Jump to content

Save Smisa


Lord Pityme

Recommended Posts

Guest TPAFKATS
You would need to ask him that i'm afraid, because of confidentiality, which is only right and proper.

Fair enough.

I'm assuming he's not, also hoping he's not given how this thread is panning out.

Nothing would surprise though

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Kombibuddie said:

That has cropped up now? Why not last year when the "agreement" with GLS SMISA and the selling consortium was made. Why now? & Why not ask the other shareholders to contribute to this? Is it just easier to use SMISA as a bit of a cash cow?

I believe that the bit in bold is what myself and LPM are striving to prevent, we could not affect the situation from within the SMiSA committee and resigned from it (that along with the communication issue are i believe his main reasons, my resignation decision had these and other frustrations as part of it but finally was made over personal issues with another board member, who is actually one of the guys who work hard for the trust). Speaking for myself and i know LPM agrees. The SMiSA board and those assisting it have and continue to do a terrific job, some of the hard work done is worthy of a decent salary if it were done on behalf of a business. The communication part is what is lacking. I'd say a vote on spending on anything other than running costs is required from here on in.

The £50k facility came out of the shareholders agreement negotiations which were finalised with both parties and their lawyers present, that for me was cut and dried and legally correct, all that remains is for the method of making the facility available to be decided and agreed on. Someone posted previously, the description of where members money would be spent, those details were changed due to amounts needing to be available to conclude the share purchase from the consortium, the issue is whether the SMiSA committee had the authority to change where the initial premium members money went, they believed they did due to being granted permission from members to pursue and negotiate on their behalf. Was that legal, i asked and was assured it was, the main person in the final negotiations is very good at his job and deals with multi million pound contract negotiations as part of his day job, i'm not qualified in contract negotiations and the law surrounding them.

Nobody is accusing Gordon of anything here, and i assure you that me and LPM both want SMiSA to be successful in the process of buying the club, the main way of achieving that is by ensuring that the money being paid by members is completely safe until the target amount is reached and the shares bought. If it is used as an unsecured loan then it is not guaranteed to be safe. Any decision to put it at risk needs to be defined as such and voted on by members e.g. "the club needs financial assistance, do you agree to put SMiSA money and it's ability to complete the purchase of shares at risk to fund .blah blah blah......" I personally could only decide on that if i knew for sure the money was completely safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Fair enough.

I'm assuming he's not, also hoping he's not given how this thread is panning out.

Nothing would surprise though

 

Don't see how this thread would have any bearing on whether or not he was a SMiSA member. And for clarity :) I have never been able to see a full list of members, so i could not tell you one way or another.

Edited by buddiecat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too think the SMISA Board/commitee are doing a fine if thankless job and wish them all the best.  I  do hope the points on communication, consultation and clarity will have their full attention in future. I was however disappointed with the running of the meeting and the abrupt end. 

The meeting itself only lasted around 30-40mins if I remember correctly.  There was plenty time for more questions, which were not asked for. If there was a round of applause at the end I don't recall one (I was gobsmacked), perhaps it was for the "there's a game to go to" comment.

Someone at the AGM was taking minutes.  As a starter for ten on communication issues, I look forward to reading them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, buddiecat said:

I believe that the bit in bold is what myself and LPM are striving to prevent, we could not affect the situation from within the SMiSA committee and resigned from it (that along with the communication issue are i believe his main reasons, my resignation decision had these and other frustrations as part of it but finally was made over personal issues with another board member, who is actually one of the guys who work hard for the trust). Speaking for myself and i know LPM agrees. The SMiSA board and those assisting it have and continue to do a terrific job, some of the hard work done is worthy of a decent salary if it were done on behalf of a business. The communication part is what is lacking. I'd say a vote on spending on anything other than running costs is required from here on in.

The £50k facility came out of the shareholders agreement negotiations which were finalised with both parties and their lawyers present, that for me was cut and dried and legally correct, all that remains is for the method of making the facility available to be decided and agreed on. Someone posted previously, the description of where members money would be spent, those details were changed due to amounts needing to be available to conclude the share purchase from the consortium, the issue is whether the SMiSA committee had the authority to change where the initial premium members money went, they believed they did due to being granted permission from members to pursue and negotiate on their behalf. Was that legal, i asked and was assured it was, the main person in the final negotiations is very good at his job and deals with multi million pound contract negotiations as part of his day job, i'm not qualified in contract negotiations and the law surrounding them.

