Jump to content

Save Smisa


Lord Pityme
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 


From my recollection, all questions were answered. Everyone who put a hand up had a chance to ask their question. You asked a three point question and tried to cut off the person giving the answer, which led to you rightfully being asked to wait. Even when the 50K was explained fully there was no sea of hands, no booing, no throwing of rotten fruit, no walkout and no heckling. The AGM was shutdown because nobody was throwing their hands up and it appeared like the majority in the room were happy for the meeting to be concluded. Andrew Jenkins from Supporters Direct was there, the perfect opportunity for anyone to ask him about legalities and even how the model rules were pieced together, yet he didn't need to answer anything. Gordon was also there, perfect opportunity for anyone to take him to task, and he only had to answer and cover some basic points.

The only people who know how the meeting actually went are those who attended. If any attendee felt they didn't have their questions answered then they can email it in. If anyone else has a question then they too can email it in.

 

Seems we were at different meetings Kenny, Andrew Jenkin was introduced at the start, but then the meeting was shutdown without him getting a chance to take the mic. He looked stunned at proceedings.

there was no call for anymore questions, George simply decided to close the meeting an hour ahead of expected/allowed finish.

it was noted by a few attendees that some of the smisa committee looked to be visibly seething at having to take the fewvquestions that were allowed.

given some of the answer to part of my question,  I tried to ask a supplementary question and was cut down with unecessary disdain.

when i was asking a question aimed at the committee, Gordon waded in. I thought it was supposed to be a Smisa AGM, and not a club AGM but seems like there aint much difference in who runs both now. I was asked by a few other attendees whom I dont know leaving the meeting why I wasnt allowed to ask a supplementary question, and that I, and others should have been allowed to ask questions to get the points/issues dealt with on the day. There was genuine incredulity at how we had more time dedicated to George talking about George than seemed dedicated to smisa members discussing smisa.

yes people can if they are bothered email in questions, but smisa reluctance to answer them in open forum, or release minutes of meetings is causing a growing unrest.

any organisation such as Smisa not only needs to be open, honest and transparent, but be seen to be that too! Otherwise what is the point of being a member?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Can I ask a simple question? We have one person saying (I paraphrase) - everyone asked their questions, explained the show of hands, the meeting was normal, it ended, and everyone went about their business.

We have another person, who was at the same meeting, saying (I paraphrase) - people were unable to ask their questions, the meeting was quickly shut down by an irritated SMiSA committee, the chairman waded in to answer questions that weren't even his domain, the SMiSA committee treated people with disdain, and they were effectively stopped from asking a follow up question, and the explanation of the show of hands is completely different from the first person.

I think I have summed up Tsu and Pityme's positions on how the meeting went reasonably accurately given what they've posted?

One must assume that such a wide differing opinion on how a meeting really went is not possible. Someone is lying about what actually went on in this meeting.

Can anyone who was there who isn't Tsu or Pityme enlighten those of us who merely frequent the forum?

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pozbaird said:

Can I ask a simple question? We have one person saying (I paraphrase) - everyone asked their questions, explained the show of hands, the meeting was normal, it ended, and everyone went about their business.

We have another person, who was at the same meeting, saying (I paraphrase) - people were unable to ask their questions, the meeting was quickly shut down by an irritated SMiSA committee, the chairman waded in to answer questions that weren't even his domain, the SMiSA committee treated people with disdain, and they were effectively stopped from asking a follow up question, and the explanation of the show of hands is completely different from the first person.

I think I have summed up Tsu and Pityme's positions on how the meeting went reasonably accurately given what they've posted?

One must assume that such a wide differing opinion on how a meeting really went is not possible. Someone is lying about what actually went on in this meeting.

Can anyone who was there who isn't Tsu or Pityme enlighten those of us who merely frequent the forum?

I left early so cant 100% comment on the meeting.

Think I've posted my take it though and am confident my note here (if accepted as a way forward) is a good summary of how things were when I left.
I've yet to see a response - is this a fair summary and way to proceed?
1. if 50k shareholder agreement is in place and legally binding - is the issue that the membership are reminded and made fully aware of this?
2. any future proposed financial transaction over a certain value should be put to members in a vote?
3. clarification on delegated authority and what would constitute emergency actions, taken in trust by the committee?

