The 3 Monthly Spend

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, melmac said:

Seems to be going around in circles, Baz / the committee saying and believing one thing and a vocal very small minority (myself included ) quite rightly pointing out that the committee are stiffing the membership.

A few things are clear, namely, the vast majority of the membership don't know to care they are being stiffed; the club and committee are going to continue doing it; no one person is going to stop them.

Stifling members is your opinion. Way more members don’t think they are being and think the proposal is good for the club we all support, which is the ultimate aim. 

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

At no time have I suggested you are on the SMISA committee, my question was based on your comment of people "cancelling on the back of this"

I believe the comment at the AGM that got reported on here was no discernable drop off (or words to that effect).
I was also told that about the 19th April by a SMISA committee member but you have suggested there had been cancellations.
I'm curious to find out how many.

Well ask someone on the committee. I thought it was strange you asked me direct and didn’t ask the collective... 

[Kombibuddie]

At the end of the day, the 50k being dipped into is being used for something that is of benefit to Jack Ross and St Mirren. When the SMiSA piggy bank is raided again, as I firmly believe it will, I am sure that something else will be voted on that benefits the manager / team / club. Let’s say it was new equipment for Tommy Doc’ to help ensure a bowling green surface at the Twenny Twenny Wan. Put to a vote - ‘do you agree to spend this money helping our groundsman ensure Jack Ross’ stars can be given the best possible playing surface’ - it’ll sail through. No contest, a doddle.
Baz will say, it’s all good, it was voted on and democracy wins out.
I have saved my post where I stated that ‘fan ownership’ will never happen. GLS will remain as the new SG, with SMiSA like a pet dug’ beside the dinner table, getting thrown scraps.
Time will tell.

Without the shadow of a doubt,
I expect the ring fenced money will be dipped into again. I hope I am wrong but only time will tell.

[Kombibuddie]

Well ask someone on the committee. I thought it was strange you asked me direct and didn’t ask the collective... 

I asked the collective but my question was based on a commentbyou made, hence why it was quoted.

 

As for asking a committee member, I didn't need to. One called me, we had a chat & they stated no cancellations because of this (that was on April 19th I think)

 

They didn't convince me to change my mind and I didn't convince them to change theirs.

 

Time will tell if the no longer ring fenced money gets dipped again.

 

If the thread in discussion about a John McGinn transfer happens and 33% of the fee comes to St Mirren, could/should St Mirren repay the £50k to SMISA?

 

 

 

[St.Ricky]

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

That's strange, others seem to think my approach coincides with an in-depth knowledge that only a SMISA committee member could have 

That would merely multiply the foolishness of you continuing to defend a position that you state doesn't need defending. People might just start to think....why is this guy making so much of this? Is it a distraction? Is there something to hide? Think it through. It's happened. Best that SMISA and it's members learn from it and move on. But...again...you are playing a risky game with your approach. Have you looked at Stirling Albion recently?

[pozbaird]

42 minutes ago, Smithers Jones said:

In your opinion.

Why is this clear ?

It isn’t clear. People will hold many varying views. Some may share my view, some may have concerns and voted ‘no’, some will have concerns but voted ‘yes’, while others don’t have an issue with the money being used for astroturf, or indeed anything, as long as it benefits the club. My personal belief is that there is a majority who really don’t care about the money being ring-fenced money, and the club can do what they want, as long as it isn’t being spunked on hookers and White Lightning cider.

[garzo]

24 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

A strong board wouldn’t of given their contributing members a vote? Very strange given there was an 88% agreement from voting members for this. Disappointing the vast majority doesn’t seem very ‘strong’ or sensible  

Do you know how a democratic organisation works? 

Here's how I would have expected this to be dealt with...

Request - £50K as contribution from SMISA for astro pitch please?

Response - We don't have those sort of funds readily available as discretionary to fund this type of thing - SORRY ABOUT THAT!
Its not what the ring fenced funds are for and we won't jeopardise those funds or the trust of our members - REALLY SORRY ABOUT THAT!

Request - is it reasonable to put this to a vote?

Response - We shouldn't put a specific requirement like funding of an astro pitch from ring fenced funds to a vote.
Maybe its prudent to ask if these funds should remain protected or if we can use in emergency situations and in future circumstances if the members want to use the funds for something else.
An astro pitch is not an emergency - lets just agree to keep the funds ring fenced.
Aye OK that's sensible - that's good governance!

Minuted and noted!

Is there another way we could help perhaps?

Options:

We could take out a loan  - NO!
We could transfer funds early in return for shares in proportion to investment.
We could save up our discretionary £2 pot for 30 months and offer £50k at a later time when we've saved up - put that to a vote along with other sensible options for the discretionary pot.
We could help the club with a separate fundraising campaign to raise funds for the astro pitch.
The club could fund it themselves.

