Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
woiiftm

Sport Scientist

Recommended Posts

I can't be arsed reading through the entire thread, but, at a a guess, is it possible that the general investment of SMiSA in the club will account for greater scope for initiatives like this?

I'm sure the manager was just looking to reach out to the support base, and acknowledge the broad investment in the club's present and future.

Just a thought (though perhaps I should have read the thread - albeit its difficult to follow when you have some contributors on ignore....).

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Drew said:

I can't be arsed reading through the entire thread, but, at a a guess, is it possible that the general investment of SMiSA in the club will account for greater scope for initiatives like this?

I'm sure the manager was just looking to reach out to the support base, and acknowledge the broad investment in the club's present and future.

Just a thought (though perhaps I should have read the thread - albeit its difficult to follow when you have some contributors on ignore....).

1.23 pm mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't give a toss what they spend the money on so long as it's in the best interests of the Club as a whole.  The idea that we, the contributors, need to vote on everything is a nonsense.  What next? Arguing as to the colour of bog roll the Club buys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See what you say when they feck off on a jolly to Vegas and simply say it was in the best interests of the club. And these things don't happen of course.

Edited by melmac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, saint in exile said:

Personally, I don't give a toss what they spend the money on so long as it's in the best interests of the Club as a whole.  The idea that we, the contributors, need to vote on everything is a nonsense.  What next? Arguing as to the colour of bog roll the Club buys?

White only. 

Even the thinnest of black strips alternating would prove to be confusing when trying to assess the precise state of cleanliness of one's hin' end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I don't give a toss what they spend the money on so long as it's in the best interests of the Club as a whole.  The idea that we, the contributors, need to vote on everything is a nonsense.  What next? Arguing as to the colour of bog roll the Club buys?

That worked out well along Paisley Road West and at Tynecastle. They spent all the supporters money and more as they saw fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money SMiSA members gave last year to fund a player to help in our hour of need was fine.

However, the Club is now in a better situation and I am not at all sure we should be funding non-playing staff of SMFC. Where will it end?

We (SMiSA) do not own the Club yet.  

I would prefer the quarterly spend is used (or kept) to enhance the matchday experience for Fans  e.g. live match feeds above the Pie Stalls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this sports scientist guy started (or not), we've have had a hell of a lot of injuries. Just making work for himself / herself / non-binary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested to see how it is set up, club employer with us making a contribution or both as employers? Have we taken specific employment law advice on this set up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having banked a bit of a transfer fee for Stevie Mallan and having not paid out transfer fee's for the players being signed, St Mirren must be in a position that they don't need to utilise the SMISA 3 monthly spend pot for staff wages. 

I suggest, it gets spent on the fans for a change & this kind of thing, fits the bill

7 hours ago, Vambo57 said:

The money SMiSA members gave last year to fund a player to help in our hour of need was fine.

However, the Club is now in a better situation and I am not at all sure we should be funding non-playing staff of SMFC. Where will it end?

I would prefer the quarterly spend is used (or kept) to enhance the matchday experience for Fans  e.g. live match feeds above the Pie Stalls

 

Share this post


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

Having banked a bit of a transfer fee for Stevie Mallan and having not paid out transfer fee's for the players being signed, St Mirren must be in a position that they don't need to utilise the SMISA 3 monthly spend pot for staff wages. 

I suggest, it gets spent on the fans for a change & this kind of thing, fits the bill

 

Its up to us as members to decide how and what we want to spend OUR subscriptions on. Its not for Ross or Scott to decide and then take it. Will be interested to see how the next 3 monthly spend vote is weighted?

will it be like last time? One big ticket item the club have decided on and a few small beer issues to make it seem like its our choice.

Share this post


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

Its up to us as members to decide how and what we want to spend OUR subscriptions on.

aye, that was my understanding & one of the conditions for signing up.

In principle, I would have no objections to helping fund a sports scientist, if that is what the members voted for but, if this is on the vote now, it'll be tainted with suspicions of being predetermined if it becomes the successful option.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Graeme Aitken said:

aye, that was my understanding & one of the conditions for signing up.

