Bellside Bud Posted September 18, 2017 Report Share Posted September 18, 2017 35 minutes ago, TsuMirren said: From the asset lock portion of the constitution: 8.1. The society must not use or deal with its assets except- 8.1.1. where the use or dealing is, directly or indirectly, for the purpose that is for the benefit of the community; Yep, so again, what benefit did the Paisley community get from SMISA paying the wages of professional footballers on behalf of the club? And what benefit does the Paisley Community get from paying for extra hours for the Sports Scientist or the Data Analyst? If St Mirren fans want to pay for these items then that's up to them, but they shouldn't be using a Community Benefit Society as the vehicle for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 19, 2017 Report Share Posted September 19, 2017 My days! the 'fans' on their high horse about a very positive aspect of a football club moving into fan ownership is unreal. Without the discretionary fund we may of been playing league 1 football this season, our training facility's wouldn't be as good, we wouldn't have had some new gym equipment for the team, the disabled platform would of had to come out of the club fund and we wouldn't have a season ticket batch for underprivileged people in our community to use. People might think this shouldn't be what fans money is spent on, that's their right but I wish the same people were man enough to accept that the majority of fans that pay their money a month (especially when the people moaning don't even contribute to the buy-out) have thought these uses are perfectly justified. It's been a democratic vote so for the love of god drop it!The club aren't doing anything illegal, immoral or contrary to the wishes of the majority of fans involved in the club purchase. Points taken, now I wish you'd let it go. Stuey Dicky, you can let us know how you get on grassing on your club... in fact don't bother I know exactly what the outcome will be. [emoji23][emoji23] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 19, 2017 Report Share Posted September 19, 2017 I can't help but wonder why the discretionary fund is so important to SMISA. Why open themselves up to a situation where every three months they are challenged over costings, the range of options, the ever manipulated version of the vote, and why put themselves in breach of their own constitution and the rules regarding Community Benefit Societies are laid out by the Financial Conduct Authority? Why not accept that it would be better if that proportion of fund raising was being down outwith the Community Benefit Society model with it's strict asset lock in place? Why not allow fans to contribute regardless of their SMISA membership status? And why not have a system that allows the club and community groups to give details of their project and to allow fans to contribute or not to each one as per their own personal preference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 19, 2017 Report Share Posted September 19, 2017 I can't help but wonder why the discretionary fund is so important to SMISA. Why open themselves up to a situation where every three months they are challenged over costings, the range of options, the ever manipulated version of the vote, and why put themselves in breach of their own constitution and the rules regarding Community Benefit Societies are laid out by the Financial Conduct Authority? Why not accept that it would be better if that proportion of fund raising was being down outwith the Community Benefit Society model with it's strict asset lock in place? Why not allow fans to contribute regardless of their SMISA membership status? And why not have a system that allows the club and community groups to give details of their project and to allow fans to contribute or not to each one as per their own personal preference? Yeah we get it, we know your thoughts. Majority of paying SMISA members are happy with it though Stuart so you can drop it. I'm delighted the funds were there to help us through our relegation struggle last season like the majority of paying members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 19, 2017 Report Share Posted September 19, 2017 2 hours ago, bazil85 said: Yeah we get it, we know your thoughts. Majority of paying SMISA members are happy with it though Stuart so you can drop it. I'm delighted the funds were there to help us through our relegation struggle last season like the majority of paying members. I'm glad you think yourself a spokesperson for the whole of the SMISA membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally02 Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, bazil85 said: Yeah we get it, we know your thoughts. Majority of paying SMISA members are happy with it though Stuart so you can drop it. I'm delighted the funds were there to help us through our relegation struggle last season like the majority of paying members. 10 hours ago, Bellside Bud said: I'm glad you think yourself a spokesperson for the whole of the SMISA membership. Well you opted out Stewart, and there are still 1300 going along with it, so it would be fair to say your'e in the minority here. As for the interpretation of the community, have you ever stopped to think that you might be missing the mark there. 3900 Home fans attended the DU match. We didn't even get that in the premier league. Just for simplicity, say every one of the SMISA members attended, which in reality would never be the case, then, at least 2600 members of the community, the Paisley community, and the wider community attended the match and benefited from the help of the SMISA discretionary pot in terms of help with wages to secure the squad we have and their training and physical condition and mental attitude, disabled fans having one of the best viewing experiences in Scottish Football (previously the club had provided dedicated seats and the access on the front row was excellent -smooth clean concrete and tarmac, so had no obligation to provide more - it was the goodwill and sense of doing the right thing to enhance the experience for others that made people vote for it - go and have a look round some of the other grounds and see what the conditions are like). I