Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
woiiftm

Sport Scientist

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, melmac said:

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.

Again we don't know circumstances, people are making snap judgement on what's happening. have a bit of faith in the club and who runs it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


This isn't about the club, it's about smisa and the way decisions are arrived at.


Oh is it? Please tell me how you know every single aspect of what's going on behind the scenes in the appointment of a sports scientist? You don't, that's my point. People quick enough to jump down their throats without facts. St Moan

Share this post


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

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

Depends how it's worded.  IMO we should not be using our money to employ "staff".

Edited by Vambo57

Share this post


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

Depends how it's worded.  IMO we should not be using our money to employ "staff".

Can't agree Colin. If the Smisa money can help employ someone who will help get us out of our predicament, and back to where we belong , then I'm all for it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billyg said:

Can't agree Colin. If the Smisa money can help employ someone who will help get us out of our predicament, and back to where we belong , then I'm all for it !

... but where does it stop Billy?  Are the Club that skint that it wouldn't have employed him/her?

BTW, The Rangers employ a Sports Scientist... that helped!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz, I'm all for what the club want to do. The main issue here, I believe, is that it got out before members knew about it, which is unfortunate, otherwise I think this is a non issue - some members will be for and some against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baz, I'm all for what the club want to do. The main issue here, I believe, is that it got out before members knew about it, which is unfortunate, otherwise I think this is a non issue - some members will be for and some against.


What got out? Nothing relating to SMISA has actually happened. We haven't voted on this funding, haven't commited to it and certainly haven't funded it in any way. So just exactly what is there for members to know about? We told someone a request would be voted on, that individual misunderstood or was so busy he didn't check. It's getting more and more like the stoning scene in Life of Brian every week.

Share this post


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

From the first post, poster mentioning JR had stated about sports scientist.

I did indeed and make no apology for it.

The implication behind the comment by the manager, if true, needed clarification and I have thanked TsuMirren for doing so in addition to official personal response from smisa.

An unfortunate comment by manager, nothing more.

Roll on the next vote !

Share this post


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

 

 


What got out? Nothing relating to SMISA has actually happened. We haven't voted on this funding, haven't commited to it and certainly haven't funded it in any way. So just exactly what is there for members to know about? We told someone a request would be voted on, that individual misunderstood or was so busy he didn't check. It's getting more and more like the stoning scene in Life of Brian every week.

 

From a SMISA point of view, absolutely nothing got out but Jack Ross thanking a supporter for SMISA' contribution to hiring a sports scientist suggest, he believed the funding was in the bag.

That is no fault of SMISA & I don't recall anyone saying it was however, Jack Ross clearly thinks it was a bolt on. Whatever could have given that impression?

As I said previously, the next vote is now tainted and that is a shame.

Some don't give a f**k. Other cunts, like me, want to see the agreed process followed and when all is said & done, that is what the issue is. Some of us want to see the agreed process followed. Others couldn't give a flying f**k. One thing is certain, if it went tits up (for whatever reason), those who don't give a monkeys will have no right to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vambo57 said:

... but where does it stop Billy?  Are the Club that skint that it wouldn't have employed him/her?

BTW, The Rangers employ a Sports Scientist... that helped!

Are you saying sports scientists don't have any benefit to a football club? If you are that is maddness. Rangers also employed a physio, a club doctor, someone to clean the seats. Your argument doesn't really make any sense.

No one is saying we're skint, the discretionary fund is to assist with different areas that may not form part of the budget. I don't really see what issue you'd have with funding what the club want. I'm sure they know pretty well what the club needs, certainly more than most fans. 

What would you spend the moeny on? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

From a SMISA point of view, absolutely nothing got out but Jack Ross thanking a supporter for SMISA' contribution to hiring a sports scientist suggest, he believed the funding was in the bag.

That is no fault of SMISA & I don't recall anyone saying it was however, Jack Ross clearly thinks it was a bolt on. Whatever could have given that impression?

As I said previously, the next vote is now tainted and that is a shame.

Some don't give a f**k. Other cunts, like me, want to see the agreed process followed and when all is said & done, that is what the issue is. Some of us want to see the agreed process followed. Others couldn't give a flying f**k. One thing is certain, if it went tits up (for whatever reason), those who don't give a monkeys will have no right to complain.