G :-)

[bazil85]

44 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Without the shadow of a doubt,
I expect the ring fenced money will be dipped into again. I hope I am wrong but only time will tell.

As long as it's done correctly at the will of the members. I think we should show more faith in the people at SMISA and voting members having what's best for SMFC at heart. The £50k is very well costed to be repaid and I'm sure future asks will be as well. 

[pozbaird]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

As long as it's done correctly at the will of the members. I think we should show more faith in the people at SMISA and voting members having what's best for SMFC at heart. The £50k is very well costed to be repaid and I'm sure future asks will be as well. 

Future asks, eh? From the money ring-fenced to purchase shares? When would you expect the next ask to be?

[bazil85]

30 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I asked the collective but my question was based on a commentbyou made, hence why it was quoted.

 

As for asking a committee member, I didn't need to. One called me, we had a chat & they stated no cancellations because of this (that was on April 19th I think)

 

They didn't convince me to change my mind and I didn't convince them to change theirs.

 

Time will tell if the no longer ring fenced money gets dipped again.

 

If the thread in discussion about a John McGinn transfer happens and 33% of the fee comes to St Mirren, could/should St Mirren repay the £50k to SMISA?

 

 

 

1. Neither it should, 88% members voted in favour, it should stand.

2. No, why would it? The costing to pay it back is already very clear and set out, it gives a number of paying members what they want (large ticket spend for the £2 fund) Also if we get money for John McGinn we still will have one of the lowest budgets in the league. Every penny we can spare/ make should be invested into keeping us in the league next season, that much is obvious to me. 

[bazil85]

29 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

That would merely multiply the foolishness of you continuing to defend a position that you state doesn't need defending. People might just start to think....why is this guy making so much of this? Is it a distraction? Is there something to hide? Think it through. It's happened. Best that SMISA and it's members learn from it and move on. But...again...you are playing a risky game with your approach. Have you looked at Stirling Albion recently?

The reason I keep going on about it is because of continual childish, low ball comments like yours. 'Is it a distration' 'Has he something to hide' No matter how many underhanded comments you and others want to make my friend, the answer remains the same.

The same way as I will defend the club against anyone saying SMFC and SMISA have broken the law I will defend myself against people hinting that I'm a liar with zero evidence, just their own lack of research and knowledge. 

SMISA learning from it is yet again your opinion they've done something wrong and yet again you're in the minority. 

Would you kindly like to enlighten us with the similarities between Stirling Albion and St Mirren and how that comment is in any way, shape or form relevant? 

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

The reason I keep going on about it is because of continual childish, low ball comments like yours. 'Is it a distration' 'Has he something to hide' No matter how many underhanded comments you and others want to make my friend, the answer remains the same.

The same way as I will defend the club against anyone saying SMFC and SMISA have broken the law I will defend myself against people hinting that I'm a liar with zero evidence, just their own lack of research and knowledge. 

SMISA learning from it is yet again your opinion they've done something wrong and yet again you're in the minority. 

Would you kindly like to enlighten us with the similarities between Stirling Albion and St Mirren and how that comment is in any way, shape or form relevant? 

You read me completely wrongly.  My comments are made solely to advise, not criticise. 

I asked if you have looked at the situation at Stirling Albion... have you? 

[bazil85]

14 minutes ago, garzo said:

Here's how I would have expected this to be dealt with...

Request - £50K as contribution from SMISA for astro pitch please?

Response - We don't have those sort of funds readily available as discretionary to fund this type of thing - SORRY ABOUT THAT!
Its not what the ring fenced funds are for and we won't jeopardise those funds or the trust of our members - REALLY SORRY ABOUT THAT!

Request - is it reasonable to put this to a vote?

Response - We shouldn't put a specific requirement like funding of an astro pitch from ring fenced funds to a vote.
Maybe its prudent to ask if these funds should remain protected or if we can use in emergency situations and in future circumstances if the members want to use the funds for something else.
An astro pitch is not an emergency - lets just agree to keep the funds ring fenced.
Aye OK that's sensible - that's good governance!

Minuted and noted!

Is there another way we could help perhaps?

Options:

We could take out a loan  - NO!
We could transfer funds early in return for shares in proportion to investment.
We could save up our discretionary £2 pot for 30 months and offer £50k at a later time when we've saved up - put that to a vote along with other sensible options for the discretionary pot.
We could help the club with a separate fundraising campaign to raise funds for the astro pitch.
The club could fund it themselves.

G :-)

Request - St Mirren football club would like to request that the SMISA paying fans of St Mirren football club be engaged in the ability to fund an important aspect of the training facility with £50k that would be funded through the £2 discretionary fund. We are aware these funds are not currently available. Would it be prudent to ask members if they would be willing to take the funds from the other account that's likely garnering under 1% credit interest to fund this on the pretence the £2 fund will replenish it. There is full legal and regulatory ability to do this as per the associated Act. 

