current deviation from the original plan could have put their "due process" opinions into the debate at the correct stage. Any loss of numbers, in my opinion, lies at the feet of the SMiSA Board..............when I signed up my hope was that we would have "supporter" influence on the St Mirren Board and not the other way round.

 

You may well be working  in "Risk Management" Baz but your debating style may need re-modelling if you wish to carry others, with differing opinion, over to your side of the fence.

 

Covered this a considerable number of times now in slightly different wording. All you seem to have done is seperating out the Yes/ No to two votes. Part 1 is a no vote, part 2 is a yes vote. That's the way I read it anyway. 

Edited by bazil85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Surely the short-sightedness is within SMiSA by making such a ham-fisted problem out of a very simple situation. Absolutely none of these people should be lost by poor decision making and riding rough-shod over the membership. It should so obviously be a two part scenario if the legality of what is proposed is watertight:-

Part 1)   Does the membership wish for the £10.00 (or £21.00) part of the monthly contribution to remain absolutely ring-fenced for purchasing shares as was the original process.

It's £10 or £23 bud, only £2 comes off if you're paying £25 a month. Small change, just thought I'd raise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

It's £10 or £23 bud, only £2 comes off if you're paying £25 a month. Small change, just thought I'd raise it.

Thanks Tsu, small change but should still be accurate!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider these two contradictory positions:

our chairman loses his shit over £1250 going to a Community based organisation that is open to all, been going for years, and doesn't charge youngsters whose parents (some) are finding it hard to just get by....

then....!

lets be 'aving £50k of the dosh you smisa bods have ring fenced, to buy my shares off me to fund a community project ( nudge, nudge, wink, wink,) oh and if your worried about, you know the authorities sniffing round case it aint exactly kosher..? Don't..! Just use that money you haven't got yet to replace it, and if anyone asks the £50k was just resting in my account.. got it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Covered this a considerable number of times now in slightly different wording. All you seem to have done is seperating out the Yes/ No to two votes. Part 1 is a no vote. 

It isn't due to it's attachment to Part 2, they are two very separate questions.

One is very simply about whether we should change from the original plan and should be voted on purely and only on that basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The vote is skewed. Loaded. The fact they attached the astroturf to the vote was no accident. It is designed, in my opinion, to make a yes result more likely, and is a device to make a no vote seem like you are voting against something good happening that would benefit Jack Ross, and therefore, our team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Consider these two contradictory positions:

our chairman loses his shit over £1250 going to a Community based organisation that is open to all, been going for years, and doesn't charge youngsters whose parents (some) are finding it hard to just get by....

then....!

lets be 'aving £50k of the dosh you smisa bods have ring fenced, to buy my shares off me to fund a community project ( nudge, nudge, wink, wink,) oh and if your worried about, you know the authorities sniffing round case it aint exactly kosher..? Don't..! Just use that money you haven't got yet to replace it, and if anyone asks the £50k was just resting in my account.. got it?

I think a few of your many posts on this topic are almost actionable. You should tread carefully. If I was Gordon Scott I would have been at least having a chat with my solicitor. In your previous incarnations over the years you always went on in the same vein. If the vote gets the go-ahead, will you accept the decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RickMcD said:

I think a few of your many posts on this topic are almost actionable. You should tread carefully. If I was Gordon Scott I would have been at least having a chat with my solicitor. In your previous incarnations over the years you always went on in the same vein. If the vote gets the go-ahead, will you accept the decision?

God don't say that to him! It'll snowball. Wait until this time tomorrow:

Lord Pityme said: 

'GLS has 100% hired a hit-man to come after me. There is no question on this, based on all my posts he categorically has been in contact with the Russians to bump me off... Also the moon landing was fake.' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, RickMcD said:

I think a few of your many posts on this topic are almost actionable. You should tread carefully. If I was Gordon Scott I would have been at least having a chat with my solicitor. In your previous incarnations over the years you always went on in the same vein. If the vote gets the go-ahead, will you accept the decision?

You think thats actionable... ha, ha, ha.... tell me which bit?

will i accept the decision? Wtf does that mean? Is there a choice..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is the club needs the money to repair the astro turf.