certainly feel that the £2 per month spent on anything that benefits the club is intrinsically of benefit to the community beyond that, as at the end of the day, all every SMISA member wants is for the club to grow, be more successful on and off the park, present itself as attractive to the community to try and encourage them to engage, and become a more high profile enterprise. When I signed up, I felt that I was ultimately aiming towards the club being in the control of the supporters. I was happy with the £10 ring-fenced for the purchase and the £2 for spending on whatever the majority vote saw fit, as it was potentially going to improve the club. The Club Ltd., SMISA and The Fans Council are all separate entities legally, but I am sure most within SMISA see them as one and the same - St Mirren If in time, the help and financial input from the £2 pot however it is spent can attract even a 100 local youngsters whose tendency up until now was to follow their family to Glasgow on a Saturday, then in my book we will be achieving our objectives and engaging the community. So far we have achieved much more than that. And finally, the Board of SMISA are doing this for the attachment they feel to St Mirren, not for profit, or to be devious or under-hand, or for a power trip. They all have other commitments through work and family, and I certainly applaud them on getting stuck in and having a go, rather than standing on the sidelines. And as you know, ROME wasn't built in a day, but if you had been around, the pipe fitting would have been finished on the first day, eh! Stuart - I suggest you consult a legal expert to discover that the CCBS is perfectly sound in its operation at present. I detect more than a hint of jealousy in your boring campaign, and for someone who professes to not supporting St Mirren, it seems very ODD. Edited September 20, 2017 by sally02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 10 hours ago, Bellside Bud said: I'm glad you think yourself a spokesperson for the whole of the SMISA membership. I don't, I simply know what the voting percentages were for members. Enough have voted for each action to be passed. Can only assume you have some issue with how a democracy works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 1 hour ago, sally02 said: Well you opted out Stewart, and there are still 1300 going along with it, so it would be fair to say your'e in the minority here. As for the interpretation of the community, have you ever stopped to think that you might be missing the mark there. 3900 Home fans attended the DU match. We didn't even get that in the premier league. Just for simplicity, say every one of the SMISA members attended, which in reality would never be the case, then, at least 2600 members of the community, the Paisley community, and the wider community attended the match and benefited from the help of the SMISA discretionary pot in terms of help with wages to secure the squad we have and their training and physical condition and mental attitude, disabled fans having one of the best viewing experiences in Scottish Football (previously the club had provided dedicated seats and the access on the front row was excellent -smooth clean concrete and tarmac, so had no obligation to provide more - it was the goodwill and sense of doing the right thing to enhance the experience for others that made people vote for it - go and have a look round some of the other grounds and see what the conditions are like). I certainly feel that the £2 per month spent on anything that benefits the club is intrinsically of benefit to the community beyond that, as at the end of the day, all every SMISA member wants is for the club to grow, be more successful on and off the park, present itself as attractive to the community to try and encourage them to engage, and become a more high profile enterprise. When I signed up, I felt that I was ultimately aiming towards the club being in the control of the supporters. I was happy with the £10 ring-fenced for the purchase and the £2 for spending on whatever the majority vote saw fit, as it was potentially going to improve the club. The Club Ltd., SMISA and The Fans Council are all separate entities legally, but I am sure most within SMISA see them as one and the same - St Mirren If in time, the help and financial input from the £2 pot however it is spent can attract even a 100 local youngsters whose tendency up until now was to follow their family to Glasgow on a Saturday, then in my book we will be achieving our objectives and engaging the community. So far we have achieved much more than that. And finally, the Board of SMISA are doing this for the attachment they feel to St Mirren, not for profit, or to be devious or under-hand, or for a power trip. They all have other commitments through work and family, and I certainly applaud them on getting stuck in and having a go, rather than standing on the sidelines. And as you know, ROME wasn't built in a day, but if you had been around, the pipe fitting would have been finished on the first day, eh! Stuart - I suggest you consult a legal expert to discover that the CCBS is perfectly sound in its operation at present. I detect more than a hint of jealousy in your boring campaign, and for someone who professes to not supporting St Mirren, it seems very ODD. At the risk of being stupid here - CCBS? I tried a search on Google. Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences? Centre for Central Banking Studies? Calcium Channel Blockers? I'm sure all three are perfectly sound in their operation. If you mean the Community Benefit Society - no it's not sound. It isn't even compliant with it's own constitution, it's website is misleading, and it has breached the terms of it's asset lock a number of times - even Andrew Jenkin acknowledges that he wasn't comfortable with the contribution to player wages, and that he would have preferred that to have been an investment in return for equity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 37 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said: At the risk of being stupid here - CCBS? I tried a search on Google. Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences? Centre for Central Banking Studies? Calcium Channel Blockers? I'm sure all three are perfectly sound in their operation. If you mean the Community Benefit Society - no it's not sound. It isn't even compliant with it's own constitution, it's website is misleading, and it has breached the terms of it's asset lock a number of times - even Andrew Jenkin acknowledges that he wasn't comfortable with the contribution to player wages, and that he would have preferred that to have been an investment in return for equity. There has been no legal wrong doing noted in the time the CBS has been running. If you feel the need to grass on your club because you don't like aspects of the fan buy-out fine but it doesn't appear like you have got/ or will get anywhere. There is a difference between not being comfortable with a use of funds and actually breaching regulations or laws. SMISA doesn't appear to have done either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally02 Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bellside Bud said: At the risk of being stupid here - CCBS? I tried a search on Google. Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences? Centre for Central Banking Studies? Calcium Channel Blockers? I'm sure all three are perfectly sound in their operation. If you mean the Community Benefit Society - no it's not sound. It isn't even compliant with it's own constitution, it's website is misleading, and it has breached the terms of it's asset lock a number of times - even Andrew Jenkin acknowledges that he wasn't comfortable with the contribution to player wages, and that he would have preferred that to have been an investment in return for equity. Well, as usual, you are being stupid here - if you had read the start of the Constitution, the full title is Co-operative and Community Benefit Society under the Act = CCBS if you take the first letter of each word and abbreviate it. What's the difference between not being comfortable, and braking the rules? Go and ask Andrew Jenkin if he will confirm legally that the other 2600 people in the stadium the day of the DU match (DUNDEE UNITED just to help you) are not part of the wider community beyond the SMISA Members. Edited September 20, 2017 by sally02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 These arguments have been played out on several different threads, although Kenny will say differently (no need for a reply Kenny), the SMISA committee / board aren't really for listening (they've been doing this for years you know) and have gone off on their own route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 19 minutes ago, sally02 said: Well, as usual, you are being stupid here - if you had read the start of the Constitution, the full title is Co-operative and Community Benefit Society under the Act = CCBS if you take the first letter of each word and abbreviate it. What's the difference between not being comfortable, and braking the rules? Go and ask Andrew Jenkin if he will confirm legally that the other 2600 people in the stadium the day of the DU match (DUNDEE UNITED just to help you) are not part of the wider community beyond the SMISA Members. Oh dear. Have you read the act? Maybe SMISA should try reading it too. Quote Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 Under the 2014 Act a society is registered as a: · co-operative society; or · community benefit society. Collectively these are referred to as ‘registered societies’. Since 1 August 2014 it has not been possible to register a new ‘industrial and provident society’. All societies that were previously registered as ‘industrial and provident societies’ are also referred to as ‘registered societies’. You can't be both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, melmac said: These arguments have been played out on several different threads, although Kenny will say differently (no need for a reply Kenny), the SMISA committee / board aren't really for listening (they've been doing this for years you know) and have gone off on their own route. Yeah that's how it looks to me too. They seem to have very little interest in getting it right, or of understanding the opportunities that are afforded to them by being a Social Enterprise. It's pretty sad really. One of the saddest elements in all of this is that the whole Independent Supporters Movement was about getting people elected on to the boards of football clubs so that the ordinary football customer could be represented in the boardroom and in the corridors of power at the relevant Football Associations and League Management bodies. SMISA having got one of their members onto the football club board now seem desperate to have that single member behave like any other football board member in becoming as detached as possible from the support he was meant to represent - whilst also doing exactly what he is told to do by the rest of the football club board. I also don't get why the SMISA board think it's perfectly rational to be the only shareholders putting up money to keep the club going, whilst not seeing that cash put in being met with equity and a greater say in the way the club is run, or why any member would be happy to accept that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sally02 Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 58 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said: Oh dear. Have you read the act? Maybe SMISA should try reading it too. You can't be both. Stuart, I'll hold my hands up to that and apologise to you. I misinterpreted that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 46 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said: Yeah that's how it looks to me too. They seem to have very little interest in getting it right, or of understanding the opportunities that are afforded to them by being a Social Enterprise. It's pretty sad really. One of the saddest elements in all of this is that the whole Independent Supporters Movement was about getting people elected on to the boards of football clubs so that the ordinary football customer could be represented in the boardroom and in the corridors of power at the relevant Football Associations and League Management bodies. SMISA having got one of their members onto the football club board