Jump to content

Kombibuddie

The 3 Monthly Spend

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I have no idea what on earth triggers your funny feelings!

99% of the time I will read a post entirely before responding to it.

The sheer hypocrisy and irony in your first sentence meant I couldn't read on for tears of laughter!

Seems like you haven't even understood the first sentence then. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

You see theres the bit you dont get!

where there are legally binding rules & regulations, opinions are meaningless, they dont count, it is either in compliance and legal, or its not. So if you promise in your communnications to prospective members to ring fence funds, then that becomes a legally binding agreement in conjunctiwith your constitution. Its not my opinion, its there on the Smisa website, in all the BtB literature, meetings, discussions etc.

Yeah, it's almost like they can't change what's legally and binding without a members vote or something eh? 

Share this post


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

Again it's your opinion that we're doing something illegal. I have never said FCA wouldn't be interested, I said they certainly would be interested as they would fine the club (if previous votes were illegal, this one is different as it's not the £2 spend, trust me the FCA will have to sign-off on this). I think my exact point was 'A UK regulatory body not interest in issuing a fine? what a time to be alive.' 

In an attempt to stop going round in circles, I would ask you to simply contact the FCA and blow the whistle. I have full confidence in what the outcome will be.

If the FCA dismiss your complaint as 'not interested' then they are breaching one of their purposes. I can't imagine why they would do that given they have the right to issue fines. It makes very little sense to me. 

They wouldn't fine the football club Bazil - it's SMISA that is bound by the legislation and by their own constitution. It's SMISA board members they would go after. My reading of the Act was that it could lead to criminal prosecution. As I've said I don't really want to "blow the whistle" - I'd much rather SMISA started to deliver on what they promised with no ethical dubiety. I've said many times over what I want is for Community Ownership of Football clubs to be seen as an outstanding goal that delivers new ideas, new revenue and a far closer link with the local community - with cost savings and increased revenue delivered through a sharing of resources for mutual benefit. I'd have loved to have been a proud member of SMISA and would have been happy to have contributed much more than £25 per month as the project went on.  if only the SMISA board had delivered what it was openly promising. 

Share this post


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

Yeah, it's almost like they can't change what's legally and binding without a members vote or something eh? 

Yeah, a members vote on a Special Resolution. I think that's what you are missing bazil.

Share this post


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


But it is my opinion that your first paragraph was full of hypocrisy and irony.

As we all know, you fully respect the opinions of others and their right to freely express them!

Of course you are. There are people that are of the opinion the Earth is flat and 6,000 years old. They can also knock themselves out with whatever opinion they like.  :lol:

Share this post


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

Yeah, a members vote on a Special Resolution. I think that's what you are missing bazil.

I know you said you took independent advice on it and seem pretty set that the advice is correct and unhinging (contrary to SMISA, St Mirren and if they sign it off the FCA). Not sure how far you went back on this thread but in my professional life I have very regular contact with the FCA and provide Assurance to a large financial company. I would say there is a very clear community benefit both direct and indirect that can be presented. I would also have said protecting an asset and community benefit are not mutually exclusive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bazil85 said:

Yeah, it's almost like they can't change what's legally and binding without a members vote or something eh? 

The members cant vote to disapply the asset lock (theres a clue in the name there). To spend the ring fenced funds on anything other than share purchase, as has been explained,  a special resolution would need to be drafted, presented and voted on, BEFORE any vote can take place to decide what the other thing to spend it is the membership want to spend the funds on!

That brings you back to the asset lock which prohibits the Society from transferring its assets to a private company, especially in this instance where the primary reason is to buy advertising & sponsorship rights. I know you and others have said the astroturfing will indirectly benefit the community, however as we know the primary objective of the club is to lay a rinky-dink 4g surface as Ross has said he wont let the first team train on anything else. 

So whete is the community benefit? Where are the numbers, key measurables, how many more, less, better..? How will this enable the community to become more resilient..? How will this affect youth crime and anti social behaviour... in numbers?

i could ask smisa to fund a new shop in paisley as it could directly benefit the community, i could give you a swathe of facts and figures to back it up. The club & smisa haven't offered one stat on how a new 4g pitch for Jack & the boys would benefit the community. And shot themselves in the foot saying the justification is that we would appear to be paying an inflated fee for a service (advertising/sponsorship) which is again an offence in its  own right..!

