The 3 Monthly Spend

[StuD]

21 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

All the current board put themselves up for election.

Not there fault that they where unopposed.

All elected fair and square, only the usual mischievous remarks from some. Sad people.

How many votes did each of them get? 

[Lord Pityme]

52 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

I don't remember there being a vote given to all members? And as a previous Smisa board member i know the membership didnt vote me in, or out.

I can't remember. Who was the director/directors that had resigned from the committee after the preceding AGM when you took up the post?

Don't understand your question?

are you talking about club directors resigning from the smisa board, or club board, or something else?

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

All the current board put themselves up for election.

Not there fault that they where unopposed.

All elected fair and square, only the usual mischievous remarks from some. Sad people.

I dont think anyone is being mischievous, just highlighting that the committee basically picks itself as there is seldom competition for places in the current format. Perhaps that should change and an actual online vote take place for each new, or standing again candidate

[StuD]

2 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

They got all the votes with none against.

Did no-one count the votes for? Or is there just no record of it? Or do you just not know Cockles? 

On the SMISA website it states that "an affirmative ballot" would be held where the membership would get to approve the election of five members. What was the result of that ballot? 

[StuD]

1 minute ago, cockles1987 said:

Yes

No

Yes

All accepted.

Wow, that must be the first SMISA vote that has had a 100% turnout. Still if that is what you are claiming.....

[smcc]

39 minutes ago, StuD said:

Wow, that must be the first SMISA vote that has had a 100% turnout. Still if that is what you are claiming.....

Where did he suggest that there was a 100% turnout?

[Lord Pityme]

6 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

6 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Don't understand your question?
are you talking about club directors resigning from the smisa board, or club board, or something else?

Just SMISA, Who was if any, the director/directors that had resigned from the date of the AGM to when you were co opted into the board?

None, they werent up to their allowable number.

[Lord Pityme]

3 hours ago, StuD said:

Did no-one count the votes for? Or is there just no record of it? Or do you just not know Cockles? 

On the SMISA website it states that "an affirmative ballot" would be held where the membership would get to approve the election of five members. What was the result of that ballot? 

There is no count, the committee member up for re-election is unopposed, chair basically asks if anyone opposes, they dont, so stay on committee.

[billyg]

Committee including new members were voted it at the AGM , each unanimously,  by a show of hands by all in attendance.

[StuD]

18 minutes ago, billyg said:

Committee including new members were voted it at the AGM , each unanimously,  by a show of hands by all in attendance.

So how many members were in attendance Billy? 

[billyg]

17 minutes ago, StuD said:

So how many members were in attendance Billy? 

Who knows , but it was open to everyone who is a member of Smisa , and everyone was notified about the meeting !

[Lord Pityme]

10 hours ago, StuD said:

So how many members were in attendance Billy? 

Last year if you discount committee/club attendees it was about fifty. Didnt go this year but it heard it was less.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

On 26/04/2018 at 2:35 PM, Lord Pityme said:

Here's the thing i find surprising that no one seems even the slightest bit interested in questioning.

during the BtB campaign most reasonable people assumed that fan ownership wouldnt mean micro managing the club, picking the team or transfer targets etc... but most seemed keen to have some involvement in the strategy & direction the club should be going in, and perhaps be consulted on the bigger issues affecting the club...

in the two years now since BtB was launched how often have the membership been consulted on anything affecting the club (other than continually giving them money)..?

the short answer is less than Once.!

so whats the point of having a representative on the board when we as thirty per cent shareholders have no say or input on anything other than giving our share purchase funds to the club? Dorsnt anyone see what's happening here?

I see a club moving forward as a supporter and member that's all I need to see. This thread is a good example of why not to post day to day reports of the board room. Scott gives us all updates. 

[Lord Pityme]

5 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

I see a club moving forward as a supporter and member that's all I need to see. This thread is a good example of why not to post day to day reports of the board room. Scott gives us all updates. 