Nobody is accusing Gordon of anything here, and i assure you that me and LPM both want SMiSA to be successful in the process of buying the club, the main way of achieving that is by ensuring that the money being paid by members is completely safe until the target amount is reached and the shares bought. If it is used as an unsecured loan then it is not guaranteed to be safe. Any decision to put it at risk needs to be defined as such and voted on by members e.g. "the club needs financial assistance, do you agree to put SMiSA money and it's ability to complete the purchase of shares at risk to fund .blah blah blah......" I personally could only decide on that if i knew for sure the money was completely safe.

You say that nobody is blaming Gordon for anything but I thought when reading through it that there was an element of innuendo. Maybe you should have fronted this with the first post as those of us who have been around for a few years know well that LPM has previous for hysterical overreaction and continually on the search for bogeymen. Everyone has to have an angle apart from him. As the days passed last week I almost added a post to suggest that the SMiSA AGM could possibly be delayed to allow the committee an opportunity to take on board the criticisms and get their act together. I assumed there wasn't a lot to these complaints and while I am still minded to believe that, I can't help but think that the AGM sounds to have been a bit of a shambles.

I still fully support SMiSA and am totally in support of the fans' buyout. However, I hope they don't get complacent. There is a sense of unease clearly and I hope if there has been any equivocation then SMiSA should come clean, tell the truth and then get on with things. No mushroom treatment and publish minutes. Why can't minutes be passed to members.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The frustrating facts in all the shambles surrounding the AGM is, at heart we all want the same thing, but we need to ensure everyone feels genuinely engaged, informed, consulted with to their need.

a simple call to the membership with full information on the term, risk, security, interest and any cost associated with making £50k of the full memberships subscriptions available to the club. Seeking the members approval of the proposal would strengthen Smisa.

if it is a good thing then i am sure the members would agree. To continually insist that the committee have the right to negotiate away the members subscriptions without seeking approval brings them into disrepute. I hope for their sake they see sense and seek the approval of the membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Don't see how this thread would have any bearing on whether or not he was a SMiSA member. And for clarity [emoji4] I have never been able to see a full list of members, so i could not tell you one way or another.

I was meaning that given what is being brought up in the thread, I'm hoping he's not a member due to conflicts.

I'll try and explain it better next time
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

The frustrating facts in all the shambles surrounding the AGM is, at heart we all want the same thing, but we need to ensure everyone feels genuinely engaged, informed, consulted with to their need.

a simple call to the membership with full information on the term, risk, security, interest and any cost associated with making £50k of the full memberships subscriptions available to the club. Seeking the members approval of the proposal would strengthen Smisa.

if it is a good thing then i am sure the members would agree. To continually insist that the committee have the right to negotiate away the members subscriptions without seeking approval brings them into disrepute. I hope for their sake they see sense and seek the approval of the membership.

I though we were close to an agreement & solution & you're still going on about this. 

Lets call this out now. 

Has the committee acted within their rights  and appropriately under the terms of the constitution to conclude a satisfactory deal (This includes a legally binding shareholder agreement between major shareholders.) to buy an increased shareholding in St Mirren FC & option to buy out the majority shareholder in due course? 

Subject to clarification - referring to my previous posts for information & details - are you happy that the committee act under delegated authority on the members behalf?

yes/ no please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, garzo said:

I though we were close to an agreement & solution & you're still going on about this. 

Lets call this out now. 

Has the committee acted within their rights  and appropriately under the terms of the constitution to conclude a satisfactory deal (This includes a legally binding shareholder agreement between major shareholders.) to buy an increased shareholding in St Mirren FC & option to buy out the majority shareholder in due course? 

Subject to clarification - referring to my previous posts for information & details - are you happy that the committee act under delegated authority on the members behalf?

yes/ no please. 

Are you negotiating on behalf of the Smisa committee, or the club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am sure they are doing a fine job but if LPM is (he & Buddiecat appear absolutely sure) near the mark of something being amiss, it needs to be put right.

I agree, it is a thankless task but business must be conducted in a proper & fit way.

Minutes to the members of the AGM & every other meeting should be distributed.

How else are exiled Buds (those that can't make meetings) going to be kept up to date on SMISA matters.

For near on £1500 over the 10 year plan, regular communication & minutes of meetings isn't, imho, too much to expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Answers, No & no

You've taken me by surprise there with those answers.
And of course it is your right to hold your view whether in the first part it can be shown to be factually correct or reasonable is another matter.
The second part is also your right to hold that opinion and view.
Fully respect that.

I'm not sure what you are looking for now or trying to achieve.
Politely and with the greatest of respect...
...I can only conclude you are not willing or able to follow reasoned discussion, explanations and agreements as a way forward.
You may have an ulterior motive and agenda to pursue, I don't know.

