Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, garzo said:

I’m not confused at all Sir. 

Point of principle. Ring fenced should have remained just that. No debate. No emotions attached. 

So do you agree the funds aren’t being spent at boards discretion? 

I’m of the opinion that your second point should be the decision of paying members... like it was. Democracy > individuals principles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites




.
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. 


I'll look forward to SMISA Buying the Buds "waaaayyyyy ahead of schedule" then.

I sincerely hope you are right and our concerns turn out to be a storm in a tea cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

So do you agree the funds aren’t being spent at boards discretion? 

I’m of the opinion that your second point should be the decision of paying members... like it was. Democracy > individuals principles. 

Ring fenced funds are being spent for other purposes  

Whether it’s discretion or otherwise is moot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:


 

 


I'll look forward to SMISA Buying the Buds "waaaayyyyy ahead of schedule" then.

I sincerely hope you are right and our concerns turn out to be a storm in a tea cup.
 

 

Time will tell, all signs right now suggest that though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, garzo said:

Ring fenced funds are being spent for other purposes  

Whether it’s discretion or otherwise is moot. 

How is it moot when you used that actual word? The funds are NOT being used at the boards discretion, and they shouldn’t be. Hence my NO answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pozbaird said:

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.

hookers n white lightning - Baz could prob say, both would be benefitting the wider Renfrewshire (corner shop n whoring) community, thus justifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, garzo said:

Haha

its funny now :-)

I think it’s fair to say, you tried to catch me out by quoting something (not related in the slightest to the £50k) you assumed I’d say yes to. I didn’t, it backfired, let’s just move passed it. 

Welcome any questions from you that actually relate to the subject though of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, melmac said:

hookers n white lightning - Baz could prob say, both would be benefitting the wider Renfrewshire (corner shop n whoring) community, thus justifiable.

If you asked me a week ago then of course. With the minimal alcohol pricing legislation though the white lightning probably isn’t a prudent spend option... Let’s put it to the vote :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Are you saying whistelblowing isn't confidential sorry?

No one needs to do that to confirm it's all legal and above board. This deal, FCA will need to review and agree. That's enough for me regarding the football team I support, possibly not enough for you? Strange to say the least... 

I also have to say, I don't really see SMISA board having a position in the democratic set-up we exist in. 

No. I'm saying if it is confidential neither you or anyone at SMISA would be able to say with any confidence that the FCA have thrown out any whistle blower complaint. 

I'm not sure the FCA would need to review it without a complaint btw. SMISA don't appear to have made any change to their constitution. Therefore they won't have had to inform the FCA - unless you know different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I think it’s fair to say, you tried to catch me out by quoting something (not related in the slightest to the £50k) you assumed I’d say yes to. I didn’t, it backfired, let’s just move passed it. 

Welcome any questions from you that actually relate to the subject though of course. 

Didn’t try to catch you out. Asked a simple question. You answered. I’m not going to worry about it. 

Your head is in the sand. 

This is of course your choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, StuD said:

No. I'm saying if it is confidential neither you or anyone at SMISA would be able to say with any confidence that the FCA have thrown out any whistle blower complaint. 

I'm not sure the FCA would need to review it without a complaint btw. SMISA don't appear to have made any change to their constitution. Therefore they won't have had to inform the FCA - unless you know different. 

Oh but they did, amendment to the rules last august despite there not being the necessary numbers to amend the rules - unless they can show positive proof there was. 

https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=2624&Suffix=RS

Edited by melmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, melmac said:

Oh but they did, amendment to the rules last august despite there not being the necessary numbers to amend the rules - unless they can show positive there was. 

I remember that. :lol:

After I'd resigned my membership and complained to Andrew Jenkins they added some small sections  to the constitution to suggest that SMISA's role was now to "benefit the community by playing a role to create a successful St Mirren".  Come to think of it though I don't remember seeing a Special Resolution or a Special General Meeting. They just attempted to do it at the AGM didn't they - which I guess would be a breach of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Society Act 2014.

Well spotted melmac. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, StuD said:

No. I'm saying if it is confidential neither you or anyone at SMISA would be able to say with any confidence that the FCA have thrown out any whistle blower complaint. 

I'm not sure the FCA would need to review it without a complaint btw. SMISA don't appear to have made any change to their constitution. Therefore they won't have had to inform the FCA - unless you know different. 

I do know different and as would anyone that knows how the process works, you don’t need to be on a committee to be familiar with an FCA process believe it or not.

The FCA WILL require this transfer of funds request to be submitted in writing from SMISA. It will then be reviewed and agreed based on the use. If they deem it is breaking legislation regarding the associated Act they’ll say no.

Won’t likely encounter a fine at that point unless the purchase has been processed before they review.

