Jump to content

Save Smisa


Lord Pityme

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, div said:

 


Care to show me where there is either abuse or name calling in that post?

Not like you to make stuff up.

 

Sorry forgot its your baw and noone dare upset you. Can you actually debate or just throw crap around? Does it not matter to you 1300 members did not get their 'one member, one vote' as I and others trumpeted during BTB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorry forgot its your baw and noone dare upset you. Can you actually debate or just throw crap around? Does it not matter to you 1300 members did not get their 'one member, one vote' as I and others trumpeted during BTB?


Can you just answer my question please?

You've accused me of name calling and abusing you.

Can you show me where that actually happened?

Once you apologise for that accusation, which as everyone can see is a complete lie, then we can move on to the serious stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

The issue is not specifically the loan/ revolving credit facility, but rather breaking the constitution and governing legislation by not giving the members their rightful say on both issues.

add to that these arragements are unsecured, have no real interest attached and may even cost smisa to administer.

any money in smisa funds before the buyout was added to the premium members subscriptions to pay the selling consortium and the lawyers at purchase.

add to that the USH is apparently fixed, just not fixed enough for winter!

Classic obfuscation from you. sally02 asked direct questions which you have ignored. You trot out the same old shit ad nauseam which is good coming from someone who continually demands answers. I'm losing sleep over the USH.

I don't personally know anyone who is a SMiSA committee member. At least not as far as I am aware, living a wee bit away. Don't see many jumping onto your bandwagon although you probably are spreading unease. You are an attention seeker extraordinaire as you have demonstrated in the past. The only area where I might be slightly on your side is my feeling that the SMiSA committee could be accused perhaps of being slightly arrogant. They don't think their decisions should be queried at all and seem a bit loath to respond to criticism whether it is deserved or not. I couldn't be at the AGM but it sounded a bit like they were unprepared to be ambushed by you even though you have previous for being a bloody nuisance.

In case there is any doubt about where I stand, I will continue to support SMiSA 100%  But please keep us all up to speed with developments. And why don't they publish minutes?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

The issue is not specifically the loan/ revolving credit facility, but rather breaking the constitution and governing legislation by not giving the members their rightful say on both issues.

add to that these arragements are unsecured, have no real interest attached and may even cost smisa to administer.

any money in smisa funds before the buyout was added to the premium members subscriptions to pay the selling consortium and the lawyers at purchase.

add to that the USH is apparently fixed, just not fixed enough for winter!

1/. If theTrust was lending to someone or organisation outside the club, then I would expect to be consulted on it, but if it lends to the club which it owns 28% of at present, I am not sure that is an issue - certainly not for me! Can you legally state that the constitution and governing legislation have been broken?

2/. Also don't have an issue with the loan being unsecured as it is to our benefit as we are part owners of the benefit derived. My understanding is that GS is not adding interest or value to his shareholding, so it works both ways surely! I have no issue with the committee spending our money on an office, expenses, equipment, etc. as long as it is clearly stated in accounts.

What I would expect is openness in producing accounts and minutes, but there is not a business or organisation in existence which gets everything right from day 1 - people need to learn new skills, understand the complexities of the type of organisation created, and that they are involved in, and develop and grow into their roles. HMRC, Companies House, Charity Boards, and all other legal regulators will give time, grace and helpful advice and encouragement to new organisations to bed in to their roles and duties.

3/. SMISA funds prior to the buyout were the property of the 200 or so members at that time, so I assume it was the goodwill of those members that their money was added into the pot, and you could argue that it is that money which can be used to fund the rolling loan facility in the future, as funds build up to pay off the old board and start to buy back shares from GS.

4/. Additional parts required to complete the repairs to achieve Full working order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, div said:

I'm glad LPM is here to save not only SMiSA but the club as a whole.

All the good vibes of last summer when we rallied round to buy the club, and all the feel good factor of the resurgence of the team under Jack Ross has been completely undone for me because SMiSA lent the club a few grand to fix the undersoil heating.

Now I hear they don't have separate bank accounts for the discretionary funds to go in.  I'm absolutely affronted.

A shite state of affairs as they say.

Let us know when you've got to the bottom of it all Tony, I'm struggling to sleep at night for worrying about it all.

 

This is your best?

This is you Not namecalling for effect?

this is debate?

no... this is part of the effort to shout/shut down the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it the case that when SG & Co were in charge, there were several times during the course of a season when there were delays with monies coming into the club - such as payments due from 'Neil Doncaster & Co' at fitba' HQ, a divvy-up of league sponsorship monies, etc, etc. During these periods, staff and players still needed paid, the club still needed to pay bills. Directors then at the club effectively dipped into their pockets to tide the club over so to speak, then got their money back.

