Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Lord Pityme

Save Smisa

Recommended Posts

Don't know or care if Dickson is on here, but he's sure as hell doing a good job on the feeshal' forum of being a one-man wrecking ball of unbelievable bawbag proportions. Beginning to think the guy genuinely has some sort of attention-seeking disorder.

Beginning???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pozbaird said:

 

I wasn't trying to have a go at any individual, just the overall vibe - which is, in my view, now the same vibe as many of the 10000hours threads. Anyway, unless you've been accused of being a miscreant, then you're safe Garzo.

Yee-hah... saddle up and send for Yul...FFS.

Alas, there is constant snipping etc because we hear heehaw from those with the knowledge and people are guessing and second guessing what has / is actually going on.

One of smisa's objects are to operate democratically, fairly, sustainably, transparently and with financial responsibility and encouraging the Club to do the same.

A few of these points appear to be being blithely ignored and the members are essentially being told to acquiesce, just cough up your hard earned money and let us get on with things - if we tell you something, your place is not to question but to simply accept. The reason why their was a crap turnout to the AGM was because the great mass of the members do not know what is going on and are not getting an opportunity to know what is getting on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pozbaird said:

 

Yee-hah... saddle up and send for Yul...FFS.

Is LPM not Yul in disguise. I'm sure he had it in for REA. Or maybe that was a different alias Somner9.

Edited by Yflab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yflab said:

Is LPM not Yul in disguise. I'm sure he had it in for REA. Or maybe that was a different alias Somner9.

Oh defo had it in for that charlatan, but i aint/wisnae Yul. Previously Somner9 before the bully boys convinced me to leave the forum.

30 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

Was the story not going round at the time that yul was George Adam? I thoufht LPM was animal?

Had heard that rumour about Yul, i am certainly not Animal. 

You know you can just ask me directly if you want the skinny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Oh defo had it in for that charlatan, but i aint/wisnae Yul. Previously Somner9 before the bully boys convinced me to leave the forum.

Had heard that rumour about Yul, i am certainly not Animal. 

You know you can just ask me directly if you want the skinny.

If im honest im not that bothered. Somner9 does ring a bell now. Theres that many reincarnatiins its hard to keep track haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't read through this thread, but I take it is the case that if we have loaned £15k to the club for USH repairs, and have a rolling facility to loan the club 50k for contingencies and emergencies? If we at present own 28% of the shares and are in process of buying the remainder, then in fact we are lending the money to ourselves, no? You could be critical of the fact that we do not at present own the remainder of the shares, but surely it is sensible to try and protect and nurture the asset you are buying, rather than risk potential problems which may lead to unknown damage or loss of control of the club in the future.

As an after-thought, I presume the £15k would be considered within the £50k rolling facility? i.e. they wouldn't loan out more than £50k at any one time? Also, was there not that amount in the SMISA coffers before the buyout started?

 

Edited by sally02

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Ah the usual abuse and name calling, that'll unite saints fans and solve all the issues I am sure.

Try debating, or ignoring you never know you might get the hang of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah the usual abuse and name calling, that'll unite saints fans and solve all the issues I am sure.
Try debating, or ignoring you never know you might get the hang of it.


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

Not like you to make stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sally02 said:

Haven't read through this thread, but I take it is the case that if we have loaned £15k to the club for USH repairs, and have a rolling facility to loan the club 50k for contingencies and emergencies? If we at present own 28% of the shares and are in process of buying the remainder, then in fact we are lending the money to ourselves, no? You could be critical of the fact that we do not at present own the remainder of the shares, but surely it is sensible to try and protect and nurture the asset you are buying, rather than risk potential problems which may lead to unknown damage or loss of control of the club in the future.

As an after-thought, I presume the £15k would be considered within the £50k rolling facility? i.e. they wouldn't loan out more than £50k at any one time? Also, was there not that amount in the SMISA coffers before the buyout started?

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...