Jump to content

Kombibuddie

The 3 Monthly Spend

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, StuD said:

The average lifespan of an astroturf playing surface is between 8 and 12 years. So given that, what provisions are SMISA putting in place to ensure that next time this happens they have the full £150,000 in place to meet the cost? 

Same provisions as almost any other club at our level with the same kind of pitch.

Very few clubs have a rich chairman or benefactor now that can fund such purchases, we'll cover it out of our running costs. The only difference this time is we've had the opportunity to support through SMISA contributions. It's in no way an indication that it would not be affordable otherwise or in the future. In fact the proposal said as much. It clearly stated in the event of a no vote the club would pay for it out of its budget. Will be same in 8-12 years as required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Same provisions as almost any other club at our level with the same kind of pitch.

Very few clubs have a rich chairman or benefactor now that can fund such purchases, we'll cover it out of our running costs. The only difference this time is we've had the opportunity to support through SMISA contributions. It's in no way an indication that it would not be affordable otherwise or in the future. In fact the proposal said as much. It clearly stated in the event of a no vote the club would pay for it out of its budget. Will be same in 8-12 years as required. 

Really? How many other clubs at our level own an astrograss pitch they can't rent out and two full sized grass parks that require a full time groundsman? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TPAFKATS
Roughly 44% voted for (or 88% of the voting population) with the remaining not voting at all for I'm sure various reasons.
The main reason is very likely to be indifference though. (I've spoken to three paying members that didn't vote and all of them just weren't really bothered, I know that's a small number but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the general theme from those that didn't vote) 
Yeag, 44% voted in favour of the proposal. So not the landslide you were claiming.
Together with how previous votes have gone, I'd say indifference is the main reason for low numbers voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, StuD said:

Really? How many other clubs at our level own an astrograss pitch they can't rent out and two full sized grass parks that require a full time groundsman? 

No idea but we certainly won't be the only ones. Are you suggesting it's a bad thing having such good facilities? 

Share this post


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

Yeag, 44% voted in favour of the proposal. So not the landslide you were claiming.
Together with how previous votes have gone, I'd say indifference is the main reason for low numbers voting.

It was a very clear landslide, no matter what way you look at it.

88% Vs 12% members that cast a vote.

44% V 8% including members that didn't cast a vote.

If a political party won an election by such margins do you think landslide would feature in the subsequent news stories? I've never heard someone say a vote isn't a landslide because some people haven't cast a vote :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No idea but we certainly won't be the only ones.

Nope you aren't getting off that easy. Tell me if St Mirren aren't the only ones at our level then who are the other ones that own two grass parks, and an astroturf pitch that they aren't allowed to rent out? 

You are the one who has stated time and time again that it was important that SMISA members dip into their ring-fenced funds to pay for this so that £50,000 wasn't taken out of the playing budget for next season. All I am doing is asking what plans SMISA have in place to ensure that when the same situation arises again in 8 - 12 years time that £150,000 won't have to be taken out of the playing budget to finance the maintenance cost. I assume SMISA do have some sort of plan in place - don't they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StuD said:

Nope you aren't getting off that easy. Tell me if St Mirren aren't the only ones at our level then who are the other ones that own two grass parks, and an astroturf pitch that they aren't allowed to rent out? 

You are the one who has stated time and time again that it was important that SMISA members dip into their ring-fenced funds to pay for this so that £50,000 wasn't taken out of the playing budget for next season. All I am doing is asking what plans SMISA have in place to ensure that when the same situation arises again in 8 - 12 years time that £150,000 won't have to be taken out of the playing budget to finance the maintenance cost. I assume SMISA do have some sort of plan in place - don't they? 

I guess the club will be after the last £2.50 they dont currently get from the Smisa £8000 per quarter cash windfall to help fund future maintenance, and no doubt will be looking at the ring fenced ( dont laugh) share purchase fund to plunder again as required. After all both the club, and now Smisa have said "that money is just sitting there"..! 

So I dont see why there behaviour would change towards dipping the members funds again in the future. Its now happened three times to the tune of £115k. One off my ass.

Share this post


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

Nope you aren't getting off that easy. Tell me if St Mirren aren't the only ones at our level then who are the other ones that own two grass parks, and an astroturf pitch that they aren't allowed to rent out? 

You are the one who has stated time and time again that it was important that SMISA members dip into their ring-fenced funds to pay for this so that £50,000 wasn't taken out of the playing budget for next season. All I am doing is asking what plans SMISA have in place to ensure that when the same situation arises again in 8 - 12 years time that £150,000 won't have to be taken out of the playing budget to finance the maintenance cost. I assume SMISA do have some sort of plan in place - don't they? 