 

Those directors are no longer at the club. The periods where cash flow is irregular still exist though and staff and players still need paid, bills need paid, and unexpected expendature situations may arise. Without the old directors around to tide the club over, isn't this simply the role £50k of SMiSA funds are now performing? A safety net of sorts to replace what is now no longer an option for the club?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

1 minute ago, sally02 said:

1/. If theTrust was lending to someone or organisation outside the club, then I would expect to be consulted on it, but if it lends to the club which it owns 28% of at present, I am not sure that is an issue - certainly not for me! Can you legally state that the constitution and governing legislation have been broken?

2/. Also don't have an issue with the loan being unsecured as it is to our benefit as we are part owners of the benefit derived. My understanding is that GS is not adding interest or value to his shareholding, so it works both ways surely! I have no issue with the committee spending our money on an office, expenses, equipment, etc. as long as it is clearly stated in accounts.

What I would expect is openness in producing accounts and minutes, but there is not a business or organisation in existence which gets everything right from day 1 - people need to learn new skills, understand the complexities of the type of organisation created, and that they are involved in, and develop and grow into their roles. HMRC, Companies House, Charity Boards, and all other legal regulators will give time, grace and helpful advice and encouragement to new organisations to bed in to their roles and duties.

3/. SMISA funds prior to the buyout were the property of the 200 or so members at that time, so I assume it was the goodwill of those members that their money was added into the pot, and you could argue that it is that money which can be used to fund the rolling loan facility in the future, as funds build up to pay off the old board and start to buy back shares from GS.

4/. Additional parts required to complete the repairs to achieve Full working order?

Item 4.  Various parts were required to get the plant up and running.When this was done it threw up other problems and if anyone is technically minded out there namely a 3 port valve.There were also problems with the gas pressure on the incoming supply.These problems will be rectified and the undersoil heating will be fully operational and fit for purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, northendsaint said:

I

Item 4.  Various parts were required to get the plant up and running.When this was done it threw up other problems and if anyone is technically minded out there namely a 3 port valve.There were also problems with the gas pressure on the incoming supply.These problems will be rectified and the undersoil heating will be fully operational and fit for purpose.

Thanks for that NES! Think The USH can now be taken off the debating list!

Edited by sally02
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sally02 said:

1/. If theTrust was lending to someone or organisation outside the club, then I would expect to be consulted on it, but if it lends to the club which it owns 28% of at present, I am not sure that is an issue - certainly not for me! Can you legally state that the constitution and governing legislation have been broken?

2/. Also don't have an issue with the loan being unsecured as it is to our benefit as we are part owners of the benefit derived. My understanding is that GS is not adding interest or value to his shareholding, so it works both ways surely! I have no issue with the committee spending our money on an office, expenses, equipment, etc. as long as it is clearly stated in accounts.

What I would expect is openness in producing accounts and minutes, but there is not a business or organisation in existence which gets everything right from day 1 - people need to learn new skills, understand the complexities of the type of organisation created, and that they are involved in, and develop and grow into their roles. HMRC, Companies House, Charity Boards, and all other legal regulators will give time, grace and helpful advice and encouragement to new organisations to bed in to their roles and duties.

3/. SMISA funds prior to the buyout were the property of the 200 or so members at that time, so I assume it was the goodwill of those members that their money was added into the pot, and you could argue that it is that money which can be used to fund the rolling loan facility in the future, as funds build up to pay off the old board and start to buy back shares from GS.

4/. Additional parts required to complete the repairs to achieve Full working order?

Ok, why are Smisa the only shareholder apparently contributing to the clubs funds, loaning etc...? Why is all the risk with the minority shareholder who has the least say and representation?

GS gets to run the club, accessing a load of smisa members funds for ten years then we pay him for his shares. And apparently the goalposts are being moved in respect of the understanding most had that as soon as smisa had accumulated the required funds ( could be done in seven years) we would buy the majority shareholding. It seems GS is insisting that is not the case, and it will be ten years at the earliest before Smisa take over.

as I explained all smisa funds old/new were used to pay the deposit to the selling consortium at the moment of purchase. So there was no funds to extend goodwill or otherwise from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Isn't it the case that when SG & Co were in charge, there were several times during the course of a season when there were delays with monies coming into the club - such as payments due from 'Neil Doncaster & Co' at fitba' HQ, a divvy-up of league sponsorship monies, etc, etc. During these periods, staff and players still needed paid, the club still needed to pay bills. Directors then at the club effectively dipped into their pockets to tide the club over so to speak, then got their money back.