I do hope you find resolution to this for your own peace of mind.

I am settled and satisfied that the committee have acted in good faith, within their remit and as the constitution allows.
Also noting their willingness to learn from mistakes, be clearer and more transparent with the membership. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, garzo said:

You've taken me by surprise there with those answers.
And of course it is your right to hold your view whether in the first part it can be shown to be factually correct or reasonable is another matter.
The second part is also your right to hold that opinion and view.
Fully respect that.

I'm not sure what you are looking for now or trying to achieve.
Politely and with the greatest of respect...
...I can only conclude you are not willing or able to follow reasoned discussion, explanations and agreements as a way forward.
You may have an ulterior motive and agenda to pursue, I don't know.

I do hope you find resolution to this for your own peace of mind.

I am settled and satisfied that the committee have acted in good faith, within their remit and as the constitution allows.
Also noting their willingness to learn from mistakes, be clearer and more transparent with the membership. 

 

You are entitled to your point of view. that said the condescending tone you adopt by saying

"I'm not sure what you are looking for now or trying to achieve.
Politely and with the greatest of respect...
...I can only conclude you are not willing or able to follow reasoned discussion, explanations and agreements as a way forward.
You may have an ulterior motive and agenda to pursue, I don't know.

I do hope you find resolution to this for your own peace of mind."

does not reflect well on your intentions. It is a fact of Law, and The Smisa constitution that the committee are bound to fully inform and consult with their membership before taking decisions which can have a severe detrimental effect to the trust, its funds and its members interests.

they have flouted both constitution, and the law as explained and enforced by the governing body the Financial Conduct Authority twice!

By lending the club £15k to fix the USH without property informing and consulting the members, and intend to do so again by making £50k of members subscriptions available to the club.

the Smisa committee have also broken one of their own 'Red Line' code of conduct requirements whereby they require themselves to consult with the membership over any allocation of funds over £500.

my agenda is to see Smisa run the course, the members take the majority shareholding and work to ensure the continued successful existence of SMFC. That only works when you take everyone along, and give them their democratic right of one member, one vote.

The smisa committee under law and constitution do not have delegated authority to channel into SMFC membership funds ringfenced for the one sole purpose the members signed up to. That being to accumulate the funds to buy at the earliest opportunity the majority shareholding in SMFC.

They never had the authority to make that agreement with GLS without membership approval, and that clause in the SHA is unenforceable as it requires the smisa committee to break their constitution, and the governing legislation. Agreements arent legally binding if they require one party to break governing legislation. Think about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

You are entitled to your point of view. that said the condescending tone you adopt by saying

"I'm not sure what you are looking for now or trying to achieve.
Politely and with the greatest of respect...
...I can only conclude you are not willing or able to follow reasoned discussion, explanations and agreements as a way forward.
You may have an ulterior motive and agenda to pursue, I don't know.

I do hope you find resolution to this for your own peace of mind."

does not reflect well on your intentions. It is a fact of Law, and The Smisa constitution that the committee are bound to fully inform and consult with their membership before taking decisions which can have a severe detrimental effect to the trust, its funds and its members interests.

they have flouted both constitution, and the law as explained and enforced by the governing body the Financial Conduct Authority twice!

By lending the club £15k to fix the USH without property informing and consulting the members, and intend to do so again by making £50k of members subscriptions available to the club.

the Smisa committee have also broken one of their own 'Red Line' code of conduct requirements whereby they require themselves to consult with the membership over any allocation of funds over £500.

my agenda is to see Smisa run the course, the members take the majority shareholding and work to ensure the continued successful existence of SMFC. That only works when you take everyone along, and give them their democratic right of one member, one vote.

The smisa committee under law and constitution do not have delegated authority to channel into SMFC membership funds ringfenced for the one sole purpose the members signed up to. That being to accumulate the funds to buy at the earliest opportunity the majority shareholding in SMFC.

They never had the authority to make that agreement with GLS without membership approval, and that clause in the SHA is unenforceable as it requires the smisa committee to break their constitution, and the governing legislation. Agreements arent legally binding if they require one party to break governing legislation. Think about it!

You say condescending; I say polite and respectful. Up to you.

Good luck with this.
So what next?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Pityme said:

To understand why you are doing one or both's bidding?

Is that what I'm doing? hahahahahahahaha :-)

Just stating my views, making observations and trying to be constructive?

Do you have connections to both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:

Oooo... this is getting interesting.

Cmon Garzo, you know already LPM has no connections now to Club or SMiSA committee.

So, who are you?

I know nothing... hahahahahahaha

I am Garzo, clearly stated... hahahahahahaha

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...