I think it really is a complete non-issue. All that's happened here is Jack Ross has said it's great SMISA are funding a sports scientist (positive comment that again some of our fans have made into a negative, no surprise from the St Moan section), okay maybe a bit premature officially if it hasn't been voted through but realistically and common sense tells us the vote will be a landslide yes. 

SMISA members from the sounds of it will have the ability to say no but if anyone did when it's something the club will say is for the betterment of the club then I think that's ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I think it really is a complete non-issue. All that's happened here is Jack Ross has said it's great SMISA are funding a sports scientist (positive comment that again some of our fans have made into a negative, no surprise from the St Moan section), okay maybe a bit premature officially if it hasn't been voted through but realistically and common sense tells us the vote will be a landslide yes. 

SMISA members from the sounds of it will have the ability to say no but if anyone did when it's something the club will say is for the betterment of the club then I think that's ridiculous. 

So if the SMISA members think this use of their money isn't what they see as proper use they are ridiculous? :blink:

Your campaign against anybody who dares to question any decision by the club is hilarious.

Your love of "St Moan" and "boo" thrown at supporters who raise valid points, like the recent "open day" shocker, is insulting and equally as absurd as the minority who do seem to look at things in a negative light.

There are many supporters, the vast majority, who are capable of looking at the decisions that SMISA and the club make and come to an informed decision.

You target certain individuals, including Poz who, while he does go on and on and fecking on, raise many valid points that you dismiss simply because they question the club and you seem incapable of considering if they are valid or not.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

So if the SMISA members think this use of their money isn't what they see as proper use they are ridiculous? :blink:

Your campaign against anybody who dares to question any decision by the club is hilarious.

Your love of "St Moan" and "boo" thrown at supporters who raise valid points, like the recent "open day" shocker, is insulting and equally as absurd as the minority who do seem to look at things in a negative light.

There are many supporters, the vast majority, who are capable of looking at the decisions that SMISA and the club make and come to an informed decision.

You target certain individuals, including Poz who, while he does go on and on and fecking on, raise many valid points that you dismiss simply because they question the club and you seem incapable of considering if they are valid or not.

 

 

 

 

Firstly, if the club say this is the best (or our desired use) of the SMISA funds then yes. That's the whole point of the fund, to benefit our football club is it not? If they put up different options then, yeah sure a wee debate about it would be good. But yes I think anyone who says no to a club request is being a bit ridiculous, what justification would you have? I also think this is a non-issue as well because I'm very confident it would win in a landslide. 

Question the club, question SMISA do what you want... My 'campaign' is against it being constant by some fans across so many subjects. No one is saying don't question but is it too much to ask for a wee bit of bloody positivity from some people? This is a great example because it is a complete non-issue and if anything a really positive step from SMISA and St Mirren (if true) 

I didn't come up with St Moan, do you think it's just came out of the air and not in the slightest bit justified? The open day is a 100% valid point yes. I completely agree, as I've said. What I was saying was it's nothing to do with the point the fans were making, it was the completely negative way in which some did it. Making out that the people that run our club are the most uncaring, ungrateful bunch to ever walk the earth! It was brutal and quite frankly embarrassing. What was worse was that even after it was changed some people didn't go 'great well done St Mirren that's the end of that' They went 'Aw should of done it from the start' yet more negativity from the St Moan loyal.

yep again, make your own choice, I wouldn't expect anything less. Knocking back a single idea that St Mirren football club say will be for the betterment (assuming that's what will happen, again we don't know) is unfounded and ridiculous IMO. Cut your nose off to spite your face. 

I don't 'target' anyone. I simply comment on what I think is unfounded negativity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Ross clearly thinks it was a bolt on. Whatever could have given that impression?


There it is! It never takes long for an accusation to appear and let me be perfectly clear, that is an accusation.

Not one person at SMISA has told Jack it's a bolt on, so could it be that he'd just imagine that it would go through. It has been explained to Jack that it would be a vote, heck I was actually there on one instance when it happened. We couldn't hold it off the vote just purely because we think it will be accepted and therefore wind up a few people. That would only lead to us being ripped to pieces for not supporting Jack. So, it'll be on there and the members will make their decision.

I'm really struggling to grasp what more could have been done. Demand the club doesn't fund the sports scientist, leave Jack without resource during a key stage of the season? Sit Jack down, go over the SMISA process with PowerPoint slides that fully explain the structured system design & methodology of our processes and policies?

The club are the ones who've put themselves at risk here. If the vote doesn't go through then they don't get the funding. The funding that hasn't been promised and hasn't been paid.