Are you suggesting to me St Mirren are the only team on this planet with our rough income and club size that have a training facility like ours? Baffling. You also seem to be hinting at this being a bad thing.

Here's a  few question for you, if we can't afford to replace the pitch in X number of years what's the worst case scenario for the club with an owned training facility with no borrowing against it? 

Do you agree a number of clubs at our level don't have the luxury of owning outright a training ground? Do you think any of these clubs will have rent/ borrowing and other costs that exceeds £150k over a 10 year period? 

What about clubs like Dunfermline, Dundee United, Kilmarnock that have much bigger older stadiums than us with similar crowds and income? How do they fund stadium upkeep? 

You're hinting that £150k would be an issue, it won't be. It'll come out of our budget like any other expense would do. We have used an opportunity to save £50k from the budget, it is in no way an indication that we won't be able to cover it in the future. 

As for your second paragraph, I'll refer you back to my previous point. We are going into a league where the majority of teams will have bigger budgets than ours. This money saved give us a wee bit extra for next season. That is all, it's a bonus that we wouldn't have if BTB wasn't currently happening. We won't have that in the future but like we've been fine for the last 140 years we'll be fine in the future as expenses come our way. 

Share this post


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

I guess the club will be after the last £2.50 they dont currently get from the Smisa £8000 per quarter cash windfall to help fund future maintenance, and no doubt will be looking at the ring fenced ( dont laugh) share purchase fund to plunder again as required. After all both the club, and now Smisa have said "that money is just sitting there"..! 

So I dont see why there behaviour would change towards dipping the members funds again in the future. Its now happened three times to the tune of £115k. One off my ass.

What are the other two occasions? As you've been told several times the USH cost wasn't from the £10 pot so will be interesting to know. Mind you it's not like you listen, how's the letter to the FCA going? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Are you suggesting to me St Mirren are the only team on this planet with our rough income and club size that have a training facility like ours? Baffling. You also seem to be hinting at this being a bad thing.

Here's a  few question for you, if we can't afford to replace the pitch in X number of years what's the worst case scenario for the club with an owned training facility with no borrowing against it? 

Do you agree a number of clubs at our level don't have the luxury of owning outright a training ground? Do you think any of these clubs will have rent/ borrowing and other costs that exceeds £150k over a 10 year period? 

What about clubs like Dunfermline, Dundee United, Kilmarnock that have much bigger older stadiums than us with similar crowds and income? How do they fund stadium upkeep? 

You're hinting that £150k would be an issue, it won't be. It'll come out of our budget like any other expense would do. We have used an opportunity to save £50k from the budget, it is in no way an indication that we won't be able to cover it in the future. 

As for your second paragraph, I'll refer you back to my previous point. We are going into a league where the majority of teams will have bigger budgets than ours. This money saved give us a wee bit extra for next season. That is all, it's a bonus that we wouldn't have if BTB wasn't currently happening. We won't have that in the future but like we've been fine for the last 140 years we'll be fine in the future as expenses come our way. 

Para 1.  yes...  I cannot think of another club SMFC size with these facilities

Para 2  SMFC don't own the facilty

Para 3 we don't have that luxury either

Para 5 your understanding of what a "saving" is  when the future owners are spending £50 is odd 

 

Share this post


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

What are the other two occasions? As you've been told several times the USH cost wasn't from the £10 pot so will be interesting to know. Mind you it's not like you listen, how's the letter to the FCA going? :lol:

Smisa have two funds, the share purchase fund, and the £2 pot. The £15 k loan for the USH came from the reserves held to fund the share purchase. Having been on the committee at the time i will pass up your offer of ill informed nonsense.

so first occasion the reserves were raided was the £15k ush loan (no consultation took place)

the second raid is the £50k of the reserves set aside as a lending facility for the club (no consultation took place)

and the third raid on smisa members assets which again breaks the constitution, the promise made in BtB and breaks the asset lock is the £50 k the club says it has (i wonder if they refer to their funds as.. just sitting there) anyway, but would rather take our share purchase money raising a wholly unnecessary and scandalous risk for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rea said:

Para 1.  yes...  I cannot think of another club SMFC size with these facilities

Para 2  SMFC don't own the facilty

Para 3 we don't have that luxury either

Para 5 your understanding of what a "saving" is  when the future owners are spending £50 is odd 

 

1. :lol: Okay so we are in a fantastic situation of having the very best facilities in the world for a club our size. What a positive aspect for our club, there is zero negativity that even the St Moan loyal can take from that surely? Fortunately we have no rent or borrowing costs against the training facility so it must go a long-way to covering the running costs and maintenance. 