Share this post


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

They wouldn't fine the football club Bazil - it's SMISA that is bound by the legislation and by their own constitution. It's SMISA board members they would go after. My reading of the Act was that it could lead to criminal prosecution. As I've said I don't really want to "blow the whistle" - I'd much rather SMISA started to deliver on what they promised with no ethical dubiety. I've said many times over what I want is for Community Ownership of Football clubs to be seen as an outstanding goal that delivers new ideas, new revenue and a far closer link with the local community - with cost savings and increased revenue delivered through a sharing of resources for mutual benefit. I'd have loved to have been a proud member of SMISA and would have been happy to have contributed much more than £25 per month as the project went on.  if only the SMISA board had delivered what it was openly promising. 

Okay fair enough SMISA. I don't really like referring to them as separate entities as we're all St Mirren but that's neither here nor there. 

Everything you've said after that sounds fantastic and it comes back to my earlier 'tail wagging the dog' comment. Such a shame we've lost your £23 over your £2 concerns. As unhappy as you might be, the long-term goals is a fan owned and community club. Are the people you have issue with now realistically going to be in charge in eight years? 20 years? 50 years? Nope, for me it's all about the future of our great club and the future is brighter with increased commitments. 

Shame we have a few that can't see the wood for the trees. 

Share this post


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

The members cant vote to disapply the asset lock (theres a clue in the name there). To spend the ring fenced funds on anything other than share purchase, as has been explained,  a special resolution would need to be drafted, presented and voted on, BEFORE any vote can take place to decide what the other thing to spend it is the membership want to spend the funds on!

That brings you back to the asset lock which prohibits the Society from transferring its assets to a private company, especially in this instance where the primary reason is to buy advertising & sponsorship rights. I know you and others have said the astroturfing will indirectly benefit the community, however as we know the primary objective of the club is to lay a rinky-dink 4g surface as Ross has said he wont let the first team train on anything else. 

So whete is the community benefit? Where are the numbers, key measurables, how many more, less, better..? How will this enable the community to become more resilient..? How will this affect youth crime and anti social behaviour... in numbers?

i could ask smisa to fund a new shop in paisley as it could directly benefit the community, i could give you a swathe of facts and figures to back it up. The club & smisa haven't offered one stat on how a new 4g pitch for Jack & the boys would benefit the community. And shot themselves in the foot saying the justification is that we would appear to be paying an inflated fee for a service (advertising/sponsorship) which is again an offence in its  own right..!

*takes deep breath...

 

Thing is on a CBS you can vote to disapply a more complex  asset lock, to all except giving the money to the members.....

 

...in a CIC...however you cannot....

 

...I am sure I have one of those CICing (sic) around somewhere....oh wait a minute.

 

..steps back

Share this post


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

The members cant vote to disapply the asset lock (theres a clue in the name there). To spend the ring fenced funds on anything other than share purchase, as has been explained,  a special resolution would need to be drafted, presented and voted on, BEFORE any vote can take place to decide what the other thing to spend it is the membership want to spend the funds on!

That brings you back to the asset lock which prohibits the Society from transferring its assets to a private company, especially in this instance where the primary reason is to buy advertising & sponsorship rights. I know you and others have said the astroturfing will indirectly benefit the community, however as we know the primary objective of the club is to lay a rinky-dink 4g surface as Ross has said he wont let the first team train on anything else. 

So whete is the community benefit? Where are the numbers, key measurables, how many more, less, better..? How will this enable the community to become more resilient..? How will this affect youth crime and anti social behaviour... in numbers?

i could ask smisa to fund a new shop in paisley as it could directly benefit the community, i could give you a swathe of facts and figures to back it up. The club & smisa haven't offered one stat on how a new 4g pitch for Jack & the boys would benefit the community. And shot themselves in the foot saying the justification is that we would appear to be paying an inflated fee for a service (advertising/sponsorship) which is again an offence in its  own right..!