Regardless, whistleblowing is not needed to uncover illegal activity. In fact it’s in the extreme minority that illegal activity is uncovered this way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, garzo said:

Didn’t try to catch you out. Asked a simple question. You answered. I’m not going to worry about it. 

Your head is in the sand. 

This is of course your choice. 

You asked a question, I answered it, you then said I was sending conflicting messages on the forum because of it...

i’ll take your word you weren’t trying to catch me out though because let’s be honest it was a very random question with no basis in the debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, StuD said:

I remember that. :lol:

After I'd resigned my membership and complained to Andrew Jenkins they added some small sections  to the constitution to suggest that SMISA's role was now to "benefit the community by playing a role to create a successful St Mirren".  Come to think of it though I don't remember seeing a Special Resolution or a Special General Meeting. They just attempted to do it at the AGM didn't they - which I guess would be a breach of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Society Act 2014.

Well spotted melmac. 

You all love to talk about a breach don’t you? Haha. 

I’m starting to wonder if everyone knows what a ‘breach’ actually is and how serious an accusation it is... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You asked a question, I answered it, you then said I was sending conflicting messages on the forum because of it...

i’ll take your word you weren’t trying to catch me out though because let’s be honest it was a very random question with no basis in the debate. 

So random, you thought it worthy of a response.

I respect that;  you gave a good answer. 

The correct answer. Right fenced funds should remain as such. 

Cheers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, garzo said:

So random, you thought it worthy of a response.

I respect that;  you gave a good answer. 

The correct answer. Right fenced funds should remain as such. 

Cheers. 

That wasn’t your question, oh my days! Hahaha 

fortunately 88% of voting members had a different opinion from you and we have a very well sounded out proposal that’ll benefit SMFC, the community and the fans when they take over the club :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You all love to talk about a breach don’t you? Haha. 

I’m starting to wonder if everyone knows what a ‘breach’ actually is and how serious an accusation it is... 

Well a "breach" is where the rules haven't be followed - pretty obviously. And the point I've been making is that it's obviously very serious. You're the one that keeps playing it down claiming it's actually good governance to - I guess - miss steps to speed things up. You've also said that people like me are just being pernickity - I think that was the word you used. I can't be bothered going back through the pages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got to say Bazil, a while back when I used to use this forum more regularly, I remember several users claiming I was a troll, and Shull joking that no matter the topic I could take on all comers and keep batting them away. Well not that there was ever a crown, but if there was I'd happily pass it to you. You're attempts to justify the unjustifiable are dogged and relentless - especially as SMISA continue to mislead anyone reading their website with this claim still published.

Quote

Basic membership of SMISA has been set at £12 per month. Of that, £10 is ringfenced for the share purchase, and £2 goes into a pot for members to spend on club-related projects.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, StuD said:

Well a "breach" is where the rules haven't be followed - pretty obviously. And the point I've been making is that it's obviously very serious. You're the one that keeps playing it down claiming it's actually good governance to - I guess - miss steps to speed things up. You've also said that people like me are just being pernickity - I think that was the word you used. I can't be bothered going back through the pages. 

The point I made was people saying we should of followed everything by the book and not used any type of exception process is pernickety given we can all pretty much agree the outcome would be completely unchanged yes. Maybe sour grapes would be a better expression? 

Believe it or not a process that hasn’t been followed to the letter isn’t automatically a breach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StuD said:

I've got to say Bazil, a while back when I used to use this forum more regularly, I remember several users claiming I was a troll, and Shull joking that no matter the topic I could take on all comers and keep batting them away. Well not that there was ever a crown, but if there was I'd happily pass it to you. You're attempts to justify the unjustifiable are dogged and relentless - especially as SMISA continue to mislead anyone reading their website with this claim still published.

 

You say unjustifiable meaning? We can summarise and end it here if everyone would prefer? My summary is: 

1. The vote was 88% yes 

2. The act clearly states there is grounds to release the funds from the ring fence if there’s a direct/ indirect community benefit. This can undeniably be argued by SMISA AND SMFC

3. Any wrong-doing will be highlighted by the FCA as they’ll need to review the proposal 

4. Regulators won’t shy away from issuing fines for rule breakers or not authorising transaction requests 

5. Similar point to the 88% one but I’m sure shull was talking about you arguing your own wee battles against the masses. I have to stress, the vast majority of voting members have seen fit to agree with this proposal

6. Exception processes exist and there’s clear evidence on here that some members know more about them than others. 

7. Same can be said for the concept of ‘poor governance’ 

Seems pretty justifiable to me I’d say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, the fca will not give a shit about whats going on (or not) here, they are not a regulatory body in that sense but simply a registration body, so long as what is presented to them is register-able, they'll register it. 

As for some sort of financial smoke n mirrors, you would need establish whats been done is not in line with the societies goals / aims as a cbs. So, in short, they wont really care.

We can argue till the cows come home but nothing is gonna happen, reality.

Link to comment
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...