The 3 Monthly Spend

[TsuMirren]

On 05/05/2018 at 12:54 PM, bazil85 said:

I haven’t heard he isn’t leaving before 10 years but if so, so be it. That’s what I signed up for. . 

Of course you have, I've highlighted it numerous times. The BTB deal is structured so that the offer will be made in 10 years, with Gordon not having a legal obligation to accept it. I asked to see the takeover documents, but was never given access. Heck, I was only an elected director of SMISA so I suppose I had a cheek to ask.

In fairness to Gordon, he was flexible with regards the 50K facility. But he had to be as SMISA have been unable to secure a loan (I've no doubt that needed very little negotiation as Gordon wants his money back...so, he'd not kill the deal). Indeed, they've been unable to provide suitable evidence that they qualify for a community loan. That's mostly as every idea they had involved funding things for the club.

Oh and the USH loan wasn't interest free. 

[St.Ricky]

3 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Of course you have, I've highlighted it numerous times. The BTB deal is structured so that the offer will be made in 10 years, with Gordon not having a legal obligation to accept it. I asked to see the takeover documents, but was never given access. Heck, I was only an elected director of SMISA so I suppose I had a cheek to ask.

In fairness to Gordon, he was flexible with regards the 50K facility. But he had to be as SMISA have been unable to secure a loan (I've no doubt that needed very little negotiation as Gordon wants his money back...so, he'd not kill the deal). Indeed, they've been unable to provide suitable evidence that they qualify for a community loan. That's mostly as every idea they had involved funding things for the club.

Oh and the USH loan wasn't interest free. 

TSU

My limited knowledge of these things leads me to believe that the objectives require to be clear and to show clear benefit to the community purpose for which the body was established. A set of management rules require to be approved and presumably have been. Fund are available from a number of learners.  In fact funding mechanisms and thetax regime are now particularly beneficial and can include Capital Investment with a tax write off. 

[TsuMirren]

5 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

TSU

My limited knowledge of these things leads me to believe that the objectives require to be clear and to show clear benefit to the community purpose for which the body was established. A set of management rules require to be approved and presumably have been. Fund are available from a number of learners.  In fact funding mechanisms and thetax regime are now particularly beneficial and can include Capital Investment with a tax write off. 

Yeah, I think it had to be some sort of programme that was SMISA's and only SMISA's. So, funding of the Panda Club, the Youth Academy and obviously the 50K facility wouldn't count. You'd need to do something like funding SMISA members through coaching badges then either run SMISA Community sessions away from the Dome or make those coaches available to local boys clubs. Or even start your own boys clubs based purely around development. Could obviously be girls, just using boys as an example. Of course, the community lenders wouldn't fully fund it and you'd probably need strict rules around coaches being poached or moving on.

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

22 hours ago, bazil85 said:

no, 88% of voting members voted yes, that's the fact. The vast majority of members either support or are indifferent. Not sure what you're struggling with here... 

Yes that is a fact. Surely you can now see its not the same as the previous post you quoted.

No one can see that. I don’t see how you can comment that 88% of voters voted yes is not fact at one point then say it is a day later. 

[bazil85]

9 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

Of course you have, I've highlighted it numerous times. The BTB deal is structured so that the offer will be made in 10 years, with Gordon not having a legal obligation to accept it. I asked to see the takeover documents, but was never given access. Heck, I was only an elected director of SMISA so I suppose I had a cheek to ask.

In fairness to Gordon, he was flexible with regards the 50K facility. But he had to be as SMISA have been unable to secure a loan (I've no doubt that needed very little negotiation as Gordon wants his money back...so, he'd not kill the deal). Indeed, they've been unable to provide suitable evidence that they qualify for a community loan. That's mostly as every idea they had involved funding things for the club.

Oh and the USH loan wasn't interest free. 

So very negative about the BTB aren’t you? GLS might turn around after 10 years and say no because he has legal ability (dubious) to do so... surely that’s not what you’re suggesting? 

