Jump to content

The 3 Monthly Spend


Kombibuddie
 Share

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Looks like minority rule wins the day again! Lol

Alternative would be an even smaller minority rule winning though wouldn't it? Yet again proven that a voting majority prefer club benefits... By my calculations, that makes 100% of relevant votes so far. Lol 

 

13 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

Exactly what I was driving at, good governance 

It would not be good governance having a mechanism in place that allowed the least possible voting option to win by default. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


23 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:


Remember he didn't get a single vote from the members to get on the SMISA board.

It's amazing the selectivity criticism of democracy when it suits him. emoji1787.png

 

Didn't realise he had even tried to get on the SMISA board. That would be like McDonald's voting Greta Thunberg onto their board 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards the 3 monthly spend pot, I'm presuming this money should be considered as being "surplus".

If that is the case, how the surplus should be applied should be decided at an AGM. Any change to that must be done by changing the Rules, for which a meeting with a quorum of "not less than one quarter of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has more than 1000 members" with 75% being required to carry the vote. I suspect SMISA have never had 250 members at any of its meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, melmac said:

As regards the 3 monthly spend pot, I'm presuming this money should be considered as being "surplus".

If that is the case, how the surplus should be applied should be decided at an AGM. Any change to that must be done by changing the Rules, for which a meeting with a quorum of "not less than one quarter of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has more than 1000 members" with 75% being required to carry the vote. I suspect SMISA have never had 250 members at any of its meetings.

No it's not regarded as surplus, the £2 monthly is filtered in as part of the arrangement. "£2 goes into a pot for members to spend on club-related projects"

It isn't "surplus" funds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ordinary meaning of "surplus" is "something that remains above what is used or needed". So, if the £2 over-payments is not surplus and there is no provision in the Rules for, erm, "filtered funds" what are they?   

I think in most people's understanding, the over-payments would be termed as "surplus" and should be dealt with accordingly in terms of the Rules. However well intentioned the £2 pot was / is, its certainly not funds to be used as  / how the club wish.

No response needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, melmac said:

The ordinary meaning of "surplus" is "something that remains above what is used or needed". So, if the £2 over-payments is not surplus and there is no provision in the Rules for, erm, "filtered funds" what are they?   

I think in most people's understanding, the over-payments would be termed as "surplus" and should be dealt with accordingly in terms of the Rules. However well intentioned the £2 pot was / is, its certainly not funds to be used as  / how the club wish.

No response needed.

The £2 is part of the arrangement, it's no more surplus than the £10/ £23 a month. £2 from each contribution will be used on decided projects voted on a quarterly basis,, that isn't a surplus. This is teetering on desperation to show a discrepancy from SMISA. 

I doubt that's "most people's understanding" If it is they're wrong and can clarify that by reading up on BTB. 

The £2 is to be spent based on democratic voting of projects, if the vote goes for items the club wants (which it has 100% of votes including club item requests) then that's exactly what the money should be  spent on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 2:54 PM, waldorf34 said:

So a majority  of the members did not vote for it?(assuming 1200 members)

A majority of the members didn't vote against it is a statement with as much merit as this one (I voted against btw).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Dickson said:

Are you talking about a micro district ground source system that would provide heat to local houses and businesses or just a system that provides heat for the stadium? 

Oh well, there was me hoping your latest returning username would be subject specific. So much for being done with BAWA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Dickson said:

You can't help yourself can you Bazil? 

This is an industry I work in and as well as having knowledge and experience I also have contacts. I happen to think it's a good suggestion if it was used to provide community heating although it would cost a fair bit more than one quarterly spend and someone would have to work out the problems of reading meters and billing. If it's just for St Mirren's use, though, I doubt it would be viable and there are considerably cheaper ways to generate energy savings. 

Was it a shock to you when you said you'd leave BAWA that a subject would eventually come up that you had knowledge about? I was only making the point that it appears previous claims you were done, were incorrect. I think it's very clear which one of us can't help themselves in that sense.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dickson said:

I see. I get it. You are threatened by people who have an informed opinion. That makes sense I guess. 🤔

Nice wee bit of spin but as usual incorrect. I am not threatened by that at all, in fact I welcome it. However I do treat your claim with a massive amount of dubiety giving your history. 
 

Only pointing out your claims to be done with BAWA were wrong. I imagine to the surprise of absolutely no one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dickson said:

So, once again - after Bazils usual attempt to take things off topic - I think the idea of a micro district ground source heat system has merit. 

No attempt, just showing my disappointment that you didn't keep your word for the umpteenth time, you could have just put your hands up and it would have been done. But that's that now, we move on. 

On the subject I think energy saving ideas such as this are great ideas. It's just about initial finance and upkeep. has the options of solar panels ever been discussed/ priced as well? 

 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No attempt, just showing my disappointment that you didn't keep your word for the umpteenth time, you could have just put your hands up and it would have been done. But that's that now, we move on. 

On the subject I think energy saving ideas such as this are great ideas. It's just about initial finance and upkeep. has the options of solar panels ever been discussed/ priced as well? 

 

Bwahahahahahah………...…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickson said:

I've no idea. There was an energy company involved with the club as far as I am aware so you would presume they would have looked at it. 

I could be wrong but was there not been a significant energy sponsorship package announcement quite recently? 

At Ashton Gate they installed 460 PV panels which will apparently save them around £150,000 in energy costs over the next 20 years. The PV installation was paid for by Bristol City Council on a Power Purchase Agreement. The issue I guess is that during daylight hours, when the electricity is generated, the need for energy consumption within the stadium is reasonably low. At the Johann Cryuff Arena they use 4,200 solar panels and 148 electric car batteries to store the energy produced for use when they need it. 

Hopefully something being explored, energy storage is one of the big stumbling blocks to mass use solar energy. We obviously won't resolve that problem at the club but any sort of environmental/ economic saving is a win and a good news story. Are there any teams in the professional set-up that have installed them is the question? 

https://www.evoenergy.co.uk/case-studies/ashton-gate-stadium/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is like to see the funds used to subsidise buses for the four regular supporters clubs.
The manager and players regularly say how much they appreciate the fans, and how expensive it is these days to travel to away matches.

With a number of important away matches between now and the end of the season I’d like to see SMiSA help these guys out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dickson said:

Its been suggested already - you took part in the thread. I don't think SMISA money was ever used for it though. 

 

The thread was set up more for SMISA to approach the club to fund supporters buses - not to waste the Buy the Buds money on such frippery... as turrabuddie was doing...  :rolleyes:

 

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...