Your opinion which you are entitled to. My opinion is having willingly been part of the group that has taken on a thirty percent shareholding in the club with the aim of taking over the majority shareholding, blind faith is not an option. To date in two years the membership have not been involved in one solitarily issue as regards the strategy and direction the club are headed in!

in any other company that would never happen as the 30% shareholder would exercise their right to be meaningfully involved. If you dont accept the responsibility you signed up to, live in blind faith, then you will reap exactly what you have sown. Jeez how many examples of football club boards going rogue on their support does one need to see to realise you have to keep tabs on them?

mind they are always happy to tell us how to spend OUR money!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Not sure they should be involved in strategy or direction of the club - they don't own the shares.

[Lord Pityme]

9 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Not sure they should be involved in strategy or direction of the club - they don't own the shares.

If you are referring to Smisa members then they do own almost 30% of SMFC,  and aim to become the majority shareholder.

[bazil85]

On 4/27/2018 at 2:17 PM, StuD said:

Bazil, I think this is where you really struggle. The vote that just happened isn't valid according to SMISA's own constitution and it's not valid according to the 2014 Act that governs Community Benefit Societies. 

According to the Constitution and the Act before any rule change a Special Resolution has to be lodged and a Special General Meeting called. That meeting needs to be attended by a minimum percentage of the total membership, the meeting should only deal with the Special Resolution. Changing the use of ring fenced funds is definitely a change of the rules. You have already accepted this. Yet the correct process has not been observed. 

Now it may just be semantics. Perhaps the Special Resolution would be carried by a large majority and the only outcome would be a delay in writing the cheque, but the fact remains that unless the SMISA board follow due process they are in breach of the Act and the vote that just happened was not valid. 

If the SMISA board don't understand this then as I've said repeatedly SMISA is not fit for purpose. 

Trust me Stuart, I'm not struggling with it in the slightest, I've dealt with several submissions to regulators in the last two months. 

The FCA will sign-off on the deal if they're happy with it. Exceptions to legislation/ regulation happens on a daily basis. If they feel SMISA have acted in a fit and proper way that reflects the will of their members I doubt there will be any problems. 

We'll see though, they might very well reject it. I would be very surprised if that happened though. 

[St.Ricky]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Trust me Stuart, I'm not struggling with it in the slightest, I've dealt with several submissions to regulators in the last two months. 

The FCA will sign-off on the deal if they're happy with it. Exceptions to legislation/ regulation happens on a daily basis. If they feel SMISA have acted in a fit and proper way that reflects the will of their members I doubt there will be any problems. 

We'll see though, they might very well reject it. I would be very surprised if that happened though. 

Wouldn't it be better just to follow the correct procedures? 

I fully support the ideal of fan ownership but have yet to commit to funding. 

My concerns are in governance.

Why did you not just follow the agreed rules? 

It seems to me to be a simple and relevant question. 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Wouldn't it be better just to follow the correct procedures? 

I fully support the ideal of fan ownership but have yet to commit to funding. 

My concerns are in governance.

Why did you not just follow the agreed rules? 

It seems to me to be a simple and relevant question. 

Better for who? Sometimes it's not practical and it's certainly not always possible in every situation. There's not a regulated medium/ large sized company in the country that won't need to use exceptions (that's why they exist) at some point. I used the example of GDPR recently. 

What I would say to fans worried about the governance of this vote is, do they really think the outcome would be any different? There's concerns about process and there's just being a tiny bit pernickety. So yeah maybe they could of done it differently, I don't know but if the outcome is very likely to be the same, what's the issue?  

[St.Ricky]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Better for who? Sometimes it's not practical and it's certainly not always possible in every situation. There's not a regulated medium/ large sized company in the country that won't need to use exceptions (that's why they exist) at some point. I used the example of GDPR recently. 

What I would say to fans worried about the governance of this vote is, do they really think the outcome would be any different? There's concerns about process and there's just being a tiny bit pernickety. So yeah maybe they could of done it differently, I don't know but if the outcome is very likely to be the same, what's the issue?  

Your last sentence sums it up. The fact that you don't see the irony in it is the essence of the issue. Still support the fan buy out in principle but only with strict adherence to the existing rules until they are changed by due process.  Clumsy? Yes. Nescessary? Yes

[bazil85]

42 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Your last sentence sums it up. The fact that you don't see the irony in it is the essence of the issue. Still support the fan buy out in principle but only with strict adherence to the existing rules until they are changed by due process.  Clumsy? Yes. Nescessary? Yes

If you think strict adherence is so easy to achieve then you don't understand the aspects of legislation and regulation. If it was easy why should we even have an exception process? 