Blow the whistle then, let us know how you get on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Okay fair enough SMISA. I don't really like referring to them as separate entities as we're all St Mirren but that's neither here nor there. 


It may be neither here nor there to you but that is a big part of the problem throughout this thread.

SMISA is a body set up to oversee the purchase of the majority shareholding of St Mirren FC.

They CANNOT be one and the same... a professional distance HAS to be maintained so that decision making is best for the business.

When Stewart Gilmour took over, he made many decisions that you would have objected to.

Cutbacks in spending that affected the team on the pitch for one.

He did that to ensure we still had a club to support.

That is the key issue here too.

Share this post


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


 

 


It may be neither here nor there to you but that is a big part of the problem throughout this thread.

SMISA is a body set up to oversee the purchase of the majority shareholding of St Mirren FC.

They CANNOT be one and the same... a professional distance HAS to be maintained so that decision making is best for the business.

When Stewart Gilmour took over, he made many decisions that you would have objected to.

Cutbacks in spending that affected the team on the pitch for one.

He did that to ensure we still had a club to support.

That is the key issue here too.
 

 

And in what way is it not a good business move by SMISA to lend this money that will not be used anyway for a number of years? I see two clear benefits to SMISA

1. The asset that'll still be getting used when BTB completes 

2. The financial saving for St Mirren football club and their first year back in the top flight. (The stronger the team and the position they're in when the deal completes the better)

Very good business move IMO given how well costed the repayment is and the fact the funds will be gaining very little interest. 

Share this post


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

And right there is the reason why it's pointless debating anything with you. Who's spat the dummy now?

Nope, I'm telling you if you believe all that you've just posted you should blow the whistle. You know there is ramifications for being 'aware' of a legislative breach and NOT blowing the whistle right? 

Fortunately the 'aware' part doesn't impact you because everything you're spouting isn't based on actual evidence, it's on interpretation of what the money is being spent on (You don't think an argument can be made for a community benefit) and a failure to grasp an extract from a document that has been shared with you now several times. 

But never the less go for it, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And in what way is it not a good business move by SMISA to lend this money that will not be used anyway for a number of years? I see two clear benefits to SMISA
1. The asset that'll still be getting used when BTB completes 
2. The financial saving for St Mirren football club and their first year back in the top flight. (The stronger the team and the position they're in when the deal completes the better)
Very good business move IMO given how well costed the repayment is and the fact the funds will be gaining very little interest. 
You are like a record with a scratch.
You have said all that many a time and refuted any attempt to answer it.

The fact you went out of your way to do so whrn it was not the point I am making shows that either you have the deflection skills of a top politician or really are struggling for a grasp on the reality of what people are talking about here.

My point is that SMISA HAS to take a business like approach and maintain a professional distance from St Mirren until the majority shareholding has been finalised.

They are separate bodies and that has to remain the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

You are like a record with a scratch.
You have said all that many a time and refuted any attempt to answer it.

The fact you went out of your way to do so whrn it was not the point I am making shows that either you have the deflection skills of a top politician or really are struggling for a grasp on the reality of what people are talking about here.

My point is that SMISA HAS to take a business like approach and maintain a professional distance from St Mirren until the majority shareholding has been finalised.

They are separate bodies and that has to remain the case.

Okay well answer this question then.

In what way is this a poor business decision by SMISA? You're the one saying we need to think like a business, I think it's very business astute. Please tell me why it's not? 

I'll even happily turn it around for you. Please give me your reasoning's and benefits to why SMISA should keep a 'professional distance' in relation to an asset and football club they'll soon own? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bazil85 said:

Okay well answer this question then.

In what way is this a poor business decision by SMISA? You're the one saying we need to think like a business, I think it's very business astute. Please tell me why it's not? 

I'll even happily turn it around for you. Please give me your reasoning's and benefits to why SMISA should keep a 'professional distance' in relation to an asset and football club they'll soon own? 

Because when I buy a company I don't first build them a new office and then buy it.  I buy it and then build the new office

Share this post


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

Because when I buy a company I don't first build them a new office and then buy it.  I buy it and then build the new office

The purchase price is set and confirmed in a signed contract. Us doing any work or funding any work will not change the terms of BTB. 