 

Those directors are no longer at the club. The periods where cash flow is irregular still exist though and staff and players still need paid, bills need paid, and unexpected expendature situations may arise. Without the old directors around to tide the club over, isn't this simply the role £50k of SMiSA funds are now performing? A safety net of sorts to replace what is now no longer an option for the club?

 

 

Again... ad nauseum if its a solid, considered and informed proposal, why has it not been put to the members to approve? That is the founding principle of Smisa and organisations like it. One member, one vote!

the smisa committee are trying to insist they dont need to inform and consult on these issues, when the constitution and governing legislation are clear and unequivocal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Again... ad nauseum if its a solid, considered and informed proposal, why has it not been put to the members to approve? That is the founding principle of Smisa and organisations like it. One member, one vote!

the smisa committee are trying to insist they dont need to inform and consult on these issues, when the constitution and governing legislation are clear and unequivocal.

Ad nauseum just about sums it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Sorry forgot its your baw and noone dare upset you. Can you actually debate or just throw crap around? Does it not matter to you 1300 members did not get their 'one member, one vote' as I and others trumpeted during BTB?

debate

I tried that once ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Ok, why are Smisa the only shareholder apparently contributing to the clubs funds, loaning etc...? Why is all the risk with the minority shareholder who has the least say and representation?

GS gets to run the club, accessing a load of smisa members funds for ten years then we pay him for his shares. And apparently the goalposts are being moved in respect of the understanding most had that as soon as smisa had accumulated the required funds ( could be done in seven years) we would buy the majority shareholding. It seems GS is insisting that is not the case, and it will be ten years at the earliest before Smisa take over.

as I explained all smisa funds old/new were used to pay the deposit to the selling consortium at the moment of purchase. So there was no funds to extend goodwill or otherwise from.

Come on!

Do you really think that all the risk is with the SMISA shareholders? Any of us can cancel our DD's today - end of risk. GS has put in >£600k out his own pocket for ten years with no interest being paid back. God forbid something catastrophic happens down the line, who has all the risk?

The accumulation of funds to buy the shares, the timescale in which it is done, may have stated targets, but we all know in reality, things change, shit happens, and we will only own the club when we get over all the hurdles.

You are missing my point on the original SMISA funds. I know they were used to pay the deposit, but they were accrued outwith the newly formed BTB movement, so it could be argued that the original money, once we gather sufficient funds from the 1300, could be looked upon as suitable and proper to use against the rolling facility, in other words justify the right to be able to have the facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sally02 said:

Come on!

Do you really think that all the risk is with the SMISA shareholders? Any of us can cancel our DD's today - end of risk. GS has put in >£600k out his own pocket for ten years with no interest being paid back. God forbid something catastrophic happens down the line, who has all the risk?

The accumulation of funds to buy the shares, the timescale in which it is done, may have stated targets, but we all know in reality, things change, shit happens, and we will only own the club when we get over all the hurdles.

You are missing my point on the original SMISA funds. I know they were used to pay the deposit, but they were accrued outwith the newly formed BTB movement, so it could be argued that the original money, once we gather sufficient funds from the 1300, could be looked upon as suitable and proper to use against the rolling facility, in other words justify the right to be able to have the facility.

I think you are overlooking the fact Smisa are buying all the shares circa £1m, and GS gets his money back, guaranteed.

as regards your point on monies accrued outside BTB, tgat is moot as it was spent, and that was confirmed at the AGM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is your best?

This is you Not namecalling for effect?

this is debate?

no... this is part of the effort to shout/shut down the debate.

 

As with many of your posts just because you keep repeating the same lie does not make it a truth.

 

First I was accused of abusing you and calling you names.

 

Now we've reduced the charge to "name calling for effect" whatever that actually means!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Just be thankful that you never attended the AGM. 

Not something I am likely to do as I am no longer a member of SMiSA.

Edit. My only interest in SMiSA funds that prompted me to post on the forum arose when the HoF panels came into the discussion. As I was personally involved in the creation of the originals, and subsequently passed on updated artwork to the club three or four times, that discussion interested me. 

I am merely posting as a long-time supporter and forum user. Following the failed 10000hours bid, as someone who was completely scunnered with the bullshit that soured that whole period, it appears to be arising again in very similar circumstances, involving some of the same people. I don't need to be a SMiSA member to make comment on that.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I think you are overlooking the fact Smisa are buying all the shares circa £1m, and GS gets his money back, guaranteed.

as regards your point on monies accrued outside BTB, tgat is moot as it was spent, and that was confirmed at the AGM.

