Save Smisa

[Lord Pityme]

9 hours ago, div said:

 

I don't think the £50K pot was the headline grabber in that update!!!

 

Are You referring to the Accelerated Payment clause that if John McGinn, Kenny McLean, Stevie Mallan, Lewis Morgan etc are sold then Smisa would have to potentially pay the balance it owes the selling consortium in one hit,

and as it probably wont have that finance available smisa will have to get a loan from the club, who we have loaned to, to payback the consortium..?

aye that'll grab a few headlines.

[garzo]

34 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I guess any trust member who is concerned the committee now openly admit they broke both the constitution and governing legislation at the insistence of the club, and that they intend to do it again might not satisfy everybuddie?

The committee communicate they sought agreement to proceed in keeping with the constitution and governing legislation and reached an agreement with the club.
They intend to do learn, improve and communicate more openly and regularly in the future.
This might satisfy most buddies.

You have not taken on board 1 single aspect of reasoned discussion and clear explanation.
Where are you taking this now?

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by garzo
just because

[garzo]

8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Are You referring to the Accelerated Payment clause that if John McGinn, Kenny McLean, Stevie Mallan, Lewis Morgan etc are sold then Smisa would have to potentially pay the balance it owes the selling consortium in one hit,

and as it probably wont have that finance available smisa will have to get a loan from the club, who we have loaned to, to payback the consortium..?

aye that'll grab a few headlines.

This has potential to be a good thing I would say.
Draw down a dividend, take a loan - pay back as currently expected, the club then belongs to St Mirren fans.
What's the problem with that?

All clearly communicated and agreed I'd expect, wouldn't you?

[Lord Pityme]

2 minutes ago, garzo said:

The committee now openly communicate they sought agreement to proceed in keeping with the constitution and governing legislation and reached an agreement with the club.
They intend to do learn, improve and communicate more openly and regularly in the future.
This might satisfy most buddies.

You have not taken on board 1 single aspect of reasoned discussion and clear explanation.
Where are you taking this now?

 

If you read the statement issued it says the committee sought approval to use the Premium member payments as a £50k facility to make available. That didnt happen as the Premium members money was needed to pay the selling consortium deposit, as smisa failed to secure a loan as intended.

they now without properly informing or consulting the other circa 1300 members intend to make that £50k available from £12 & £25 members subscriptions. Which was never discussed, never mind approved.

i take on all aspects of discussion, and will continue to seek clear explanations.

[Lord Pityme]

2 minutes ago, garzo said:

This has potential to be a good thing I would say.
Draw down a dividend, take a loan - pay back as currently expected, the club then belongs to St Mirren fans.
What's the problem with that?

All clearly communicated and agreed I'd expect, wouldn't you?

Sorry its good for Smisa to be indebted to the organisation it is lending to..?

Wait till everyone finds out the deal with previous owners over the broken USH and the delapidated condition of Ralston. And what Smisa traded off on it.

[garzo]

28 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Sorry its good for Smisa to be indebted to the organisation it is lending to..?

Wait till everyone finds out the deal with previous owners over the broken USH and the delapidated condition of Ralston. And what Smisa traded off on it.

You obviously are well connected, know more than me and by the looks of it have an insight far deeper than most.
It would be wrong of me to say you are verging on becoming a tedious bore and not worth trying to have a reasoned discussion with.
So I won't.

Wishing you well on your never ending pursuit of your version of the truth.

[Lord Pityme]

21 minutes ago, garzo said:

You obviously are well connected, know more than me and by the looks of it have an insight far deeper than most.
It would be wrong of me to say you are verging on becoming a tedious bore and not worth trying to have a reasoned discussion with.
So I won't.

Wishing you well on your never ending pursuit of your version of the truth.

Iilewise it would be remiss of me to say you come over like a condescending, (and by your own admission) an ill informed mugwump, so i wont say that either. Toodle pip.

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Are You referring to the Accelerated Payment clause that if John McGinn, Kenny McLean, Stevie Mallan, Lewis Morgan etc are sold then Smisa would have to potentially pay the balance it owes the selling consortium in one hit,

and as it probably wont have that finance available smisa will have to get a loan from the club, who we have loaned to, to payback the consortium..?

aye that'll grab a few headlines.

Really!

[garzo]

6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Iilewise it would be remiss of me to say you come over like a condescending, (and by your own admission) an ill informed mugwump, so i wont say that either. Toodle pip.

 

hahahahahahahaha

 

Condescending: having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority.

Mugwump: a person who remains aloof or independent, especially from party politics

 

vs

 

Tedious: too long, slow, or dull; tiresome or monotonous.

Bore: to talk or act in a way that makes someone lose interest.

 

Toodle pip: goodbye.

 

[Lord Pityme]

19 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Really!