I have only ever seen communication that it was interest free. If it wasn’t surely that’s better for SMISA? I know how people with your negative mindset don’t like anything that remotely benefits our football club. 

[ReturnOf isma is god]

On 05/05/2018 at 12:21 PM, StuD said:

The very first survey SMiSA sent out showed a very high percentage of members thought facilities was their spending priority - even with facilities splot into three different options. The same survey also showed that spending the money on the first team wasn't an appropriate use of funds. 

SMiSA ignored that. In the next vote the only option was to spend it on first team wages. Maybe I wasnt in a minority at all. Its just the SMiSA board keep ignoring what they were told. 

You keep banging on about SMiSA being free of wrong doing because the FCA hasnt stopped them yet. However as we've established you could never state that with any confidence because you won't know if an investigation is going on due to its confidential nature

I thought you had left the forum in some grand wankerish statement about free speech or some arseholier like that 

[TsuMirren]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

So very negative about the BTB aren’t you? GLS might turn around after 10 years and say no because he has legal ability (dubious) to do so... surely that’s not what you’re suggesting? 

I have only ever seen communication that it was interest free. If it wasn’t surely that’s better for SMISA? I know how people with your negative mindset don’t like anything that remotely benefits our football club. 

I've avoided this form of response until now, but just shoosh! I didn't say it wasn't better and I'm not being negative. Honest, open, informative...not negative. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

No one can see that. I don’t see how you can comment that 88% of voters voted yes is not fact at one point then say it is a day later. 

Either you are thick as pigshit or I'm being trolled, whooshed etc.
Either way, goodbye

[St.Ricky]

This thread reads increasingly like a script for a panto. 

 

[bazil85]

58 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Either you are thick as pigshit or I'm being trolled, whooshed etc.
Either way, goodbye

Either you don't have an answer to how it' different or you're trolling... Probably both. 

[Kombibuddie]

An unbudgeted for £100k coming in..........
No need to touch the ring fenced pot.
Happy days. [emoji23]

[linwood buddie]

38 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

An unbudgeted for £100k coming in..........
No need to touch the ring fenced pot.
Happy days.

It could be used for a new fence?

[Kombibuddie]

3 hours ago, linwood buddie said:

It could be used for a new fence?

at least 15 foot tall and stop everyone/anyone getting sight of it.

[bazil85]

23 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

An unbudgeted for £100k coming in..........
No need to touch the ring fenced pot.
Happy days.

There was never any ‘need’ to touch the ring fence, it was always a choice  

[TsuMirren]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

There was never any ‘need’ to touch the ring fence, it was always a choice  

So naive. Evidently there  was a need and it was the only option to cover the 50K...how it all got there is another matter.

[bazil85]

On 5/27/2018 at 12:36 PM, TsuMirren said:

So naive. Evidently there  was a need and it was the only option to cover the 50K...how it all got there is another matter.

If there was a ‘need’ they would of said ‘we need this money and the work will not happen unless SMISA members vote yes’ 

not ‘please vote on it, if you vote no the club will cover it from the available budget.’ 

[TsuMirren]

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

If there was a ‘need’ they would of said ‘we need this money and the work will not happen unless SMISA members vote yes’ 

not ‘please vote on it, if you vote no the club will cover it from the available budget.’ 

Don't be bloody stupid, that's directing the vote. See...naive!

Facts are, SMISA pretty much committed to covering the 50K months ago. Hence, why I tried getting fundraising kicked off and was told no. The commitment was due to the club all but saying they couldn't afford it.

[bazil85]

14 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

Don't be bloody stupid, that's directing the vote. See...naive!

Facts are, SMISA pretty much committed to covering the 50K months ago. Hence, why I tried getting fundraising kicked off and was told no. The commitment was due to the club all but saying they couldn't afford it.

 Nothing stupid about it. They put it to a democratic vote and it won in an absolute landslide. 

Dont make the mistake of thinking you know better than people that voted yes.