Share this post


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

 

The Purchase price is set.

But you are spending £50K more on the product by putting money in that you could otherwise spent on something else, or saved for a rainy day, and that the Club out of its own resources could fund.

It is like buying a house for £1m that needs £50k spent on fixing a roof that is already leaking.

Giving the current owner £50K to fix it before you own it thus allowing the current owner to  go and buy a Jag instead

The wondering in 20 years time when the roof needs fixed again where you can get £50K to fix it 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

The Purchase price is set.

But you are spending £50K more on the product by putting money in that you could otherwise spent on something else, or saved for a rainy day, and that the Club out of its own resources could fund.

It is like buying a house for £1m that needs £50k spent on fixing a roof that is already leaking.

Giving the current owner £50K to fix it before you own it thus allowing the current owner to  go and buy a Jag instead

The wondering in 20 years time when the roof needs fixed again where you can get £50K to fix it 

 

Yeah and if that's your opinion on what we should be doing with the money, keeping it until we have the club, that's absolutely fine. I don't think your comparison is relevant given we are all fans of St Mirren football club and want what's absolutely best for the 11 players in the black and white every week but that opinion is fine. I'm allowed to disagree with it like you can disagree with me. 

My opinion is, when we do take over the club, I'd rather we had given St Mirren every opportunity possible to be in the best shape when we get the keys so to speak. A new AstroTurf pitch, £50k back in next years budget, paying a wee bit extra to wages to avoid a drop to L1, buying balls so that the money can be used by the club in other areas. All falls into that category for me. As for your 'buy a Jag' comment, I have faith any money the club save is being put back into the budget not lining GLS or anyone else's pocket but that is of course a matter of trust. 

Your last sentence has came up several times in several different forms over this thread and the answer is exceptionally simple. We'll fund it the same way as any other club of our rough size would. Out of our budget. Just because we have the added bonus of SMISA money now doesn't mean it'll be Armageddon if we have expenses in the future. Few clubs at our level have the benefit of a rich owner, they have to pay one off costs and repairs from their budget. Fan owned SMFC will be no different. 

These are just two different opinions. 1. Keep the money 2. Give the money to St Mirren. neither is right or wrong, just opinion. This is where conflict comes on this post, people refusing to accept others have different opinions.

That and people being against a democratic vote and screaming 'law breakers' with zero facts or evidence. :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

Okay fair enough SMISA. I don't really like referring to them as separate entities as we're all St Mirren but that's neither here nor there. 

Everything you've said after that sounds fantastic and it comes back to my earlier 'tail wagging the dog' comment. Such a shame we've lost your £23 over your £2 concerns. As unhappy as you might be, the long-term goals is a fan owned and community club. Are the people you have issue with now realistically going to be in charge in eight years? 20 years? 50 years? Nope, for me it's all about the future of our great club and the future is brighter with increased commitments. 

Shame we have a few that can't see the wood for the trees. 

True Bazil. I said all along the £2 pot should have been kept outside of the Community Benefit Society and kept optional. That way those who didn't or couldn't afford to be a member of SMISA could still have taken part in donating to the club, and to club related causes. And it would have meant that people like me who didn't like how that money was being spent, but still saw the benefit in community ownership of the club could have continued to be an active member of that. The thing is though Bazil, if it hadn't been the concerns over the £2 spend that put me off, it certainly would have been the latest decision to raid the ring fenced pot without following the procedures outlined in their own constitution. 

I agree with BinEK. Legally SMISA and St Mirren are two separate entities. The "I" in the name should make that very clear. And SMISA's job is to buy shares in the football club and to represent the fans on the board of the football club. I don't think Gordon Scott should be a member of SMISA at all as it looks to me like a very obvious conflict of interest to allow a member to have so much influence over the Community Benefit Society especially when as the majority shareholder he potentially stands to gain financially from any investment in the Ltd business.