2. Yes we do http://www.stmirren.info/id393.html 

3. See above link

5. It's not Us Vs Them, we're all in this together and all for what's best for SMFC. It's curious that people have got issue with our football club benefiting from funds that would otherwise sit gathering dust for close to a decade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

1. :lol: Okay so we are in a fantastic situation of having the very best facilities in the world for a club our size. What a positive aspect for our club, there is zero negativity that even the St Moan loyal can take from that surely? Fortunately we have no rent or borrowing costs against the training facility so it must go a long-way to covering the running costs and maintenance. 

2. Yes we do http://www.stmirren.info/id393.html 

3. See above link

5. It's not Us Vs Them, we're all in this together and all for what's best for SMFC. It's curious that people have got issue with our football club benefiting from funds that would otherwise sit gathering dust for close to a decade. 

Para 2 and 3  you want me to post you a copy of the lease?

 

We categorically do not own ralston

 

Para 5.  they would sit being able to be spent in 10 years time when ground needs done and SMISA need £150K to do it not £50k contribution

Edited by rea

Share this post


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

Smisa have two funds, the share purchase fund, and the £2 pot. The £15 k loan for the USH came from the reserves held to fund the share purchase. Having been on the committee at the time i will pass up your offer of ill informed nonsense.

so first occasion the reserves were raided was the £15k ush loan (no consultation took place)

the second raid is the £50k of the reserves set aside as a lending facility for the club (no consultation took place)

and the third raid on smisa members assets which again breaks the constitution, the promise made in BtB and breaks the asset lock is the £50 k the club says it has (i wonder if they refer to their funds as.. just sitting there) anyway, but would rather take our share purchase money raising a wholly unnecessary and scandalous risk for the future.

Never at anytime did SMISA publish the funds were coming from the £10 pot they also have other funds outside this. They don't just have one account for the £10 and one for the £2 over their history they have provided finance for many other projects. Although if you have some actual evidence that this money came out of the £10 pot I'll stand corrected. 

My understanding of the lending facility was that it formed part of the original BTB deal. My understanding was it was to be made up of the £2,500 premium memberships.

We know you hate SMISA but there is nothing causing the majority of us any concern and your comments haven't raised any further alarm bells. You've also been shown that the constitution isn't broken based on the community benefits of the spend. 

Round in circles.  

Share this post


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

Para 2 and 3  you want me to post you a copy of the lease?

 

We categorically do not own ralston

 

Para 5.  they would sit being able to be spent in 10 years time when ground needs done and SMISA need £150K to do it not £50k contribution

2&3. We own the training facilities with no debt. Sounds like you're talking about the lease on the land, which is not uncommon. My understanding is it's on very favorable terms. Just splitting hairs, St Mirren own our training facilities. 

5. Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. 

Share this post


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

2&3. We own the training facilities with no debt. Sounds like you're talking about the lease on the land, which is not uncommon. My understanding is it's on very favorable terms. Just splitting hairs, St Mirren own our training facilities. 

5. Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean. 

Ok....you just cannot seem to accept that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

My understanding is what the facts of the lease are.

 

It is a commercial lease from the council at rates appropriate for the facility, councils cannot do "favourable terms" they have to do appropriate terms to pass audit and COI tests

 

The training facility is not a separate company so linking ownership and debt of Ralston is irrelevant.

This is the lease bit from the accounts.

 

image.png.520eb740217d1931f0c749805e33726b.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Never at anytime did SMISA publish the funds were coming from the £10 pot they also have other funds outside this. They don't just have one account for the £10 and one for the £2 over their history they have provided finance for many other projects. Although if you have some actual evidence that this money came out of the £10 pot I'll stand corrected. 

My understanding of the lending facility was that it formed part of the original BTB deal. My understanding was it was to be made up of the £2,500 premium memberships.

We know you hate SMISA but there is nothing causing the majority of us any concern and your comments haven't raised any further alarm bells. You've also been shown that the constitution isn't broken based on the community benefits of the spend. 

Round in circles.  

Your understanding in the main is wrong!

lets try and break it down to remedy that. Smisa only receives two sources of funds £2 pot and £10 or £23 subscriptions to the share purchase fund. Thats it. Any historical funds went on paying up the selling consortium and the associated costs that process raised.

there is no magic money tree!

some of the £2500 premium members were told that their subscription would go towards that lending facility, but again as Smisa couldnt get a loan their £2500 subs went to paying off the selling consortium. If smisa have other funds i am sure the members, and no doubt the club would be interested in how they can access it so its not 'just sitting there gathering dust".

but i do agree with part of your first line " never at anytime did Smisa publish the funds were coming from the £10 pot" they dont want to draw attention to that fact as it confirms all the rules and regs were breached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazil85 also stated many times that two ballots were not necessary to use ring-fenced funds and that a simple majority vote was sufficient to allow for the rule change that released previously ring-fenced funds for the purpose outlined in Aprils spending proposal. 