And if you think it was ‘needed’ you need to have some evidence to back it up. The club clearly stated they’d find it themselves if it was a no vote. So unless you have evidence that isn’t true, your point is meaningless. 

[TsuMirren]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 Nothing stupid about it. They put it to a democratic vote and it won in an absolute landslide. 

Dont make the mistake of thinking you know better than people that voted yes.

And if you think it was ‘needed’ you need to have some evidence to back it up. The club clearly stated they’d find it themselves if it was a no vote. So unless you have evidence that isn’t true, your point is meaningless. 

Again, of course they did. What else would they say, they can't direct the vote.

My evidence is that I was in the room when it was first discussed. You weren't, though that really is meaningless as you struggle with anything other than your own pereception or what you're being fed. Clearly not a thinker, creator or a doer.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:

Again, of course they did. What else would they say, they can't direct the vote.

My evidence is that I was in the room when it was first discussed. You weren't, though that really is meaningless as you struggle with anything other than your own pereception or what you're being fed. Clearly not a thinker, creator or a doer.

So in the room they physically said ‘if this vote is a no the work won’t get funded and won’t get done’ that’s what you’re telling me?

So they went out with a lie to fans saying it would get done, when it wouldn’t in the event of a no vote? yet it’s taken all this time for someone to say that? Was the meeting recorded? Minutes? 

Youre right they can’t direct the vote. The vote was made and free thinking adults overwhelmingly said yes. That’s the bottom-line. 

[TsuMirren]

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

So in the room they physically said ‘if this vote is a no the work won’t get funded and won’t get done’ that’s what you’re telling me?

So they went out with a lie to fans saying it would get done, when it wouldn’t in the event of a no vote? yet it’s taken all this time for someone to say that? Was the meeting recorded? Minutes? 

Youre right they can’t direct the vote. The vote was made and free thinking adults overwhelmingly said yes. That’s the bottom-line. 

Awwhaaw, look at you trying to discredit me whilst simplifying the whole process with a bit of spin and naivety. You'll be pretending that you've nothing to do with the club or committee next. 

Everyone get their popcorn out.

[bazil85]

On 6/8/2018 at 6:16 PM, TsuMirren said:

Awwhaaw, look at you trying to discredit me whilst simplifying the whole process with a bit of spin and naivety. You'll be pretending that you've nothing to do with the club or committee next. 

Everyone get their popcorn out.

I asked you very simple questions, you haven't answered them. You said you were there:

Did they or did they not say 'the work wouldn't get done if SMISA members voted no'

Did they or did they not lie to fans when they communicated very clearly that the work would get done and funded by the club in the event of a no?

I don't need to discredit you. By not answering/ making stuff up, you're doing that fine all by yourself. If you think those simple questions are spin, you don't know what spin is 

I have nothing to do with the committee, this has came up several times and several times I have said I don't. There are people on here that know who I am and categorically know I am not on the committee or they would call out my lies.

People still assuming I'm on the committee only strengthens my point that the same people don't do enough investigation before making ridiculous claims against me, SMISA and SMFC. 

As in my invovlvement with the club and SMISA. Beyond being a season ticket holder and paying SMISA member, nope, nothing else. 

[zico]

I've read that there was an 88% yes vote.

What was the % of the membership that actually voted?

[Gruffalo]

2 hours ago, zico said:

I've read that there was an 88% yes vote.

What was the % of the membership that actually voted?

660 member of 1257 voted. Therefore only 52.5 % of the membership bothered voting.

46% of the membership voted yes.

6.5% of the membership voted no.

The no votes are now claiming they have a mandate for a second vote on the subject. As that's the Scottish way.

[zico]

660 member of 1257 voted. Therefore only 52.5 % of the membership bothered voting.
46% of the membership voted yes.
6.5% of the membership voted no.
The no votes are now claiming they have a mandate for a second vote on the subject. As that's the Scottish way.

Cheers for the info