Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Once again, you demonstrate an inability to interpret others posts correctly. This thread is littered with your misunderstandings. Shame really but you are adding the square root of absolutely nothing to this debate by regurgitating the same old bile time and time again.

In what way have I not understood, that you asked a question and someone told you an answer? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

The increased revenue while we are in the premier league, is more than the quoted figure. If we were in the championship, we would make less than the value we could save up by retaining SMISA income. 

You don’t think that’s true? :huh:

BINGO.

"Increased revenue whilst in the Premier league" The Club has not had it so good financially for years and years but you think it the best option for SMISA money to fund goals. Goals for a professional football club :lol

With that increased revenue, the SMISA pot could be left to grow for future use. Long term thinking rather than short term spend it now. Proper negative stuff.

On the second part, I have not even thought about us not being in the premier league (how negative is that!).  I have every confidence St Mirren won't be getting relegated anytime soon. Shame you are less positive about our chances.

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I think it’s pretty clear I have understood and since you don’t have a come back to it, you’re just deflecting. 

 

No deflection at all. It is clear as day, only you don't understand that. Perhaps someone might point it out for you.

Not in the history of these ballots has anyone (that I am aware of) challenged SMISA to overturn the result of the vote. That type of challenge isn't going to happen. Have a wee think on how else SMISA might get challenged. Could be at an AGM :D

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

In what way have I not understood, that you asked a question and someone told you an answer? :rolleyes:

You just make stuff up in your responses. Time and again.

Enjoy your day fella.

Edited by Graeme Aitken
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graeme Aitken said:

BINGO.

"Increased revenue whilst in the Premier league" The Club has not had it so good financially for years and years but you think it the best option for SMISA money to fund goals. Goals for a professional football club :lol

- if the club are planning to buy the goals anyway and by SMISA buying them for them, it saves money for the budget then yes. I believe we’re better using this money in the short-term to grow and improve the club now and limit the risk of not being in this division very long  perfect example is £50k for the pitch  that money saved this budget will likely equate to a player  you might think it’s better to save up but both are opinions  one isn’t right and one isn’t wrong. The fact you can’t see other people’s viewpoint underpins your negativity  

With that increased revenue, the SMISA pot could be left to grow for future use. Long term thinking rather than short term spend it now. Proper negative stuff.

- yes you’re being completely negative by refusing to acknowledge other people’s opinion 

On the second part, I have not even thought about us not being in the premier league (how negative is that!).  I have every confidence St Mirren won't be getting relegated anytime soon. Shame you are less positive about our chances.

- twisting words is the sign of a lost argument. I presented my opinion as strengthen now is my preferred option. You dismissed it and are now trying to spin your own negativity in a feeble attempt to continue your lost cause  

No deflection at all. It is clear as day, only you don't understand that. Perhaps someone might point it out for you.

- unless you’re lying about contacting SMISA and someone talking to you, that won’t be necessary.

Not in the history of these ballots has anyone (that I am aware of) challenged SMISA to overturn the result of the vote. That type of challenge isn't going to happen. Have a wee think on how else SMISA might get challenged. Could be at an AGM :D

- why should the results that are voted on by the majority of active members be challenged? 

You just make stuff up in your responses. Time and again.

- good effort I have to say but all of the above, really didn’t move any of your points along  

Enjoy your day fella.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only person attacking freely hld opinions on here is Basil. Although in the ever decreasing circles that are his mind he cant see it.

what this thread is doing positively, is to highlight how the tide is turning as regards to satisfaction, or lack therof in how Smisa operates, and the disdain it holds its members in.

Complete lack of transparency over how options come to be voted on.

continually paying club business as usual bills, instead of doing something for the fans.

Insisting any member idea needs to be fully costed and planned before being considered for a vote, and then plucking some distant idea from a member about the piss poor hand dryers as a "fully costed and considered idea" when it suits the club to pay a bill

deceiving the membership by allowing the club to rifle the "Ringfenced Fund" to buy the majority shareholding in the club who have rifled the very funds designed to buy it out! Business leaders go to jail for that type of practice!

yip the tide is turning, and as always when you are pissing away peoples cash a reckoning will come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

The only person attacking freely hld opinions on here is Basil. Although in the ever decreasing circles that are his mind he cant see it.

what this thread is doing positively, is to highlight how the tide is turning as regards to satisfaction, or lack therof in how Smisa operates, and the disdain it holds its members in.