It's a little disappointing the guys in the committee are not being shown due recognition and respect for what they've managed to do and continue to do.
They should be given some room to make mistakes, learn and grow into the role - they are all good people and should be approached in a respectful manner.

Everything else is just opinion on presentation style, content and meeting management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, garzo said:

I left early so cant 100% comment on the meeting.

Think I've posted my take it though and am confident my note here (if accepted as a way forward) is a good summary of how things were when I left.
I've yet to see a response - is this a fair summary and way to proceed?
1. if 50k shareholder agreement is in place and legally binding - is the issue that the membership are reminded and made fully aware of this?
2. any future proposed financial transaction over a certain value should be put to members in a vote?
3. clarification on delegated authority and what would constitute emergency actions, taken in trust by the committee?

It's a little disappointing the guys in the committee are not being shown due recognition and respect for what they've managed to do and continue to do.
They should be given some room to make mistakes, learn and grow into the role - they are all good people and should be approached in a respectful manner.

Everything else is just opinion on presentation style, content and meeting management.

Seems more than a difference of opinion on style to me. Reading this thread, two very different accounts of what happened are being offered up.

No clearer getting to the bottom of it, not going to lose any sleep over it, thanks for taking the time to reply Garzo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pozbaird said:

Can I ask a simple question? We have one person saying (I paraphrase) - everyone asked their questions, explained the show of hands, the meeting was normal, it ended, and everyone went about their business.

We have another person, who was at the same meeting, saying (I paraphrase) - people were unable to ask their questions, the meeting was quickly shut down by an irritated SMiSA committee, the chairman waded in to answer questions that weren't even his domain, the SMiSA committee treated people with disdain, and they were effectively stopped from asking a follow up question, and the explanation of the show of hands is completely different from the first person.

I think I have summed up Tsu and Pityme's positions on how the meeting went reasonably accurately given what they've posted?

One must assume that such a wide differing opinion on how a meeting really went is not possible. Someone is lying about what actually went on in this meeting.

Can anyone who was there who isn't Tsu or Pityme enlighten those of us who merely frequent the forum?

I actually think there are correct observations from both. The way I saw it, LPM raised 3 points at the same time, the committee then began to answer each point in turn. Once the first answer was given LPM tried to come back in but was told that he had had his turn. I personally thought he should have had a right to reply if he was unhappy with the answers given. There did seem to be an unnecessary haste to get onto the next questions from the floor and get the meeting over and done with as quickly as possible. George did ask if there were any more questions from the members and as no hands were raised he then moved on. I don't think there were any irritated committee members but I think they did fail to grasp the general feeling that clarity is going to be key to things moving forward. After a bit of debate they seemed to just say its something we can look at, and moved on. I certainly didn't feel like it was the shambles which has been portrayed above, but there are certainly areas for improvement. Unfortunately the turnout wasn't great.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Smithers Jones said:

I actually think there are correct observations from both. The way I saw it, LPM raised 3 points at the same time, the committee then began to answer each point in turn. Once the first answer was given LPM tried to come back in but was told that he had had his turn. I personally thought he should have had a right to reply if he was unhappy with the answers given. There did seem to be an unnecessary haste to get onto the next questions from the floor and get the meeting over and done with as quickly as possible. George did ask if there were any more questions from the members and as no hands were raised he then moved on. I don't think there were any irritated committee members but I think they did fail to grasp the general feeling that clarity is going to be key to things moving forward. After a bit of debate they seemed to just say its something we can look at, and moved on. I certainly didn't feel like it was the shambles which has been portrayed above, but there are certainly areas for improvement. Unfortunately the turnout wasn't great.

 

Ta. Appreciate the reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pozbaird said:

Can I ask a simple question? We have one person saying (I paraphrase) - everyone asked their questions, explained the show of hands, the meeting was normal, it ended, and everyone went about their business.

We have another person, who was at the same meeting, saying (I paraphrase) - people were unable to ask their questions, the meeting was quickly shut down by an irritated SMiSA committee, the chairman waded in to answer questions that weren't even his domain, the SMiSA committee treated people with disdain, and they were effectively stopped from asking a follow up question, and the explanation of the show of hands is completely different from the first person.