Scott, I'd never claim to be an expert or better qualified than what you claim to be in this field. Most people know I'm a fat, baldy bloke with dodgy knees. I'm not in Financial Services, I'm an engineer who does a wee bit of software programming and strategy analysis for HVAC Systems. I've been on a long learning curve when it comes to Social Enterprise but I've seen some brilliant examples and their outcomes and gained some good contacts. But I don't think you need to be an expert to see that SMISA has gone wrong, yet again. I admire your dogmatic stance against all comers. I hope the guys on the SMISA board appreciate your efforts too. But honestly Scott, I think it would be better if you took back the message to whoever your friends are on the SMISA board that they need to look at what they are doing with ringfenced funds again before they do something stupid. If that means delaying the £50k payment until after they've lodged their Special Resolution and held their SGM before getting everything rubber stamped by the membership then so be it. It only needs to take a minimum of 21 days. Plenty of time to get the whole thing done properly before the new season starts. 

Share this post


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

 

Your last sentence has came up several times in several different forms over this thread and the answer is exceptionally simple. We'll fund it the same way as any other club of our rough size would. Out of our budget. Just because we have the added bonus of SMISA money now doesn't mean it'll be Armageddon if we have expenses in the future. Few clubs at our level have the benefit of a rich owner, they have to pay one off costs and repairs from their budget. Fan owned SMFC will be no different. 

 

Scott, I've already pointed out to you there is no other football club at our level that owns two grass parks that need maintained by a full time groundsman, and an astrograss park that can't be let out. If the club runs at "break even" as it claimed on the SMISA website by Gordon Scott, and SMISA have failed to plan to raise the £150,000 needed to replace the playing surface when that issue happens again in 8 - 12 years time, what you are saying would mean that £150,000 would have to be taken from the playing budget in one go at that time. That's obviously going to be damaging. 

Share this post


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

Scott, I've already pointed out to you there is no other football club at our level that owns two grass parks that need maintained by a full time groundsman, and an astrograss park that can't be let out. If the club runs at "break even" as it claimed on the SMISA website by Gordon Scott, and SMISA have failed to plan to raise the £150,000 needed to replace the playing surface when that issue happens again in 8 - 12 years time, what you are saying would mean that £150,000 would have to be taken from the playing budget in one go at that time. That's obviously going to be damaging. 

As much as you pointed it out, I would be very surprised if a wee club from Paisley was in a unique position in this world (or even UK) I think I also pointed out there will be other clubs our size with more expenses than us or that have higher debt levels, rent costs, older stadiums, other one off expense needs that dwarf our club. I don't think anyone can make the training ground situation St Mirren are in a negative.

We will budget for costs as we have done our whole history. £50k is a drop in the ocean for a football club of our size, St Mirren are making the request because the facility is there not because it would financially cripple us if it wasn't. I fail to grasp if GLS has said 'we could fund it this time.' Why would we not or why should it be a fiancial disaster in 10-15 years? 

A quick Google of English clubs with similar attendance levels to us brings up Walsall FC 4,571 average attendance (second team I checked after Blackpool who are also close to opening a new state of the art training complex). Stadium roughly 15 years older than us and bigger, training grounds very similar to us opened in 2008. Over 15 acres two pitches (they also have an Astroturf pitch them maintain at their stadium) then all the bells and whistles we have. 

They don't appear to have a rich chairman, what happens if they have to replace the pitch? Going to imagine it would be very similar to when St Mirren have to do it. 

Share this post


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

Nope, I'm telling you if you believe all that you've just posted you should blow the whistle. You know there is ramifications for being 'aware' of a legislative breach and NOT blowing the whistle right? 

Fortunately the 'aware' part doesn't impact you because everything you're spouting isn't based on actual evidence, it's on interpretation of what the money is being spent on (You don't think an argument can be made for a community benefit) and a failure to grasp an extract from a document that has been shared with you now several times. 

But never the less go for it, 

Yeah ok, i'll accept you submit on this. 

When i was on the smisa board i made them acutely aware what they intended to do was wrong, voted against it and made sure it was all recorded fot future reference. The whistle blew over a year ago. If you can show me what inhave said that isn't evidently backed up i'd like to see that!

not in your opinion, or indeed mine. Just quote me what isn't irrefutable evidence.

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...