The reason SMISA signed up with Gordon Scott to finance the takeover was because a) he had the cash available to do it AND b ) he was seen as a successful business man that was going to use his acumen to bring about new ideas for increasing the income of the club.

this he has quite clearly FAILED  , hence the constant requests for monies from SMISA.

As the second largest shareholder and future custodians  of the club , SMISA should looking at the club accounts before parting with any monies. 

Edited by waldorf34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

The bit you questioned GLS's honesty and integrity. If you don't know where, that's not a defence that may cut it.

 

I Think you'll find i didnt reference any organisation, let alone, like you suggest an individual by name/initials.... oh dear, maybe you'll have to check with Rickmcd to see if what you've intimated is actionable.... arrf, arrf, arrf....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, waldorf34 said:

Bottom line is the club needs the money to repair the astro turf.

The reason SMISA signed up with Gordon Scott to finance the takeover was because a) he had the cash available to do it AND b ) he was seen as a successful business man that was going to use his acumen to bring about new ideas for increasing the income of the club.

this he has quite clearly FAILED  , hence the constant requests for monies from SMISA.

As the second largest shareholder and future custodians  of the club , SMISA should looking at the club accounts before parting with any monies. 

In what way shape or form has it failed? :blink: We're top of the league, one point from the title. All income streams are up, we have a very strong young squad and a sought after manager. 

I've covered this several times if you look back but once again. SMISA funding these items mean St Mirren don't need to and they can invest more in the player budget. There is nothing SMISA have paid that St Mirren couldn't afford, but it would be at the cost of available budget funds. We haven't got the biggest budget in this league and will have one of the lowest in the SP next season regardless of how well we do. SMISA allowing St Mirren to save some money through funding helps the team, it doesn't indicate in the slightest any issues with funds or the accounts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has failed to come up with any ideas to improve the finances , and you have not addressed that.

Jack Ross is doing a great job , he should not be part of this discussion.

It's all about the club constantly dipping into the members money .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

He has failed to come up with any ideas to improve the finances , and you have not addressed that.

Jack Ross is doing a great job , he should not be part of this discussion.

It's all about the club constantly dipping into the members money .

Enlighten me to a situation where we can improve the finance and never need any additional financial support? Dundee United, Falkirk, ICT, Dunfermline all have larger budgets than us in this division this season. Next season we'll be comparable to Hamilton, Ross County, Motherwell and St Johnstone. We could take crowds like the Morton game every week this season and next and we'd still need all the financial help we can get for next season because there will always be teams with more spending power. It beggars belief that people still don't understand this point :lol:  

If finance wasn't an issue Celtic would be panicking about winning the league next season and we'd be budgeting for the 2019/20 Champions League. St Mirren's finances are perfectly fine, they're in very good shape but the money we have got is better spent on the team than on a new pitch. We vote no, the club will simply fund it, but at the cost of £50k from next seasons budget. This is an exceptionally easy concept to grasp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 7:45 AM, bazil85 said:

We’ll deal with it the same as almost any other club in the world deal with it. Or the same way we’d of dealt with it 10, 20, 50, pretty much any other time in our history.

We’d pay out of our budget.

 

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

In what way shape or form has it failed? :blink: We're top of the league, one point from the title. All income streams are up, we have a very strong young squad and a sought after manager. 

I've covered this several times if you look back but once again. SMISA funding these items mean St Mirren don't need to and they can invest more in the player budget. There is nothing SMISA have paid that St Mirren couldn't afford.

Paying out of our budget. There is a novelty (wouldn't it be good if SMISA thought so too)

By your own admission, All income streams are up which surely suggests to everyone, the club will have made more profit. More profit to add to their budgets. All their budgets.

It is fundamentally wrong for The Club to go cap in hand to its supporters (SMISA membership) and ask to dip into its savings account to pay for something the club could well afford itself and should be paying for itself.

In future seasons, when income streams are not up, that £50K now or future accruing £2 pots might come in handier. That is be of more value to The Club when finances are tighter (i'm back too talking about saving £2 pots for big ticket items. Saving it, not dipping in & thinking it can be paid back)

 For SMISA to facilitate dipping into its savings pot is not acting in the best interests of its members, The Club or the purpose of its being.

Does anyone know  when the vote ends and when the results will be made known. Do the club get informed before the SMISA members what the result is?

Edited by Graeme Aitken

Share this post


Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...