Depending on if a transfer/sell on happens, and for how much. It was briefly discussed at the AGM, but not in much detail.

the upshot for smisa could be (stress could be) if it has given the club £50k it might not have the balance of the debt to the selling consortium available, so then it would be borrowing from the club.

buggers muddle.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Lord Pityme

[RickMcD]

17 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Depending on if a transfer/sell on happens, and for how much. It was briefly discussed at the AGM, but not in much detail.

the upshot for smisa could be (stress could be) if it has given the club £50k it might not have the balance of the debt to the selling consortium available, so then it would be borrowing from the club.

buggers muddle.

You're clutching at straw now.

[Bud the Baker]

39 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Depending on if a transfer/sell on happens, and for how much. It was briefly discussed at the AGM, but not in much detail.

the upshot for smisa could be (stress could be) if it has given the club £50k it might not have the balance of the debt to the selling consortium available, so then it would be borrowing from the club.

buggers muddle.

Makes the deal to buy out the old BoD look even worse.

*************

It seems to me SMiSA certainly have a bit to do to live up to their mission statement (well SDS's but they do feature it prominently on their Who Are We page.

Quote

A Supporters’ Trust is a democratic, not-for-profit organisation of supporters, committed to strengthening the voice for supporters in the decision making process at a club, and strengthening the links between the club and the community it serves.

Supporters Direct Scotland

 

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Bud the Baker

[melmac]

It certainly would be interesting to see what the committee actually committed the membership to do re the purchase from the chairman.

I fully appreciate that the majority of the membership will not give two hoots about what is going on or went on but you wonder whether most people signed up to BtB under false pretences and not really knowing exactly what they were committing themselves to under certain circumstances.

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, melmac said:

It certainly would be interesting to see what the committee actually committed the membership to do re the purchase from the chairman.

I fully appreciate that the majority of the membership will not give two hoots about what is going on or went on but you wonder whether most people signed up to BtB under false pretences and not really knowing exactly what they were committing themselves to under certain circumstances.

I wouldnt suggest people signed up under false pretences. Rather when agreeing the SHA with GS it would appear the solicitors drawing up/agreeing the document didnt research/interpret the Smisa constitution and governing legislation, focussing solely on the legal standing of the SHA.

Thats why we are in the situation where GS has an agreement with Smisa he (and the smisa committee) believes is legally binding, however as it suggests actions that breach the constitution and governing legislation then it cant be enforced. I.e. You cant draw up a legally binding agreement with another party if that forces them, or you to break the law.

[melmac]

I'm pretty certain GLS/the club would be able to rely upon it, smisa took legal advice and entered into the contracts on the back of that advice, whether they should have before appraising the membership of the terms of the agreements and taking a vote of the membership at that time is a different matter.

[slapsalmon]

LPM is getting shot down like Dickson. Can I just ask instead of titbits and clues that LPM just give us the full and frank version of what he's hinting at. If it's as he's saying then there a issues. Nobody can deny that. 

 

Tell us the full version of your side LPM and hopefully a decent discussion can take place. Certainly sounds like there's some things that most people weren't aware of.

[beyond our ken]

5 minutes ago, garzo said:

 

hahahahahahahaha

 

Condescending: having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority.

Mugwump: a person who remains aloof or independent, especially from party politics

 

vs

 

Tedious: too long, slow, or dull; tiresome or monotonous.

Bore: to talk or act in a way that makes someone lose interest.

 

Toodle pip: goodbye.

 

Ladies.  Please!

[TsuMirren]

http://smisa.net/news-archive/5-general-smisa-news/188-sgm-mar16

Problem being that certain aspects of the deal changed, certain aspects may well even have been confidential. Do you then step out and look for a vote on each re-negotiated aspect, thus being limited a little during discussions as you go back and forth, or do you take the member given authority to "approve the terms of the joint Gordon Scott/SMISA conditional offer to the consortium for the majority shareholding of St Mirren, and authorise the SMISA committee to formalise that offer" as license to have some room during negotiations so long as you don't breach the constitution or legislation. One other key aspect of it all is that Supporters Direct were part of the negotiations and have subsequently stated that SMISA did nothing wrong.

The AGM update does give a good account, members are more than welcome to contact SMISA and ask further questions. As always, individuals will have one view and eventually there's really nothing anyone can do about that. That's the same in any line of work or aspect of life. Meanwhile the SMISA Committee will work away on various things and look to push everything forward. One example being last nights meeting with Street Stuff and the Council on how SMISA can work with everyone in the community. Another example being taking suggestions from the forum, email contact and other avenues on board in order to research them and try bringing options for votes.

Personally, I'm not going to get bogged down on the specifics of the deal as overall I'm comfortable with it and comfortable that the SMISA members can trust the committee to work for them. None of us are looking for lavish praise, but on the flip side there does come a time when you clock out and have a personal life. 

[dave.j]

Speaking from experience, LPM is spot on regards legalities and the constitution. If demonstrated that they have acted illegally or inappropriately, the board should be removed. The consequences or lack of new runners should not impact that.

Everything else on this thread is petty point scoring and rather childish from the majority concerned.