In principle, I would have no objections to helping fund a sports scientist, if that is what the members voted for but, if this is on the vote now, it'll be tainted with suspicions of being predetermined if it becomes the successful option.

 

It will be predetermined and will be presented as always - "The club have asked that we contribute to funding a sports scientist and the SMiSA committee have agreed (the cabal always have the majority vote) that this is a great way of using our funds" Then the members will vote for this or any of the other options put forward. As ever there will be a lack of suggestions to spend on because in general the members seem happy to leave it to someone else and the other options will be as stated by LPM "small beer" It was also rather concerning to me that only one or two of the committee got to see the official survey results and others were told what it was rather than being given access to the online poll as it happened, which would have enabled all committee members to verify every result. I did ask for and was assured that i could see the result of the last vote, this turned out to be a message from the survey maker which simply stated "your vote has been registered" I never got to see the official result page/email from the survey maker.

The members will be given a vote and the sports scientist option will win, tthis is how all votes will play out and members either accept it or not. You can put yourself up for being voted onto the SMiSA board if you wish to change things but again there was a distinct lack of volunteers last time. So it will run as is and all £2 contributions will be spent without a rainy day fund for SMiSA being stored up.

It's up to the members if they accept the situation, simple as that, and it looks as if the majority will accept it, the committee are very aware of that.

I will always be a SMiSA member as i believe it is the only way forward for our club. I just don't like that all monies outside of the money to buy Gordons shares, will be spent beforehand and we will take over the club with no money in reserve.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aye, that was my understanding & one of the conditions for signing up.
In principle, I would have no objections to helping fund a sports scientist, if that is what the members voted for but, if this is on the vote now, it'll be tainted with suspicions of being predetermined if it becomes the successful option.
 


It's on the vote because Jack Ross made a request and we've had members discussing their wish to support Jack. It is, quite frankly, that simple. It will be tainted, but let's be honest here and state that it'll be through the suspicions of about 9 members on a forum. The majority will believe the explanation about Jacks comments at the open day and understand these things can happen. Indeed, the email that goes out with the vote will explain what has happened.

It was raised here, taken on and answered on the same day. There'd been no agreement, no funding had changed hands and it had been previously explained that there would be a vote. That is pretty much the same with any other requests from the club, aside from the obvious USH. Even the USH was a small number of people on here throwing up issues, with no emails sent in or major backlash of any sort. Believe me, I've seen backlash, seen thousands of members leave a week, members be ignored, members be lied to, members being banned and a club basically demanding more money and accusing members of being idiots. There is none of that here, just literally none, since the Buy the Buds deal was agreed and went live. Hopefully the membership of SMISA will be happy with the options within and structure of the upcoming vote. If not, let's work together to bring what's missing to the next vote. I've already had one discussion at the open day with regards the October vote, perfectly happy to have more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, i would like to see an option that can save the club money. I am aware that roof solar panels were previously looked at but that the figures did not add up. As an example, could they not be configured in such a way to link with ush to offset those costs during winter - i don't personally know but I'm sure someone does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god, some fans are just unreal. SMISA made a decision without telling fans, oh wow it's so negative, it's wrong, booooo! If one of them wants to use the club bogs should they put it out for a vote? Two things here.

  1. You have absolutely no idea what the circumstances are here, SMISA fund the club in other ways outside of the £2 discretionary fund. This could of been from money that has nothing to do with going for a vote. They DO NOT need to run every decision by us, it would not be practical. 
  2. If the club did go out for a vote on this saying it's something they want and that would benefit the club would anyone honestly vote against it? It would win in a landslide! 

If it has been SMISA money, maybe it was time sensitive and they've made a judgement call based on common sense which it seems many of our fans are missing. You pay your commitments to SMISA monthly for the betterment of St Mirren football club. Stop creating negativity when it isn't there.

