Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
woiiftm

Sport Scientist

Recommended Posts

Sorry no Cockles, I don't have a clue of the costs involved, but surely it would not be more than £8000 for 5 setups? (Feck the North stand).
I have officially put this forward.


No idea myself, was just wondering what costs would be actually incurred.

TV's - you say 5. But would one at each area be enough so you seen the action wherever you were standing.

Signal - would it be wired or wireless. Would a internet connection be required.

Power - Would a new socket and trunking be required for each screen.

Security - are they required to be in a secure cabinet to protect from damage and/or theft.

Insurance - would it mean an increase.

One advantage is that it could be used for advertising before the game and at half time as I don't believe you can show highlights (at half time) though I may be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

 


No idea myself, was just wondering what costs would be actually incurred.

TV's - you say 5. But would one at each area be enough so you seen the action wherever you were standing.  One directly above each Pie Stall.  The idea is munchies can be bought during the game to avoid long ques and overcrowding at half time.

Signal - would it be wired or wireless. Would a internet connection be required. I refer you to my previous post

Power - Would a new socket and trunking be required for each screen. Of course.

Security - are they required to be in a secure cabinet to protect from damage and/or theft. Naw/// Zat no whit Insurance is fur?

Insurance - would it mean an increase.  Sup to the Club.

One advantage is that it could be used for advertising before the game and at half time as I don't believe you can show highlights (at half time) though I may be wrong. :thumbs2Could pay for the Insurance and maintenance

 

 

Edited by Vambo57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since home matches are being transmitted through St Mirren TV, wouldn't they just need to run a feed or a loop (or whatever it is called) from that (St Mirren TV) to TV's sited wherever within the ground and if that was the case, the basic infrastructure is already in place, all it would need is the TV's and the plumbing in of them to the action.

Not sure about licensing but since the feed is within the ground, I can't imagine that causing any licensing infringements.

I'd speak to whover does St Mirren TV, I expect they'd have an idea of, if what it entails and the rough cost of it to be done.

Share this post


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

I suppose the first obvious question is rainy day for what? Things are fairly healthy now, the club is in a good place financially. SMISA's projections are healthy too. I did mention looking at developing a side fund, but it's not been looked in to yet in any detail. There's all sorts of potential ways to handle the £2 fund, my personal view is that saving it all means you can't look at supporting the club. It doesn't mean that at all, As this is a joint venture, you can easily argue that we should offer some support. By doing that you potentially remove the need for a rainy day fund. -

I suppose the first obvious question is rainy day for what? - bigger ticket items that cost more than £8000. Why limit what can be done by insisting the £2 pot must be spent every quarter? A really good suggestion comes in, the SMISA Board agree it's a proposition worth putting to the members to vote on but its costs exceed £8000 considerably. If we had that rainy day fund (as it is called), SMISA would be in a position to support that initiative & not be dismissing it as 'too dear'

Things are fairly healthy now, the club is in a good place financially - fantastic. whare does that leave is with the £50K loan business that caused much gnashing of teeth?

SMISA's projections are healthy too. - fantastico 

I did mention looking at developing a side fund, - for what purpose and is that not what the £2 pot essentially is?

but it's not been looked in to yet in any detail. - be interested to hear some finer details

There's all sorts of potential ways to handle the £2 fund, my personal view is that saving it all means you can't look at supporting the club. It doesn't mean that at all, By accumulating we can support the club with a bigger pot at some time in the near future

As this is a joint venture, you can easily argue that we should offer some support. - If the club is in a good place financially, now is the time to consider not frittering away the £2 pot but building it up so that when SMISA do take ownership, they have a bit a decent fund to hit the ground running.

By doing that you potentially remove the need for a rainy day fund. - when SMISA take ownership, it might need its own Rainy Day fund for unexpected costs. I personally think SMISA should be preparing itself and its finances now for when it finally does take ownership of The Club.

Edited by Graeme Aitken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points Graeme. On the flip side, if you're saving away then you can't support the 2K or 5K here and there from the club. I know the response to that, I'd the highlight that the 50K loan isn't actually in place yet. We've not had that over 8K suggestion yet, but yes being able to facilitate one may raise itself. I haven't fully thought out any potential side fund, so at the moment it's just a point for long term planning more than current.