I think you are not grasping the fact that if You invested £600k of your money today, you could safely assume that you would get upwards of 5% return per annum on that amount money, which over 10 years in simple terms would earn £300k in interest, plus the interest on the accrued amount if you re-invested it.

I have no axe to grind here, but in my opinion GS is the most connected, driven and passionate chairman in British football, to take on the role he has within the club as it exists, and help fund the buyout to allow us to realise our future dreams, is truly awesome, and he's doing it all at the coal face. (Ann Budge is similar, but she has more wealthy fans around her, and her financial involvement in percentage terms of her wealth is a lot less). 

Tell you what, give GS a call and tell him you will split the burden with him. After all there's no risk on that side, as the Trust has all the risk.

Edited by sally02
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned this is simply a matter of trust.

Personally I trust that all the guys on the football board are doing their level best for the Football Club. They are legally bound to act in the best interest of the company at all times and Gordon, Tony Fitz, Alan Wardrop and David Nicol are all lifelong buddies.

The same goes for the guys on the SMiSA board. Is anyone really of the belief that they are doing anything other than their level best to deliver what they set out to acheive and what is for the best for the football club.

Frankly I couldn't give a damn if a box wasn't ticked when they lent the club £12K to fix the undersoil heating in a hurry. I can't imagine the vast majority of SMiSA members care.

I'd be staggered if I could find more than half a dozen of the 1300 members who care that the discretionary funds aren't put in a separate bank account to the buyout funds.

The £50K borrowing option has never been used as far as I can tell. If it was part of the buy out deal then so what? Cashflow bumps have been commonplace at the club for decades. The directors used to pump money in unsecured and take it back out when the money came in. I don't really see why SMiSA would be any different. If the money is sitting there earning no interest I'm quite happy for it to be used to smooth cashflow issues. I'm quite sure there will be terms attached to any such loan, do we have the agreement on that in writing anywhere or are we taking LPM's word that it's a written on the back of a fag packet agreement?

 

44 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

GS gets to run the club, accessing a load of smisa members funds for ten years then we pay him for his shares.

Lucky him eh? He "gets to run the club for 10 years" without salary, and he gets to tie up £600K of his own money for 10 years into the bargain. Lucky guy.

23 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I think you are overlooking the fact Smisa are buying all the shares circa £1m, and GS gets his money back, guaranteed.

Except there is no guarantee as people like you trying to throw SMiSA under a bus could easily cause a mass cancellation of direct debits causing the whole deal to collapse.

 

You don't trust ANYONE and that is your biggest problem.

You don't even trust the new main sponsor FFS and attacked them on the day of the announcement. Imagine attacking someone putting money IN to the club.

It's beyond parody it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Yflab said:

 Was it because you were not invited to the boredroom for sausage rolls. 

Seriously though - why no longer? I would have thought you would have supported a fan ownership model. Or are you anticipating a hostile takeover by Skyview Capital.

I 'resigned' my SMiSA membership for personal reasons, but if I'm posting in a thread such as this, I thought it only fair to say I am no longer a member of SMiSA, but as a supporter and ST holder, obviously remain interested in all aspects of goings-on down Feegie way. I am as interested in this thread as I would be about a playing squad thread, or a thread about maybe keeping the West Stand for home fans, or, or...

I also don't equate my non-membership of SMiSA as meaning I don't approve of fan ownership at football clubs.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all getting a bit silly. LPM has raised his doubts. Nobody has called any names. When you've got 1,300 people involved - it's impossible to please everyone. Attendances are up, we're performing better on the park and there's a feel good factor around the club right now, long may it continue.

From reading this thread and responses, my own conclusion is that although there may be some element of risk to a (max) £50k loan to the club - it is protecting our investment. We've got to have a functioning football club at all times. When you consider the amount of money involved overall - £50,000 isn't really that much to ask. Putting my trust in the club, GLS & SMISA to maintain a sensible business model. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all getting a bit silly. LPM has raised his doubts. Nobody has called any names. When you've got 1,300 people involved - it's impossible to please everyone. Attendances are up, we're performing better on the park and there's a feel good factor around the club right now, long may it continue.
From reading this thread and responses, my own conclusion is that although there may be some element of risk to a (max) £50k loan to the club - it is protecting our investment. We've got to have a functioning football club at all times. When you consider the amount of money involved overall - £50,000 isn't really that much to ask. Putting my trust in the club, GLS & SMISA to maintain a sensible business model. 
 


^^^^^^^^^^^^
This
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yflab said:

Just be thankful that you never attended the AGM. 