It's funny you support the essence of fan buyout but not willing to back it for something so short-term. Said it before. There is a good amount of 'tail wagging the dog' when it comes to the £10/£23 element versus the £2 a month. The people that will run our club (the fans) in years to come if we are fan owned are different from the people you might disagree with right now. BTB is a long-term, great opportunity for our club and it baffles me that people will use the £2 as an excuse not to back it... But hey, each to their own. 

[St.Ricky]

25 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

If you think strict adherence is so easy to achieve then you don't understand the aspects of legislation and regulation. If it was easy why should we even have an exception process? 

It's funny you support the essence of fan buyout but not willing to back it for something so short-term. Said it before. There is a good amount of 'tail wagging the dog' when it comes to the £10/£23 element versus the £2 a month. The people that will run our club (the fans) in years to come if we are fan owned are different from the people you might disagree with right now. BTB is a long-term, great opportunity for our club and it baffles me that people will use the £2 as an excuse not to back it... But hey, each to their own. 

Please don't patronise me.

Simple. Do things according to the rules under which the organisation was established and which existing members signed up. That is what is required. Nothing more. Nothing less. To do otherwise is to go down a slippery path where exceptions become the norm because the Group in Charge believe it to be so.  This attitude may lead to problems and is best avoided.

[bazil85]

11 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Please don't patronise me.

Simple. Do things according to the rules under which the organisation was established and which existing members signed up. That is what is required. Nothing more. Nothing less. To do otherwise is to go down a slippery path where exceptions become the norm because the Group in Charge believe it to be so.  This attitude may lead to problems and is best avoided.

I don't need to after reading your second paragraph. If you genuinely think holding off the vote for an extra week or so would have changed the result then fine (that's likely what the FCA will look at when making their decision), if you are a stickler for detail fine, if you think BTB is best avoided because you don't like the short-term decisions over a small fraction of the money fine. 

But in the grand scheme I don't think it's anything that can justify going in a wee huff about, it's done now, won't matter in 7-9 years when we have the club and it's secured with the people that care most about St Mirren FC, the fans.  

[St.Ricky]

33 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I don't need to after reading your second paragraph. If you genuinely think holding off the vote for an extra week or so would have changed the result then fine (that's likely what the FCA will look at when making their decision), if you are a stickler for detail fine, if you think BTB is best avoided because you don't like the short-term decisions over a small fraction of the money fine. 

But in the grand scheme I don't think it's anything that can justify going in a wee huff about, it's done now, won't matter in 7-9 years when we have the club and it's secured with the people that care most about St Mirren FC, the fans.  

You should be in politics.

How dare you patronise me again.

Doing the right thing in the right way matters both now and in the future.

Your approach is both provacative and counter productive.

You are using diversionary tactics to avoid the basic question regarding good governance. You know very well that I am talking about the principles involved and in no state of "huff" as you put it.

It would be sad to see the project go wrong due to ignorance camouflaged as knowledge. Just do the right thing according to the rules set out. That can't be difficult surely?

You seem happy to obfuscate and patronise rather than accept that your sole authority is derived from the rules established when the organisation was established and under which I assume you were appointed.

Would it be OK just to decide sumarily that you should be dispensed with without proper process? 

Edited April 30, 2018 by St.Ricky

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

You should be in politics.

How dare you patronise me again.

Doing the right thing in the right way matters both now and in the future.

Your approach is both provacative and counter productive.

You are using diversionary tactics to avoid the basic question regarding good governance. You know very well that I am talking about the principles involved and in no state of "huff" as you put it.

It would be sad to see the project go wrong due to ignorance camouflaged as knowledge. Just do the right thing according to the rules set out. That can't be difficult surely?

You seem happy to obfuscate and patronise rather than accept that your sole authority is derived from the rules established when the organisation was established and under which I assume you were appointed.

Would it be OK just to decide sumarily that you should be dispensed with without proper process? 

At the risk of sounding 'patronising' an exception to a process being used/ agreed is not breaking rules or wrong doing. Exceptions are a massive part of 'good governance' as you put it.