Bloody St Moan Booooooo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, melmac said:

TBH, i would like to see an option that can save the club money. I am aware that roof solar panels were previously looked at but that the figures did not add up. As an example, could they not be configured in such a way to link with ush to offset those costs during winter - i don't personally know but I'm sure someone does.

Wasn't this "save" or "no spend" idea raised some time ago and, as I recall, was thought to be a good idea? Seems a good option rather than spend for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My god, some fans are just unreal. SMISA made a decision without telling fans, oh wow it's so negative, it's wrong, booooo! If one of them wants to use the club bogs should they put it out for a vote? Two things here.
  1. You have absolutely no idea what the circumstances are here, SMISA fund the club in other ways outside of the £2 discretionary fund. This could of been from money that has nothing to do with going for a vote. They DO NOT need to run every decision by us, it would not be practical. 
  2. If the club did go out for a vote on this saying it's something they want and that would benefit the club would anyone honestly vote against it? It would win in a landslide! 
If it has been SMISA money, maybe it was time sensitive and they've made a judgement call based on common sense which it seems many of our fans are missing. You pay your commitments to SMISA monthly for the betterment of St Mirren football club. Stop creating negativity when it isn't there.
Bloody St Moan Booooooo


At the moment there are actually very few ways of SMISA funding the club outside of a vote. There is legacy cash, but that's drying up. The majority of the monthly subscriptions are ring fenced for consortium payments or future payments to Gordon. That leaves the £2 pot as the obvious funding vehicle at the moment. The 50K isn't in place yet, but agreement is close and may lessen requests from the club.

I've mentioned before that it could be useful to have a side fund, but that's not something that's been discussed in any depth. Some members may want to contribute more, at the moment that would only be captured via direct contact. We've not had much, if any, contact on that so there's been no member appetite to be fed as such. Some members also say they don't care where there money goes. Trying to administer and facilitate that, with seperate pots or mailing list or voting categories, would be a nightmare so I can only hope those members would still vote now and again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

 


At the moment there are actually very few ways of SMISA funding the club outside of a vote. There is legacy cash, but that's drying up. The majority of the monthly subscriptions are ring fenced for consortium payments or future payments to Gordon. That leaves the £2 pot as the obvious funding vehicle at the moment. The 50K isn't in place yet, but agreement is close and may lessen requests from the club.

I've mentioned before that it could be useful to have a side fund, but that's not something that's been discussed in any depth. Some members may want to contribute more, at the moment that would only be captured via direct contact. We've not had much, if any, contact on that so there's been no member appetite to be fed as such. Some members also say they don't care where there money goes. Trying to administer and facilitate that, with seperate pots or mailing list or voting categories, would be a nightmare so I can only hope those members would still vote now and again.

 

I'm in the category of not caring how my moneys spend, although I wouldn't put it that way. I have complete faith in the people running SMISA and St Mirren football club that they have the clubs best interests at heart and how they spend a sum of money that realistically doesn't impact my finances (I know and appreciate there will be people that this is more of a burden for) is not of any massive concern to me. 

My point is that the circumstances don't seem greatly known. Is this maybe an area JR has lobbied for and we're just waiting for SMISA members green lighting it? Are SMISA part funding with other funds they've raised? is it a member of SMISA that has that qualification that's not going to be funded by memberships? 

IMO this thread is completely unnecessarily negative and impatient in regards to something we don't know the facts about. Even if the club have appointed one it's very forward thinking and I believe would be a landslide yes vote.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I'm in the category of not caring how my moneys spend, although I wouldn't put it that way. I have complete faith in the people running SMISA and St Mirren football club that they have the clubs best interests at heart and how they spend a sum of money that realistically doesn't impact my finances (I know and appreciate there will be people that this is more of a burden for) is not of any massive concern to me. 

My point is that the circumstances don't seem greatly known. Is this maybe an area JR has lobbied for and we're just waiting for SMISA members green lighting it? Are SMISA part funding with other funds they've raised? is it a member of SMISA that has that qualification that's not going to be funded by memberships? 