now seem desperate to have that single member behave like any other football board member in becoming as detached as possible from the support he was meant to represent - whilst also doing exactly what he is told to do by the rest of the football club board. I also don't get why the SMISA board think it's perfectly rational to be the only shareholders putting up money to keep the club going, whilst not seeing that cash put in being met with equity and a greater say in the way the club is run, or why any member would be happy to accept that situation. I don't feel like David or the board are detached. I don't really know what your rational is for thinking that when paying members have been engaged in more or less every major spend of their funds and in the year the new board has been in place improvements seem to have been made (IMO) I also don't understand at all what you really want!? You keep banking on about community involvement the exact same as when you were using your previous profile but reject that we should spend money on things like the disabled platform or sponsoring a youth team. What exactly would be acceptable within the community to spend the funds on? Does it have to be something that IN NO WAY BENEFITS ST MIRREN FOOTBALL CLUB AS WELL. It betters our football club Stuart! Sorry if you expected and equity return on any investment (strange for someone hell bent on putting every penny the club can muster into community projects) when you signed up last year but that was never the deal, nor would a lot of signed up fans really want it to be. I'd much rather all funds went to better my club without them having to worry down the line about profit sharing and dividend payments. For me St Mirren will always be the priority, community work is also great but if that community work can tie into bettering the club also then win win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 35 minutes ago, sally02 said: Stuart, I'll hold my hands up to that and apologise to you. I misinterpreted that one. No worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: I don't feel like David or the board are detached. I don't really know what your rational is for thinking that when paying members have been engaged in more or less every major spend of their funds and in the year the new board has been in place improvements seem to have been made (IMO) I also don't understand at all what you really want!? You keep banking on about community involvement the exact same as when you were using your previous profile but reject that we should spend money on things like the disabled platform or sponsoring a youth team. What exactly would be acceptable within the community to spend the funds on? Does it have to be something that IN NO WAY BENEFITS ST MIRREN FOOTBALL CLUB AS WELL. It betters our football club Stuart! Sorry if you expected and equity return on any investment (strange for someone hell bent on putting every penny the club can muster into community projects) when you signed up last year but that was never the deal, nor would a lot of signed up fans really want it to be. I'd much rather all funds went to better my club without them having to worry down the line about profit sharing and dividend payments. For me St Mirren will always be the priority, community work is also great but if that community work can tie into bettering the club also then win win. I have never "rejected" spending on the disabled platform or on the sponsorship of the youth football team. I don't know where you are getting that from. I was critical of the costings for the youth team sponsorship which I stand by. £750 could have easily bought two complete sets of strips allowing SMISA to spread the love to two local teams rather than one - indeed had a bit of forethought gone into it I'm pretty sure Joma could have stretched that money even further. As far as the disabled platform goes I didn't vote for it because I believed that it should have been something the club paid for. It was the clubs negligence that saw wheelchair users comfort being ignored at the new stadium. Sitting in the front row meant poor views of the pitch and a high likelihood of being exposed to inclement weather. However I didn't reject it as a spend, indeed I remained a member of SMISA after that first vote. And to answer the question you ask at the end of the first paragraph, no absolutely not. What I had expected was spending that would see either see greater sustained community involvement in St Mirren FC, or spending that would see the addition of new facilities at the stadium that would be used to the benefit of the local community, whilst also generating income for the football club. When I was a member I had proposed that the discretionary fund be used as seed funding for a SMISA football tournament which would invite local clubs to compete against teams from outside the area. It would give the club the opportunity to scout young talent, and as anyone who has been involved in a football tournament knows it's also a good fundraiser. The profits from which could either be used to sponsor a kit for each of the local teams taking part, donated to a number of local charities, or even held by SMISA to help fund more community based projects. I had costings available if anyone wanted them, but for whatever reason - and the reason really was never communicated back to me - it didn't appear on the ballot, or on any subsequent ballot. Maybe it wasn't a good idea. Maybe no-one else liked it. I don't know. But I've seen others comment on other projects that would have made sense too. For example Lord Pityme has long talked about how the 1877 club should be opened up during the week as a coffee shop. I don't see why that couldn't be funded by SMISA too. Buy in the coffee equipment and hire a couple of barista's. Open the place up for a trial period of say 2 months. Invite community groups to use the facilities for free for committee meetings etc. And if it generates a profit and it proves sustainable SMISA could either hand over the running of the shop to either the 1877 club, or to the LTD company, or it could pay either of them rent for the facilities and continue to run a profitable social enterprise from the stadium. And if