I think I have summed up Tsu and Pityme's positions on how the meeting went reasonably accurately given what they've posted?

One must assume that such a wide differing opinion on how a meeting really went is not possible. Someone is lying about what actually went on in this meeting.

Can anyone who was there who isn't Tsu or Pityme enlighten those of us who merely frequent the forum?

I was there, I missed the very beginning of the meeting when the Supporters Direct person was introduced.  I have no axe to grind here, but I thought some of the proceedings were a little strange and rushed.  I believe clarity and communication between the SMiSA board and the General membership on the pints raised need addressed by the commitee.

To Clarify, Gordon Scott did interrupt the proceedings to answer one of LPMs questions, which was surprising but didn't really bother me, but if he wanted to contribute, he should have asked permission of the Chair.  GS then left shortly afterwards. The questions being asked and answered were centered on the Constitutional changes, the Loans and the rest of the Agenda.  The Chair did ask if there were any more questions, but that was during discussion on a specific item above.  There was no "So before we close the meeting have we any more questions". The meeting finished very abruptly one hour early.

I certainly did have a couple of questions I wanted to ask.

I am sure other members there, felt the same.

5 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

what was the unneccessary comment by the chair person

It went something very similar too "Ah... there's Tony with his hand up like a wee child in the Classroom".  I thought that was crass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to make someone else look childish and succeeding only in looking like she school Bully with his gang behind him.

 

It's been said before in a,range of settings, you get to see someone's true character when they get on a committee.

The chair showed true disrespect with that comment, not just forTony but for the membership as a whole.

Why, when given the opportunity to look like a berk, do certain people feel the irresistible urge to seize it with both hands?

Edited by beyond our ken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its disappointing that some guys see the committee as their own private feifdom; disregard rules; ignore people raising pertinent issues; berate / ridicule members - is this really an organisation I / anybody wants to be part of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, melmac said:

its disappointing that some guys see the committee as their own private feifdom; disregard rules; ignore people raising pertinent issues; berate / ridicule members - is this really an organisation I / anybody wants to be part of?

Aren't the committee chosen by members?

If so, surely changes could/should be made if your view is close to the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It went something very similar too "Ah... there's Tony with his hand up like a wee child in the Classroom".  I thought that was crass.

Yes the chairman showed his true class there. And again the stunned looks around the room said it all.
I think we can conclude the smisa committee will side with Gordon even against their own members.
Strange the Smisa committee member on the club board couldn't make it to the AGM?
I bet he doesn't miss the club AGM though!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

I wasn't there however reading some of the comments it sounds similar to one of the previous SMFC board's agm where they generally sat around making wee comments to each other and looking like they didn't want to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎30‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 1:34 PM, Lord Pityme said:

Given that they refuse to make meeting minutes available, i wont hold my breath on them streaming an AGM where they show themselves up by avoiding questions.

has people asked for the minutes before and been refused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

The premium members subscriptions as confirmed at the agm went to paying the selling consortiums deposit. The £50k is coming out of the £12/£25 members pot, and they were never informed, consulted with or indeed ever made aware that £50k of their subscriptions was been made available to the club.

they were told £2 goes into the discretionary fund pot, the rest is ringfenced to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC. 

Why do you think the committee freaked and shutdiwn the AGM?

 

11 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

 

 


From my recollection, all questions were answered. Everyone who put a hand up had a chance to ask their question. You asked a three point question and tried to cut off the person giving the answer, which led to you rightfully being asked to wait. Even when the 50K was explained fully there was no sea of hands, no booing, no throwing of rotten fruit, no walkout and no heckling. The AGM was shutdown because nobody was throwing their hands up and it appeared like the majority in the room were happy for the meeting to be concluded. Andrew Jenkins from Supporters Direct was there, the perfect opportunity for anyone to ask him about legalities and even how the model rules were pieced together, yet he didn't need to answer anything. Gordon was also there, perfect opportunity for anyone to take him to task, and he only had to answer and cover some basic points.

The only people who know how the meeting actually went are those who attended. If any attendee felt they didn't have their questions answered then they can email it in. If anyone else has a question then they too can email it in.