IMO this thread is completely unnecessarily negative and impatient in regards to something we don't know the facts about. Even if the club have appointed one it's very forward thinking and I believe would be a landslide yes vote.  

I can understand people's frustration. My take on it is, if the club asks SMISA to assist in doing something (ush; sports scientist etc) and there is going to be a financial outlay by SMISA, unless the request is outlandish or illegal, then most members would readily vote for it to happen. However, the bit which sticks in the craw a bit for some (including me) is the way SMISA deal with things (or not), there is a constitution / set of rules in place for a reason and they need to abide by them. Otherwise, what's the point, just give the bankcard to GS, TF & JR. Kenny from SMISA has been excellent in dealing with people's mumps n moans (including mine) on here but there are still fundamental issues which need addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

 


It's on the vote because Jack Ross made a request and we've had members discussing their wish to support Jack. It is, quite frankly, that simple. It will be tainted, but let's be honest here and state that it'll be through the suspicions of about 9 members on a forum. The majority will believe the explanation about Jacks comments at the open day and understand these things can happen. Indeed, the email that goes out with the vote will explain what has happened.

It was raised here, taken on and answered on the same day. There'd been no agreement, no funding had changed hands and it had been previously explained that there would be a vote. That is pretty much the same with any other requests from the club, aside from the obvious USH. Even the USH was a small number of people on here throwing up issues, with no emails sent in or major backlash of any sort. Believe me, I've seen backlash, seen thousands of members leave a week, members be ignored, members be lied to, members being banned and a club basically demanding more money and accusing members of being idiots. There is none of that here, just literally none, since the Buy the Buds deal was agreed and went live. Hopefully the membership of SMISA will be happy with the options within and structure of the upcoming vote. If not, let's work together to bring what's missing to the next vote. I've already had one discussion at the open day with regards the October vote, perfectly happy to have more.

 

Hi Bud

Can all suggestions for the £2 spend that didn't win, be included in all following spend votes please?  I am sure there were good suggestions that should not now be ignored cos it didn't win.  Can I also suggest that the survey results be published by SMISA in full i.e Percentages AND numbers who voted for each option, "This won" is IMO, not really open and inclusive.

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

My god, some fans are just unreal. SMISA made a decision without telling fans, oh wow it's so negative, it's wrong, booooo! If one of them wants to use the club bogs should they put it out for a vote? Two things here.

  1. You have absolutely no idea what the circumstances are here, SMISA fund the club in other ways outside of the £2 discretionary fund. This could of been from money that has nothing to do with going for a vote. They DO NOT need to run every decision by us, it would not be practical. 
  2. If the club did go out for a vote on this saying it's something they want and that would benefit the club would anyone honestly vote against it? It would win in a landslide! 

If it has been SMISA money, maybe it was time sensitive and they've made a judgement call based on common sense which it seems many of our fans are missing. You pay your commitments to SMISA monthly for the betterment of St Mirren football club. Stop creating negativity when it isn't there.

Bloody St Moan Booooooo

OK You don't care, sorry, you trust those in charge. You say negative, I say positive criticism mate.

If we all followed you're example then SMiSA and the Club can do as they like.  That's OK up to a point, but valid points raised should always be looked on in a positive light and be debated thoroughly and openly.  As an example of you're attitude, I give you Sevco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Vambo57 said:

Hi Bud

Can all suggestions for the £2 spend that didn't win, be included in all following spend votes please?  I am sure there were good suggestions that should not now be ignored cos it didn't win.  Can I also suggest that the survey results be published by SMISA in full i.e Percentages AND numbers who voted for each option, "This won" is IMO, not really open and inclusive.

OK You don't care, sorry, you trust those in charge. You say negative, I say positive criticism mate.

If we all followed you're example then SMiSA and the Club can do as they like.  That's OK up to a point, but valid points raised should always be looked on in a positive light and be debated thoroughly and openly.  As an example of you're attitude, I give you Sevco

And my belief is that would always be for the betterment of our club. Comes back to my second point, do you think for a second if this went to a vote it wouldn't be  a yes? Common sense approach IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×