Now whether the £50,000 from ring-fenced funds involved a rule change or not is for other - higher powers - to decide. However Bazil85 is incorrect in so much as that one vote cannot cover both a rule change and the use of ring-fenced funds. Under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act (2014) you cannot implement a rule change without a Special Resolution and the Special Resolution Meeting must have a minimum of 21 days notice. The vote for the April Spend was released by e-mail to members on the 4th of April and the vote concluded on the 14th of April. There was no notice at all served of any Special Resolution and further to that any change of rules has to be submitted to the FCA for authorisation before it can be passed. 

Hopefully the SMISA board are more aware of the Act that governs them than Bazil85. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think after the events of the weekend that anyone signing up to the forum would be doing so to talk about events on the pitch (and not a 3G one) - and yet here we are.

And in fairness, he's not the only one whose posts over the last few days seem to be restricted to this section of the forum despite the fact that on Saturday WE WON THE SODDING LEAGUE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, rea said:

Ok....you just cannot seem to accept that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

My understanding is what the facts of the lease are.

 

It is a commercial lease from the council at rates appropriate for the facility, councils cannot do "favourable terms" they have to do appropriate terms to pass audit and COI tests

 

The training facility is not a separate company so linking ownership and debt of Ralston is irrelevant.

This is the lease bit from the accounts.

 

image.png.520eb740217d1931f0c749805e33726b.png

 

 

Saints main training facility is based in the East End of the town and was opened in 2009.
They are currently the only club outwith the Old Firm to own outright, their own custom built training facility. 

Maybe LPM can report this one to the FCA as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, StuD said:

Bazil85 also stated many times that two ballots were not necessary to use ring-fenced funds and that a simple majority vote was sufficient to allow for the rule change that released previously ring-fenced funds for the purpose outlined in Aprils spending proposal. 

Now whether the £50,000 from ring-fenced funds involved a rule change or not is for other - higher powers - to decide. However Bazil85 is incorrect in so much as that one vote cannot cover both a rule change and the use of ring-fenced funds. Under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act (2014) you cannot implement a rule change without a Special Resolution and the Special Resolution Meeting must have a minimum of 21 days notice. The vote for the April Spend was released by e-mail to members on the 4th of April and the vote concluded on the 14th of April. There was no notice at all served of any Special Resolution and further to that any change of rules has to be submitted to the FCA for authorisation before it can be passed. 

Hopefully the SMISA board are more aware of the Act that governs them than Bazil85. 

We have all heard the rumours about how your last complaint to the FCA got on, how about firing in another one? :rolleyes:

If Bazil85 is indeed incorrect then SMISA are looking at a rather hefty fine. I'll just wait here until that materialises...  In the meantime I'm sure we'll get some 'FCA don't care' comments. A regulatory body that aren't bothered about imposing fines? What a time to be alive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s my answer - ‘I’ll give it twelve months’. Now guess the question. First prize is a tub of Stelios Brand beard gel....

How long until StuD is banned for being an insufferable knob.

How long until the club board tap’ SMiSA for a pint of Fusiler Lager, a packet of pork scratchings and 50k for a player.

How long until I post something remotely funny.

How long will REA continue to make baz look stupid on here.

How long until  Brechin City win a match.

 

All answers on a postcard to: Bank of SMiSA, c/o The Clansman Bar, Craiglang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We have all heard the rumours about how your last complaint to the FCA got on, how about firing in another one? :rolleyes:

If Bazil85 is indeed incorrect then SMISA are looking at a rather hefty fine. I'll just wait here until that materialises...  In the meantime I'm sure we'll get some 'FCA don't care' comments. A regulatory body that aren't bothered about imposing fines? What a time to be alive!

Yeah, you haven't read the Act have you Bazil85? Maybe you should try it. It's not quite The Cat in the Hat but I'm sure you could manage it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Here’s my answer - ‘I’ll give it twelve months’. Now guess the question. First prize is a tub of Stelios Brand beard gel....

How long until StuD is banned for being an insufferable knob.

How long until the club board tap’ SMiSA for a pint of Fusiler Lager, a packet of pork scratchings and 50k for a player.

How long until I post something remotely funny.

How long will REA continue to make baz look stupid on here.

How long until  Brechin City win a match.

 

All answers on a postcard to: Bank of SMiSA, c/o The Clansman Bar, Craiglang.

You missed the how long till I buy you that craft Canada beer you were always going on about!

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...