The 50K could, of course, become the rainy day fund as it would be paid back/be there for use. As we progress I'd hope SMISA would get better clarity on cashflow, which gives better clarity over size of what sort or rolling fund you require or even float that would be appropriate. We're not there though so hard to start working to anything, whilst at the same time we have members who'd like to fund x, y or z.

Share this post


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

couple of questions?

why? what would this achieve?

&

why didn't you raise all this at the AGM instead of drip feeding potential contentious matters on here?

The club dont want (in their eyes) a noisy, powerful and potentially uncontrollable element like the smisa membership holding them to account. On the day the BTB deal was concluded they informed the smisa committee they did not see them as independent anymore and suggested Smisa merge with the FC, that way they believe they can (and have done) get FC members on the smisa board thereby exerting further control over smisa.

And as we know the FC are the the club. Of course there is a legal process that has to be followed in this instance, that being either the FC, Smisa or both trusts would have to be wound up, and assets remaining in the wound up trust/trusts transferred to a similiar entity i.e. Another community benefit society/co-op.

taking a guess on your second question that maybe you werent at the agm..? As others will confirm i got to ask one question, and was shut down in a pathetic tantrum by the chairman when i had the audacity to try and ask a supplementary question, then the agm was shut down an hour and half early whilst many in attendance still had questions to ask.

smisa dont want to talk about this ( FC merger/takeover) in open forum as the controlling element on the committee support it. What Gordon wants.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The club dont want (in their eyes) a noisy, powerful and potentially uncontrollable element like the smisa membership holding them to account. On the day the BTB deal was concluded they informed the smisa committee they did not see them as independent anymore and suggested Smisa merge with the FC, that way they believe they can (and have done) get FC members on the smisa board thereby exerting further control over smisa.
And as we know the FC are the the club. Of course there is a legal process that has to be followed in this instance, that being either the FC, Smisa or both trusts would have to be wound up, and assets remaining in the wound up trust/trusts transferred to a similiar entity i.e. Another community benefit society/co-op.
taking a guess on your second question that maybe you werent at the agm..? As others will confirm i got to ask one question, and was shut down in a pathetic tantrum by the chairman when i had the audacity to try and ask a supplementary question, then the agm was shut down an hour and half early whilst many in attendance still had questions to ask.
smisa dont want to talk about this ( FC merger/takeover) in open forum as the controlling element on the committee support it. What Gordon wants.....


I'll talk about it.

It's not true and it's not supported. There is no will to avoid the processes. There is a will to present the will of the club to the members and allow members to make their choice, but why wouldn't there be. Just to close off even more of the above musing. Even when SMISA do have full control there may not be a need to wind the society up.

There may have been a statement from the club early doors, but I believe that was discussed and dismissed early on. I believe that and will continue to work within the commitee and with/for the SMISA members and wider fanbase.

Share this post


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

The moeny (sic) should be spent on whatever the SMiSA membership decide.  Personally, I would like it spent on live feeds of the match on a screen above each pie stall which would ease the halftime crush, thus enhance the matchday experience of hundreds of fans. I do however accept whatever the vote decides.

You seem to be of the opinion that a vote for anything other than WHATEVER the Club suggest would be 'ridiculous' and 'madness'.  I thought the Club request (and insistence) on Brand New HoF boards were exactly that, so voted against it.  Does that make me a St.Moaner? 

BTW I'm an optimistic and pragmatic guy, I would just like to stop being tarred as tantamount to a traitor by someone who doesn't understand the concept of a democracy

I think there are exceptions. Voting against boards or sponsoring youth teams, yeah knock yourself out. Nice items but won't make a massive impact to the club. A sports scientist though that can improve results and have a positive impact on the players and management? Yes I think it would be maddness to vote against that if the club requests it. 

The idea of on screen live feeds in the stadium, brilliant idea yes. Something I'd likely vote for. If it came down to a choice between that though and something the club said would have a positive impact on results.... I would always pick the one that the club say, could have a positive impact on results. 

Share this post


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

 


I'll talk about it.

It's not true and it's not supported. There is no will to avoid the processes. There is a will to present the will of the club to the members and allow members to make their choice, but why wouldn't there be. Just to close off even more of the above musing. Even when SMISA do have full control there may not be a need to wind the society up.

There may have been a statement from the club early doors, but I believe that was discussed and dismissed early on. I believe that and will continue to work within the commitee and with/for the SMISA members and wider fanbase.