SMISA 1 - We have historically seen the majority of our members are more than happy to help the football club we all support, we also acknowledge there is legal and regulatory ability to propose this funding and release those funds, we can also see the costing plan is minimal risk, well thought out and would represent both a community and club benefit for the football club we'll one day own... But no, because some fans will spit the dummy and go on about governance, legislation and whistelblowing when they have little knowledge of any of the above. 

SMISA 2 - We'll canvas members in the spirit of the organisation we are and let you know if it passes... Oh yeah passed by a landslide. 

Want to talk about governance further? I could talk about it all day

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Future asks, eh? From the money ring-fenced to purchase shares? When would you expect the next ask to be?

In all honesty I don't think there will be another one more I think about it. If there is and it's similar to this one (well costed, community and club benfit) I really don't see the issue. BTB will conclude at same time and be uneffected, long-term plans will be unchanged. 

[garzo]

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Request - St Mirren football club would like to request that the SMISA paying fans of St Mirren football club be engaged in the ability to fund an important aspect of the training facility with £50k that would be funded through the £2 discretionary fund. We are aware these funds are not currently available. Would it be prudent to ask members if they would be willing to take the funds from the other account that's likely garnering under 1% credit interest to fund this on the pretence the £2 fund will replenish it. There is full legal and regulatory ability to do this as per the associated Act. 

SMISA 1 - We have historically seen the majority of our members are more than happy to help the football club we all support, we also acknowledge there is legal and regulatory ability to propose this funding and release those funds, we can also see the costing plan is minimal risk, well thought out and would represent both a community and club benefit for the football club we'll one day own... But no, because some fans will spit the dummy and go on about governance, legislation and whistelblowing when they have little knowledge of any of the above. 

SMISA 2 - We'll canvas members in the spirit of the organisation we are and let you know if it passes... Oh yeah passed by a landslide. 

Want to talk about governance further? I could talk about it all day

I stay true to my position and would back my judgement as sound and unbiased in favour of SMISA membership and objectives.

expand please as you say you can talk about governance all day.

[bazil85]

8 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

You read me completely wrongly.  My comments are made solely to advise, not criticise. 

I asked if you have looked at the situation at Stirling Albion... have you? 

Yes I know the situation better than most (also not on their trust by the way ) I also know the situation at Hearts, Dunfermline, Motherwell, etc. It actually interests me greatly.

So please again, how does their situation relate to St Mirren say more than Hearts (Who by the way BTB was modelled on, model is a wee bit different from Stirling Albion...) 

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Yes I know the situation better than most (also not on their trust by the way ) I also know the situation at Hearts, Dunfermline, Motherwell, etc. It actually interests me greatly.

So please again, how does their situation relate to St Mirren say more than Hearts (Who by the way BTB was modelled on, model is a wee bit different from Stirling Albion...) 

Loss of support for the board.... 

Worth noting. 

No need to reply. 

I am over and out on this thread. 

[bazil85]

Just now, garzo said:

I stay true to my position and would back my judgement as sound and unbiased in favour of SMISA membership and objectives.

expand please as you say you can talk about governance all day.

Your position is a matter of opinion as is mine. In regards to governance, there has been dozens of comments on here that this deal represents 'poor governance' It does not. I think a number have just heard the expression and would likely struggle to give a definition of governance but that's a different story haha 

I have pointed out several times that had everything been followed to the letter in regards to timescales the outcome would have been the same. With 88% Yes vote, few people could argue that. Because people seem like an absolute stickler for rules and have no time to listen to what an exception process is, they automatically say 'poor governance' It's not.

You can't yell 'poor governance' because the process has been sped up yet not changed the outcome  that's an unreal position to argue!

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, St.Ricky said:

Loss of support for the board.... 

Worth noting. 

No need to reply. 

I am over and out on this thread. 

You've said that several times, please god let it be true this time. 

Loss of support for the board? You mean the roughly five people on here that aren't even contributing? 

Again, I wonder what 'Loss of support' we would of seen if it leaked that SMISA had refused to tell members about the request... 88% in favour 12% against hmm surely a no brainer what would have 'lost' most support. 

[garzo]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Your position is a matter of opinion as is mine. In regards to governance, there has been dozens of comments on here that this deal represents 'poor governance' It does not. I think a number have just heard the expression and would likely struggle to give a definition of governance but that's a different story haha 

I have pointed out several times that had everything been followed to the letter in regards to timescales the outcome would have been the same. With 88% Yes vote, few people could argue that. Because people seem like an absolute stickler for rules and have no time to listen to what an exception process is, they automatically say 'poor governance' It's not.