Complete lack of transparency over how options come to be voted on.

continually paying club business as usual bills, instead of doing something for the fans.

Insisting any member idea needs to be fully costed and planned before being considered for a vote, and then plucking some distant idea from a member about the piss poor hand dryers as a "fully costed and considered idea" when it suits the club to pay a bill

deceiving the membership by allowing the club to rifle the "Ringfenced Fund" to buy the majority shareholding in the club who have rifled the very funds designed to buy it out! Business leaders go to jail for that type of practice!

yip the tide is turning, and as always when you are pissing away peoples cash a reckoning will come. 

Ask yourself why SMISA did not entrench the ring fencing of certain funds in the rules ie 75% of membership required to vote (a formal positive indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands) in favour of the funds being used for something other than what was intended. Because it was always their intention of using it and / or ignored legal advice to properly entrench it. B85, no need to respond, same old same old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 

Utter guff from you time and again.

You're like the fella that thinks if he shouts loudest, he'll get his way or says it enough times, it must be true.

My vote has now been cast, I await with trepidation, the outcome of the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Utter guff from you time and again.

You're like the fella that thinks if he shouts loudest, he'll get his way or says it enough times, it must be true.

My vote has now been cast, I await with trepidation, the outcome of the vote.

Yet more words from you without really putting together a point. No shouting from me, just a wish to see a wee bit more positivity. You somehow have interpreted that as a bad thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

The only person attacking freely hld opinions on here is Basil. Although in the ever decreasing circles that are his mind he cant see it.

what this thread is doing positively, is to highlight how the tide is turning as regards to satisfaction, or lack therof in how Smisa operates, and the disdain it holds its members in.

Complete lack of transparency over how options come to be voted on.

continually paying club business as usual bills, instead of doing something for the fans.

Insisting any member idea needs to be fully costed and planned before being considered for a vote, and then plucking some distant idea from a member about the piss poor hand dryers as a "fully costed and considered idea" when it suits the club to pay a bill

deceiving the membership by allowing the club to rifle the "Ringfenced Fund" to buy the majority shareholding in the club who have rifled the very funds designed to buy it out! Business leaders go to jail for that type of practice!

yip the tide is turning, and as always when you are pissing away peoples cash a reckoning will come. 

Yet more negative nonsense from you and again can’t bring yourself to even mention the community option because it would involve a level of praising SMISA. Something you seem physically incapable of doing. 

I know most people have stopped pandering to you but hey, on a level I enjoy it. In that interest I’d love to know 

- where are you getting the evidence the tides are turning? The maybe half a dozen people on here commenting? It’s been the usual suspects almost since day dot. Have to say, feels like you need to believe this is true, just like you had to believe SMISA were breaking laws. 

- do you ever feel any level of remorse at all, for continually calling out the intelligence of your fellow St Mirren fans? Using words like ‘deceiving’ shows a complete lack of respect. I would say you have ‘decieved’ Yourself in thinking St Mirren fans couldn’t possibly, knowingly vote for a very well costed option that improves the facilities and saves money for the team we all support. Talking about going to jail, just shows your complete and unwavering lack of knowledge on the subject you try to debate. 

- does it get tiresome speaking only of the negatives? As I’ve already mentioned, your focus on the hand dryer option and not a mention of SMISA putting an option to bring a little happiness to some of the most vulnerable in our society. Yet you completely ignore this.

My observation is, you likely have to ignore it because the community option:

1. Meets criteria you’ve been banging on about for a long time and anything but ignoring it, would force your hand to say something positive about SMISA (heaven forbid)

2. Your wee theory about SMFC riffling all the BTB funds falls apart just with the existence of this option. 

I look forward to yet more negativity in your response. You’d think with the situation on the park, you’d have enough to moan about without resorting to ‘SMISA bad, they take our money’ ‘SMISA illegal, they take our money’ ‘SMFC fans stupid, SMISA bad, they take our money’ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:
Genuinely not sure if I believe that for LPM. IMO there's a very real concern he wants BTB to fail. 