 

Its real, and its happening. You yourself insist smisa would be better served as being 'part of the club'. Ok fine, your opinion, but its not the organisation 1300 subscribers were sold and decided to join.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its real, and its happening. You yourself insist smisa would be better served as being 'part of the club'. Ok fine, your opinion, but its not the organisation 1300 subscribers were sold and decided to join.


Woah there Tony. I'm not insisting, I'm saying that at times it would help. Everyone was sold a joint venture, that joint venture would see SMISA progress towards ownership and work alongside the club in the interim. If you believe different I guarantee you're in a minority. As stated, there's every chance there will still be a society upon deal completion because there is an AFC Wimbledon one, a Newport one and possibly other societies owning a club that are still functioning. Would the overall model change, of course it would, but again people were buying in to that. Now, the whole independent thing...away back in the early days it always seemed that SMISA was independent of other supporters associations. That is still the case, just so happens that Buy the Buds has opened the door to "oooh they're not independent of the club". To me that's mischievous at best and not a huge issue. They still are an independent supporters association.

My view, others will agree, others will disagree and frankly, it's not enough of an issue to be a discussion point over and over and over.

Share this post


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

Needs a keen eye kept on it, the club are dominating/infuencing their main other shareholder, and in business/companies that seldom delivers a positive outcome for the smaller shareholder.

But it probably would produce a positive outcome for the club and surely that's what matters most? I think some people are comparing our shareholding in the club as like that of one in a business. I don't pay my money every month for a return, I pay it for the betterment of St Mirren football club. I really don't understand peoples issue at all with St Mirren football club commanding what the money gets spent on. We're all St Mirren fans for crying out loud!

A nice cosy match experience to watch us kick about in the championship or have to wait an extra five minutes for a pie to watch as move up as a club. Easy decision. 

Share this post


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

Since home matches are being transmitted through St Mirren TV, wouldn't they just need to run a feed or a loop (or whatever it is called) from that (St Mirren TV) to TV's sited wherever within the ground and if that was the case, the basic infrastructure is already in place, all it would need is the TV's and the plumbing in of them to the action.

Not sure about licensing but since the feed is within the ground, I can't imagine that causing any licensing infringements.

I'd speak to whover does St Mirren TV, I expect they'd have an idea of, if what it entails and the rough cost of it to be done.

Isn't there some sort of deal in place that prevents live league games being broadcast at the same time as other live games are being played?

Hence the reason, you can only get St.Mirren TV (legally) outwith Scotland?

Although, if you're in the ground I suppose you've already paid to get in, so there may be some sort of loophole.

That would be the first thing to investigate.

Do they do this at other grounds?

Share this post


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

Isn't there some sort of deal in place that prevents live league games being broadcast at the same time as other live games are being played?

Hence the reason, you can only get St.Mirren TV (legally) outwith Scotland?

Although, if you're in the ground I suppose you've already paid to get in, so there may be some sort of loophole.

That would be the first thing to investigate.

Do they do this at other grounds?

There's no rule against showing the game at the ground, some other clubs do it like you say. Makes sense when you think about it, no different showing it on a screen to looking at it live. You've paid your money, you're in. 

Share this post


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

I think there are exceptions. Voting against boards or sponsoring youth teams, yeah knock yourself out. Nice items but won't make a massive impact to the club. A sports scientist though that can improve results and have a positive impact on the players and management? Yes I think it would be maddness to vote against that if the club requests it. 

The idea of on screen live feeds in the stadium, brilliant idea yes. Something I'd likely vote for. If it came down to a choice between that though and something the club said would have a positive impact on results.... I would always pick the one that the club say, could have a positive impact on results. 

If the Club are in a good situation financially, why have/will SMiSA even been approached - like some sort of Cash Cow - to part-fund a non-playing staff member's wages?  Where does it stop?  

Surely (as has been suggested previously), our partner, the West of Scotland University, could be approached on a mutually beneficial status for on-the-job training/Internships for 'Scientists'.  We are a Community Club No?

If it's experience the Club are after then another consideration is:  Does the 'Scientist' have a good track record? e.g. I wouldn't want one that has been 'helping' Sevco for the past 4 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vambo57 said:

If the Club are in a good situation financially, why have/will SMiSA even been approached - like some sort of Cash Cow - to part-fund a non-playing staff member's wages?  Where does it stop?  

Surely (as has been suggested previously), our partner, the West of Scotland University, could be approached on a mutually beneficial status for on-the-job training/Internships for 'Scientists'.  We are a Community Club No?