You can't yell 'poor governance' because the process has been sped up yet not changed the outcome  that's an unreal position to argue!

Rewind - Question and only 1 question in isolation,

Do you as SMISA members approve ring fenced funds to be diverted and used at the boards discretion?

YES/ NO 

[StuD]

16 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Request - St Mirren football club would like to request that the SMISA paying fans of St Mirren football club be engaged in the ability to fund an important aspect of the training facility with £50k that would be funded through the £2 discretionary fund. We are aware these funds are not currently available. Would it be prudent to ask members if they would be willing to take the funds from the other account that's likely garnering under 1% credit interest to fund this on the pretence the £2 fund will replenish it. There is full legal and regulatory ability to do this as per the associated Act. 

SMISA 1 - We have historically seen the majority of our members are more than happy to help the football club we all support, we also acknowledge there is legal and regulatory ability to propose this funding and release those funds, we can also see the costing plan is minimal risk, well thought out and would represent both a community and club benefit for the football club we'll one day own... But no, because some fans will spit the dummy and go on about governance, legislation and whistelblowing when they have little knowledge of any of the above. 

SMISA 2 - We'll canvas members in the spirit of the organisation we are and let you know if it passes... Oh yeah passed by a landslide. 

Want to talk about governance further? I could talk about it all day

In your opinion (since that seems to be the catchphrase of the day) 

In actual fact the Act states that for a change to the constitution - as this undoubtedly is - a Special Resolution must be raised and submitted to the FCA. Then there must follow a Special General Meeting with not less than 21 days notice (or was it 28 - I can't remember) where no topic other than the Special Resolution should be discussed. If the membership then vote in favour of this the constitution change passes - so long as the FCA doesn't object and SMISA can spend ring-fenced funds to their hearts content for ever more. 

The Special General Meeting didn't happen. I doubt a Special Resolution was raised with the FCA. There doesn't appear to be any change to the constitution. And currently SMISA are still claiming that those funds are ring fenced exclusively for share purchase! 

[Kombibuddie]

As long as it's done correctly at the will of the members. I think we should show more faith in the people at SMISA and voting members having what's best for SMFC at heart. The £50k is very well costed to be repaid and I'm sure future asks will be as well. 

I committed to pay £12 per month for 10 years with the sole aim of purchasing The Club.

Each time the ring fenced money gets dipped into in future, if the £2 pot is used to repay it, as you say, the purchase of St Mirren FC by SMISA will not be jeopardised.
However, as me & others are concerned, the "ring fenced" pot might never reach the required fill point to achieve its aim of buying the club.

That is not what I signed up to.

As we say, only time will tell.
Let's see what the next year brings SMISA' way.

Looking pretty interesting

[bazil85]

17 minutes ago, garzo said:

Rewind - Question and only 1 question in isolation,

Do you as SMISA members approve ring fenced funds to be diverted and used at the boards discretion?

YES/ NO 

No

[bazil85]

15 minutes ago, StuD said:

In your opinion (since that seems to be the catchphrase of the day) 

In actual fact the Act states that for a change to the constitution - as this undoubtedly is - a Special Resolution must be raised and submitted to the FCA. Then there must follow a Special General Meeting with not less than 21 days notice (or was it 28 - I can't remember) where no topic other than the Special Resolution should be discussed. If the membership then vote in favour of this the constitution change passes - so long as the FCA doesn't object and SMISA can spend ring-fenced funds to their hearts content for ever more. 

The Special General Meeting didn't happen. I doubt a Special Resolution was raised with the FCA. There doesn't appear to be any change to the constitution. And currently SMISA are still claiming that those funds are ring fenced exclusively for share purchase! 

We've been over exceptions long enough Stuart come on, seriously? 

Yes it's in my opinion and like I say if we don't get a fine/ deal knocked back, it'll look like that opinion comes down to fact. 

[bazil85]

17 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I committed to pay £12 per month for 10 years with the sole aim of purchasing The Club.

Each time the ring fenced money gets dipped into in future, if the £2 pot is used to repay it, as you say, the purchase of St Mirren FC by SMISA will not be jeopardised.
However, as me & others are concerned, the "ring fenced" pot might never reach the required fill point to achieve its aim of buying the club.

That is not what I signed up to.

As we say, only time will tell.
Let's see what the next year brings SMISA' way.

Looking pretty interesting

The cold hard facts is things change, SMISA have democratically asked members if they would be happy to change for the proposal and given a very well costed repayment plan.

If members want to spit the dummy because they don't like a democratic vote, fine. More power to them.

As for targets on BTB, look back over the last few pages. Some good maths there that shows the deal is very much ahead of schedule. Some would say waaaayyyyy ahead of schedule.