It's also pretty accurate that the majority of trust members don't give a shit how their money is spent regardless of the football team. That though, doesn't give those responsible the ability to act above and outwith the constitution they are bound to serve on.

[beyond our ken]

1 hour ago, TsuMirren said:

http://smisa.net/news-archive/5-general-smisa-news/188-sgm-mar16

Problem being that certain aspects of the deal changed, certain aspects may well even have been confidential. Do you then step out and look for a vote on each re-negotiated aspect, thus being limited a little during discussions as you go back and forth, or do you take the member given authority to "approve the terms of the joint Gordon Scott/SMISA conditional offer to the consortium for the majority shareholding of St Mirren, and authorise the SMISA committee to formalise that offer" as license to have some room during negotiations so long as you don't breach the constitution or legislation. One other key aspect of it all is that Supporters Direct were part of the negotiations and have subsequently stated that SMISA did nothing wrong.

The AGM update does give a good account, members are more than welcome to contact SMISA and ask further questions. As always, individuals will have one view and eventually there's really nothing anyone can do about that. That's the same in any line of work or aspect of life. Meanwhile the SMISA Committee will work away on various things and look to push everything forward. One example being last nights meeting with Street Stuff and the Council on how SMISA can work with everyone in the community. Another example being taking suggestions from the forum, email contact and other avenues on board in order to research them and try bringing options for votes.

Personally, I'm not going to get bogged down on the specifics of the deal as overall I'm comfortable with it and comfortable that the SMISA members can trust the committee to work for them. None of us are looking for lavish praise, but on the flip side there does come a time when you clock out and have a personal life. 

This is what worries me, the buyer is SMISA, not the SMISA negotiating team.  The amount of detail that should remain confidential should actually be very limited

the membership should be advised as to the NATURE of what is held in confidence (not the actual detail of it) and that would go a long way to satisfying questions.

 

For those that say elsewhere that most members don't give a shit as to how the association is run, they should remember that even though this is true the members who DO care are perfectly entitled to raise their concerns 

 

[Lord Pityme]

2 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

http://smisa.net/news-archive/5-general-smisa-news/188-sgm-mar16

Problem being that certain aspects of the deal changed, certain aspects may well even have been confidential. Do you then step out and look for a vote on each re-negotiated aspect, thus being limited a little during discussions as you go back and forth, or do you take the member given authority to "approve the terms of the joint Gordon Scott/SMISA conditional offer to the consortium for the majority shareholding of St Mirren, and authorise the SMISA committee to formalise that offer" as license to have some room during negotiations so long as you don't breach the constitution or legislation. One other key aspect of it all is that Supporters Direct were part of the negotiations and have subsequently stated that SMISA did nothing wrong.

The AGM update does give a good account, members are more than welcome to contact SMISA and ask further questions. As always, individuals will have one view and eventually there's really nothing anyone can do about that. That's the same in any line of work or aspect of life. Meanwhile the SMISA Committee will work away on various things and look to push everything forward. One example being last nights meeting with Street Stuff and the Council on how SMISA can work with everyone in the community. Another example being taking suggestions from the forum, email contact and other avenues on board in order to research them and try bringing options for votes.

Personally, I'm not going to get bogged down on the specifics of the deal as overall I'm comfortable with it and comfortable that the SMISA members can trust the committee to work for them. None of us are looking for lavish praise, but on the flip side there does come a time when you clock out and have a personal life. 

Kenny asking if Supporters Direct approve something is like ask your Granny if you should be on Top of The Pops.

"Aye son, yir magic, you go and show them"

they are not legal council, and they wont stand by you in court.

[TsuMirren]

Kenny asking if Supporters Direct approve something is like ask your Granny if you should be on Top of The Pops.
"Aye son, yir magic, you go and show them"
they are not legal council, and they wont stand by you in court.

But they're an FCA sponsor of approved Model Rules. How can those rules possibly not follow FCA guidelines. Also, Dickson was advised to go to Supporters Direct by the FCA. So why would the FCA advise that if Supporters Direct are giving Granny's advice?

We're pretty much now at the point if either Supporters Direct aren't doing their job or you're just not understanding how everything ties together. You're asking people to raise queries, which may involve the FCA and would lead to being redirected to Supporters Direct, even though you're doubting Supporters Direct. So you have hares running and greyhounds chasing their tail.

Even a statement from Supporters Direct would still lead to you having doubt and digging away.

[Lord Pityme]

Yeah and if like Smisa YOU don't stick to your own model rules the point of SD approving them is moot. We already had the admission at the AGM the constitution and governing legislation were breached over the USH loan, and Smisa knowingly intend to do the same with the £50k credit line.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Lord Pityme

[Lord Pityme]

Sorry just for clarity Kenny, who have I asked to contact the FCA?
I know I haven't asked a soul, so now the Smisa committee are turning to down right lies in a feeble attempt to shut down debate..?

Edited May 5, 2017 by Lord Pityme

[Lord Pityme]

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

 

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Lord Pityme