If it's experience the Club are after then another consideration is:  Does the 'Scientist' have a good track record? e.g. I wouldn't want one that has been 'helping' Sevco for the past 4 years or so.

The club are in a good financial position but no club at this level can afford everything and anything they want in regards to budgets. There will always be areas where decisions will have to be made. St Mirren and SMISA are in a great position where there is an extra wee pool of cash for additional luxuries that other clubs can't afford. For me that's the whole point of the discretionary fund. I don't understand what peoples big issue is with having the money (some of it) go on things the club actually want and that will no doubt be a positive for results on the park. 

The UWS comment, yes maybe it has, and maybe this is something to do with it. Who knows? I don't see the point in going 'oh have you tried this instead' when the club make a proposal though. I'm sure the people running the football club and the budget know better than fans about those kind of details. I don’t need to know all the details of a proposal to know the people at our club have St Mirren football club at the heart of the request.

Your last point, is that really questions we would need answered in regards to who they bring in? As I've said above I'm happy with the clubs judgement and it baffles me that other people wouldn't be for what is ultimately £2 of each fans money. It seems like some fans want such a big say in what isn't really all that big a monthly financial commitment. I don't understand the vendetta some fans seem to have against our club. Very much an us (SMISA) Vs them (St Mirren) culture with some people. Pointless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vambo57 said:

If the Club are in a good situation financially, why have/will SMiSA even been approached - like some sort of Cash Cow - to part-fund a non-playing staff member's wages?  Where does it stop?  

Surely (as has been suggested previously), our partner, the West of Scotland University, could be approached on a mutually beneficial status for on-the-job training/Internships for 'Scientists'.  We are a Community Club No?

If it's experience the Club are after then another consideration is:  Does the 'Scientist' have a good track record? e.g. I wouldn't want one that has been 'helping' Sevco for the past 4 years or so.

Why mention "a non-playing staff member"? Surely a member of staff who is responsible for the fitness of the playing staff is an important staff member. If your objection is to helping fund any staff member, why not say so?

Share this post


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

Why mention "a non-playing staff member"? Surely a member of staff who is responsible for the fitness of the playing staff is an important staff member. If your objection is to helping fund any staff member, why not say so?

Roughly £34k a year we make in the £2 a month fund. I wonder what people like this would like to see this money spent on if not for bettering St Mirren on the park. How about some heaters, comfy chairs, Ipads in the bog toilets, hot coco for all fans? Make the match day experience a lovely one for our league 1 relegation battle this season. :lol:

Share this post


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

Roughly £34k a year we make in the £2 a month fund. I wonder what people like this would like to see this money spent on if not for bettering St Mirren on the park. How about some heaters, comfy chairs, Ipads in the bog toilets, hot coco for all fans? Make the match day experience a lovely one for our league 1 relegation battle this season. :lol:

that's the beauty of The Vote, folk with differing opinions get the opportunity to vote on what their preference is.

is hot coco achievable? get it on the ballot paper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roughly £34k a year we make in the £2 a month fund. I wonder what people like this would like to see this money spent on if not for bettering St Mirren on the park. How about some heaters, comfy chairs, Ipads in the bog toilets, hot coco for all fans? Make the match day experience a lovely one for our league 1 relegation battle this season. 

Netflix after that performance last nite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2017 at 2:09 PM, smcc said:

Why mention "a non-playing staff member"? Surely a member of staff who is responsible for the fitness of the playing staff is an important staff member. If your objection is to helping fund any staff member, why not say so?

I do not object to funding of any staff member, only non-playing staff.  indeed I voted for the emegency funding last season because we NEEDED it,  

Again I ask where does it stop?  Do you think we should fund Ticket Sales staff - if requested? I am sure you wouldn't, but aren't they important too?

Edited by Vambo57

Share this post


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

Also... why do we need a Sports Scientist..? Cant the manager just... manage?

TV's under the stand would be a luxury that wouldn't have an impact on performance or results. Sports scientist would be a luxury that might very well impact results. It's a no brainer if that was the choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also... why do we need a Sports Scientist..? Cant the manager just... manage?

I'd expect JR has provided justification ti the BOD & they've accepted his business case for it.
In a business where every pound is a prisoner, the justification must be pretty robust.
It'll either work or it wont & if it doesn't, the contract will end.

I'd give JR the chance to go with this if it was affordable

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...