Share this post


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

 


There it is! It never takes long for an accusation to appear and let me be perfectly clear, that is an accusation.

Not one person at SMISA has told Jack it's a bolt on, so could it be that he'd just imagine that it would go through. It has been explained to Jack that it would be a vote, heck I was actually there on one instance when it happened. We couldn't hold it off the vote just purely because we think it will be accepted and therefore wind up a few people. That would only lead to us being ripped to pieces for not supporting Jack. So, it'll be on there and the members will make their decision.

I'm really struggling to grasp what more could have been done. Demand the club doesn't fund the sports scientist, leave Jack without resource during a key stage of the season? Sit Jack down, go over the SMISA process with PowerPoint slides that fully explain the structured system design & methodology of our processes and policies?

The club are the ones who've put themselves at risk here. If the vote doesn't go through then they don't get the funding. The funding that hasn't been promised and hasn't been paid.

 

Careful, I don't know if this page is designed for all this sense you're talking. 

Share this post


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

 

 


There it is! It never takes long for an accusation to appear and let me be perfectly clear, that is an accusation.
 

 

Me & you are not good at this game at all. Accusation of Jack Ross believing this was a bolt on?

Let me be perfectly clear to you, from what the OP stated, it appears JR believes SMISA are part funding a sports scientist. The OP is quite adamant in what was said to be factual. Therefore, stating someone or something gave JR the impression it was a bolt on is hardly earth shattering but you cling onto that.

Once again, I don't give a monkeys what the £2 pot gets spent on but I do expect the agreed processes to be followed. Nothing more, nothing less. You say SMISA will put this to the vote & the members will vote. I accept that.

However, some comments made by ex SMISA board members does illicit some chin scratching at times. Unfortunately, you weren't on the SMISA committee then so I doubt you would be in a position to confirm or deny (that is not a criticism of you or an accusation)

Tsu, we went through this on another thread a while back. You are the only SMISA committee BOD who is engaging on here & I appreciate that.

Edited by Graeme Aitken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, some comments made by ex SMISA board members does illicit some chin scratching at times. Unfortunately, you weren't on the SMISA committee then so I doubt you would be in a position to confirm or deny (that is not a criticism of you or an accusation)


I missed the initial discussions after the takeover, but I have been involved with the committee since November (I think I missed one meeting) and then voted on since the AGM. The 50K aside, let's face it very few of us were involved in putting the deal together, I'vd been around a fair bit. The USH loan, I actually gave advice that it should all have been agreed by the point we were discussing it and that I viewed it as something that could fall out with the votes at that time. I had no vote, no authority from members and just applied my business knowledge of project managing intervention projects elsewhere alongside the experience at Ebbsfleet. I was also fairly sure it wouldn't be actioned in time, but risk management doesn't tend to involve not looking to do as much as you can. A lot of the other stuff is attached to the takeover deal, so at times there's not much to say about it. There's also stuff that should have and will stay in the meeting room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to recap, this sorry episode crystallises the fact that the St Mirren Independent Supporters is not... actually independent at all.

every big spend from the £2 pot so far has been what the club requested, indeed the controlling element on the Smisa committee believe that it is right and proper that the club chose where Smisa's membership monies are spent, then the fait acompli is put to a vote. Yeah so far the majority who voted backed the big spend, but why cant the membership decide a big spend they want to enhance their matchday experience?

why cant the membership chose what wll be voted on to spend their subscriptions on? It was never my understanding as a Smisa and committee member that 'the club' would dictate how smisa functioned, and how and where its memberships money would be spent... perhaps i mistakenly thought that it would be smisa members in the fullness of time who would be in the driving seat?

as an example, more than a year after it was agreed there is still no Smisa 'Buy The Buds founding members wall of fame, but there has been a vote agreed on ridiculously expensive HoF board replacements. Smisa's compass needs reset in the direction of travel its members are embarked on, not a few club board members direction. Who is going to be in this for the long term?

Smisa or the club board..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TopCat said:

The joys of fan ownership eh :lol:

Imagine what it's going to be like on here when SMISA actually own the club?

Yip.

The same saddoes with eff fall to do with their lives will continue to moan about everything connected with the club, when they act like a spoliled five year old and spit the proverbial dummy in relation to some decision made by others or some indiscretion that only exists in their tiny addled minds.

You'll be familiar with the former line of action.:)

Edited by FTOF

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...