He wants It, just that it's got to be his dictatorship way and to feck with the democratic votes IMHO.

That makes a lot of sense, given he has actively campaigned to remove choice from paying members. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Club set to miss out again this Saturday on attracting kids and families along, as any will be displaced to accomodate the Sectarian/Bigot fest the club happily takes money to stage. What we need is a chairman who will promise to consult with the fans over these things!

What's you holding an interview against GLS from over two years ago, got to do with SMISA or the three month spend? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
25 minutes ago, st jock said:

Results are in. With option 3 being a close 2nd there is now an option to donate £500. Screenshot_20181107-142503_Gmail.jpeg

How can they magic up another £500? Either there is as mad Baz bangs on about "a transparent, and democratic vote" which is respected, or there isn't!

me thinks perhaps a few are getying a bit embarrassed by community options almost always losing out to paying the clubs latest bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

How can they magic up another £500? Either there is as mad Baz bangs on about "a transparent, and democratic vote" which is respected, or there isn't!

me thinks perhaps a few are getying a bit embarrassed by community options almost always losing out to paying the clubs latest bill?

I was wondering how you’d manage to make this negative. Went through a few scenarios in my mind but to say a yes no democratic vote... isn’t a democratic vote, I never seen that coming.  

This vote has clearly shown that options that benefit SMFC still remain the choice of the members. 

SMISA respecting that and going with the winning option. They say ‘look we know this option won but we can spare 500 quid to at least help towards the funding for some of the most vulnerable in society. Let us know yes or no’ in the email they clearly stated where the money would come from and clearly another democratic process. They also gave very integral reasons for doing it. 

LPM once again pulls a negative spin out the hat from the most positive of situations.

Bottom line though, the point has been proven that club benefits remain number one and that should be respected in future voting options. To remove the option from future options would be undemocratic.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

I was wondering how you’d manage to make this negative. Went through a few scenarios in my mind but to say a yes no democratic vote... isn’t a democratic vote, I never seen that coming.  

This vote has clearly shown that options that benefit SMFC still remain the choice of the members. 

SMISA respecting that and going with the winning option. They say ‘look we know this option won but we can spare 500 quid to at least help towards the funding for some of the most vulnerable in society. Let us know yes or no’ in the email they clearly stated where the money would come from and clearly another democratic process. They also gave very integral reasons for doing it. 

LPM once again pulls a negative spin out the hat from the most positive of situations.

Bottom line though, the point has been proven that club benefits remain number one and that should be respected in future voting options. To remove the option from future options would be undemocratic.  

 

So is that you saying that there shouldnt be a democratic process which smisa and its members stick to? 

Or

the Smisa committee as in this istance can just make it up as they go along?

or

can we all ask for a "re-vote" bit like brexit if we dont like the reult of the last one?

i knew you would find no fault with smisa ignoring their own laid out process and procedures, however there are plenty of people now losing confidence in their ability to stick by anything they have pledged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

So is that you saying that there shouldnt be a democratic process which smisa and its members stick to? 

Or

the Smisa committee as in this istance can just make it up as they go along?

or

can we all ask for a "re-vote" bit like brexit if we dont like the reult of the last one?

i knew you would find no fault with smisa ignoring their own laid out process and procedures, however there are plenty of people now losing confidence in their ability to stick by anything they have pledged.

Should there be a democratic process? Yes 

should the process be completely rigged with zero change depending on circumstance? No it’s an idealistic view  

so pretty much exactly what’s happening with the yes or no. 

Do I think you’re clearly triggered and clutching at straws because the vote went for club benefit again? Yes 

just to clarify are you saying SMISA should not try to benefit some of the most vulnerable in society (on Christmas Day) with money we have and can spare, because it doesn’t fit exactly into the democratic process... even though it still is following a democratic process? horrible viewpoint 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Christmas  day things is a bit strange, it's been put forward as a St Mirren Trust  thing but is being sponsored by the SPL  Trust and we have the St Mirren Women's team crowdfunding for it, and SMISA puting cash in now .

so the St Mirren charity trust get the headlines but they are puting NO money in???

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...