Aye - I keep seeing references to "stunned" and "shocked" facial expressions. The over-riding emotion I saw on other people's faces, and felt myself, was boredom - and that was during the whole thing, not one specific part.

Think my brother had the right idea by staying at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, div said:

As far as I'm concerned this is simply a matter of trust.

Personally I trust that all the guys on the football board are doing their level best for the Football Club. They are legally bound to act in the best interest of the company at all times and Gordon, Tony Fitz, Alan Wardrop and David Nicol are all lifelong buddies.

The same goes for the guys on the SMiSA board. Is anyone really of the belief that they are doing anything other than their level best to deliver what they set out to acheive and what is for the best for the football club.

Frankly I couldn't give a damn if a box wasn't ticked when they lent the club £12K to fix the undersoil heating in a hurry. I can't imagine the vast majority of SMiSA members care.

I'd be staggered if I could find more than half a dozen of the 1300 members who care that the discretionary funds aren't put in a separate bank account to the buyout funds.

The £50K borrowing option has never been used as far as I can tell. If it was part of the buy out deal then so what? Cashflow bumps have been commonplace at the club for decades. The directors used to pump money in unsecured and take it back out when the money came in. I don't really see why SMiSA would be any different. If the money is sitting there earning no interest I'm quite happy for it to be used to smooth cashflow issues. I'm quite sure there will be terms attached to any such loan, do we have the agreement on that in writing anywhere or are we taking LPM's word that it's a written on the back of a fag packet agreement?

 

Lucky him eh? He "gets to run the club for 10 years" without salary, and he gets to tie up £600K of his own money for 10 years into the bargain. Lucky guy.

Except there is no guarantee as people like you trying to throw SMiSA under a bus could easily cause a mass cancellation of direct debits causing the whole deal to collapse.

 

You don't trust ANYONE and that is your biggest problem.

You don't even trust the new main sponsor FFS and attacked them on the day of the announcement. Imagine attacking someone putting money IN to the club.

It's beyond parody it really is.

'I want to throw Smisa under a bus'?

simply because i believe they should stick to their constitution, legal obligations and give those members interested their say?

what you dont get, is I want to make smisa stronger by taking everyone along. If we hit a significant bump in the road issues such as the ones I (and you conveniently forget others have) highlighted could cause a serious drop off in membership. I.e. There is a reason left hanging to doubt.

You and a few others seem to equate that to wanting to bring smisa down... any idea how much my family have invested in smisa? Yeah ffs we want to bring it down, must be true cause Div said so.

I ask again.. what have you got against one member, one vote? If the proposals are sound them I am sure the majority would back them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

'I want to throw Smisa under a bus'?

simply because i believe they should stick to their constitution, legal obligations and give those members interested their say?

what you dont get, is I want to make smisa stronger by taking everyone along. If we hit a significant bump in the road issues such as the ones I (and you conveniently forget others have) highlighted could cause a serious drop off in membership. I.e. There is a reason left hanging to doubt.

You and a few others seem to equate that to wanting to bring smisa down... any idea how much my family have invested in smisa? Yeah ffs we want to bring it down, must be true cause Div said so.

I ask again.. what have you got against one member, one vote? If the proposals are sound them I am sure the majority would back them.

I've nothing against one member one vote, as far as I remember we've been asked to vote on around £30K of discretional spend to date.  Am I mistaken on that?

SMiSA and the club have already stated that the USH loan was an emergency fix at the time. I expect that money has been paid back but again you are the expert so you can tell us?

I also believe that the £50K loan facility has never been used, can you confirm that also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, div said:

I've nothing against one member one vote, as far as I remember we've been asked to vote on around £30K of discretional spend to date.  Am I mistaken on that?

SMiSA and the club have already stated that the USH loan was an emergency fix at the time. I expect that money has been paid back but again you are the expert so you can tell us?

I also believe that the £50K loan facility has never been used, can you confirm that also?

The £15k USH loan will be paid back this year, not the point though as it would have taken no more than three days to consult the members before loaning the money. There was no mention of becoming the clubs lender during BTB, i, it now seems mistakenly, gave assurances to those people i signed up that outwith the £2 discretionary pot their membership subscriptions were ringfenced to buy The majority shareholding, not lend without consulting them.

The club want the £50k revolving credit facility ( its not a loan, it doesnt have a payback date, GS indicated it runs for ten years, and if it hasnt been paid back, we inherit a debt to ourselves) ASAP, they are frustrated at the process the smisa finance guys are trying to keep them on.

again, if its a good idea, and not yet drawn down... why not go to the members for approval? Then any issue is resolved by majority consensus.

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...