 

one of you two wasn't paying attention or one of you is lying. Which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎30‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 7:47 PM, Lord Pityme said:

Everything is in order?

the 1300 people whose money it actually is were not consulted about, and never made aware that the committee wanted to lend £65000.00 of their subscriptions they were promised would be ringfenced to buy and only to be made available to buy the majority shareholding in SMFC.

I expected £10 of my £12 monthly subscription to be ringfenced. There was no mention of using any of it to bail out the club in times of need or any other time.

For those paying £25 per month, £23 was being ring fenced. Ring fenced to me means protected for a specific use. Am I wrong in my understanding of that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

 

one of you two wasn't paying attention or one of you is lying. Which is it?

After the formalities of the day, members were asked if they had any questions, LPM and a few others put their hands up LPM led with questions on the subject of finance and communications of same, most of the questions (1 ladies question about recruiting more members apart) were in the same vein, i and others expected the next statement from the chair should have been "are there any other questions about any other subjects before we close the meeting" it was however "this meeting is now closed, go and watch and cheer your team on" or something similar. As mentioned by Vambo, he did have questions on other subjects and was waiting to ask them.

Edited by buddiecat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

I expected £10 of my £12 monthly subscription to be ringfenced. There was no mention of using any of it to bail out the club in times of need or any other time.

For those paying £25 per month, £23 was being ring fenced. Ring fenced to me means protected for a specific use. Am I wrong in my understanding of that? 

If it would seem we both have both been misled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the formalities of the day, members were asked if they had any questions, LPM and a few others put their hands up LPM led with questions on the subject of finance and communications of same, most of the questions (1 ladies question about recruiting more members apart) were in the same vein, i and others expected the next statement from the chair should have been "are there any other questions about any other subjects before we close the meeting" it was however "this meeting is now closed, go and watch and cheer your team on" or something similar. As mentioned by Vambo, he did have questions on other subjects and was waiting to ask them.


Why didn't others throw their arm up and demand to ask a question? Much like why did nobody ask to address the rep from Supporters Direct? When George made the comment towards Tony, why did nobody make any sort of vocal objection? Instead of applauding at the end, why did nobody just stand up and absolutely demand to be heard? Raising issues on a forum after the meeting, to me anyway, is an absolute waste when you consider that the people raising them were there.

I'm certain that everyone who put a hand up got to ask their question(s) or make their point(s). Off the top of my head that was six people. Gordon may have stepped in, but why shouldn't he when he's being accused of certain things on here and also when he was able to provide additional detail at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

If it would seem we both have both been misled.

 

2 minutes ago, garzo said:

What did you expect your subscription would be used for?

I expected my subscription to be used to buy shares. Just like they told me it would. The ringfence was important to me  knowing believing the members money wouldn't be getting f**ked about with. It appears, that is a crock of shite.

The Buy the Buds initiative I signed up for stated they were ringfencing £10 of my money for the purchase of share. Not a word was said about giving out loans and f**k all was mentioned about having "powers" to move the goal posts..

Quote

Gordon paid the bulk of the money needed to fund the initial share purchase but SMISA agreed to cover £380,000 of the £1m purchase price.

The income we receive from our members will pay that money back, while also saving up the money we need to buy out Gordon over the long-term.

Basic membership of SMISA has been set at £12 per month. Of that, £10 is ringfenced for the share purchase, and £2 goes into a pot for members to spend on the club as they see best.

Fans also have the option of signing up for £25 per month, or through our £2,500 premium package, offering ten years of membership and some exclusive money-can’t-buy benefits. More information on our sign up page.

SMISA set itself a target of 1,000 members to make sure our finances stay robust - we hit that target in summer 2016 during the initial fundraising.

However it is important our existing members stay with us and that we attract new ones over the years too.

There is no upper limit on members - the more we get, the stronger we are as a trust, the greater good we can do for the club and community. Fans can still sign up at any time.

Our mate Google says

Quote

"guarantee that (funds allocated for a particular purpose) will not be spent on anything else"

Did I mention? Not a peep about being able to move goalposts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TsuMirren said:

 Gordon may have stepped in, but why shouldn't he when he's being accused of certain things on here and also when he was able to provide additional detail at the time.

 

 

because it wasn't his meeting. It is that simple

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...