it proves not to be sustainable, fine, just close it back down. SMISA would have recouped at least a proportion of the initial outlay and we'd all know that the coffee shop isn't a viable business. As you can see it is possible to benefit the community as well as the football club and it's possible to do it in a profitable and sustainable way whilst paying for a Data Analyst or a Sports Scientist has no community benefit whatsoever, and it only becomes sustainable if SMISA agree to spend every subsequent discretionary payment on continuing to pay their wages. For me if the club does the community work it will get the benefits. The win / win is the priority - not that continual asset grab from those running the football club. Edited September 20, 2017 by Bellside Bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 How are these circular arguments meant to encourage my family and myself to become members? Give me 5 straightforward reasons anyone should join? Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 24 minutes ago, St.Ricky said: How are these circular arguments meant to encourage my family and myself to become members? Give me 5 straightforward reasons anyone should join? Please. I can't. I don't think anyone should join until SMISA sorts itself out. The more I think about it though, the more I like the idea of the Go Fund Me type approach to raising funds for community projects and for club projects. I'm sure it would raise far more money for the club than the current set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 I get that perhaps not many want to be seen as being hoodwinked, and admit it, but surely the youth academy have a moral duty to offer to pay back the thousands Smisa have given them, since they just got £15k from a sponsor, and the money they got from Smisa meant we would no lo longer be funding the Panda club.... doesnt anyone else feel uncomfortable with being guided to vote to fund the academy when they are cash rich, and the Panda club is left out..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapsalmon Posted September 20, 2017 Report Share Posted September 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: I get that perhaps not many want to be seen as being hoodwinked, and admit it, but surely the youth academy have a moral duty to offer to pay back the thousands Smisa have given them, since they just got £15k from a sponsor, and the money they got from Smisa meant we would no lo longer be funding the Panda club.... doesnt anyone else feel uncomfortable with being guided to vote to fund the academy when they are cash rich, and the Panda club is left out..? Similar situation to the scenario of paying for players wages just before money came in from naismith. That didn't sit well with me when it wasn't paid back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 21, 2017 Report Share Posted September 21, 2017 1 hour ago, slapsalmon said: Similar situation to the scenario of paying for players wages just before money came in from naismith. That didn't sit well with me when it wasn't paid back. Or the sale of McAllister. But then that's the point I'm making. Paying staff wages for a limited company should only be done in return for equity or in the form of a director loan. It should never have been a gift from a Community Benefit Society with a strict asset lock in place - especially when the claim that it is actually to the benefit of the Paisley Community is as spurious and as tenuous as it could possibly be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted September 21, 2017 Report Share Posted September 21, 2017 Or the sale of McAllister. But then that's the point I'm making. Paying staff wages for a limited company should only be done in return for equity or in the form of a director loan. It should never have been a gift from a Community Benefit Society with a strict asset lock in place - especially when the claim that it is actually to the benefit of the Paisley Community is as spurious and as tenuous as it could possibly be. It doesn't breach the asset lock, if it did then Supporters Direct would have raised it as an issue. I also doubt the FCA would have approved the constitution. As for the Academy paying thousands back, what utter frigging nonsense. Seriously, absolute bloody nonsense. We're in a joint venture, we will support you and look to make you grow. But, hey, don't go bringing in extra funds as we'll only demand our donations back. I also think it's time to just let the members discuss things on here without SMISA board interaction. If you really want to make contact you can via email, twitter and even face to face. If an idea is important enough, flesh it up and send it on. If you're not getting enough news, make direct contact and request more. If the site is wrong, raise it via the direct contact avenues available. Thanks for joining, I appreciate it and hope you enjoy the experience. If you haven't joined, please consider doing so and being part of this major project. Bye! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellside Bud Posted September 21, 2017 Report Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) Remember when SMISA first started the goal was to get the voice of the fan / the paying customer heard in the boardroom. Remember yesterday when Bazil claimed that the SMiSA reps weren't shitting themselves away and that they were approachable and listening. Wonder how that stacks up with Kennys latest post? SMISA isn't fit for purpose. It never was. Edited September 21, 2017 by Bellside Bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted September 22, 2017 Report Share Posted September 22, 2017 5 hours ago, Bellside Bud said: Remember when SMISA first started the goal was to get the voice of the fan / the paying customer heard in the boardroom. Remember yesterday when Bazil claimed that the SMiSA reps weren't shitting themselves away and that they were approachable and listening. Wonder how that stacks up with Kennys latest post? Stuart, I think there is only so many times a fella can discuss or explain the same thing, The same stuff that was discussed months ago is getting dragged up again. I am surprised Tsu has the energy to do so all again. I'd have thought "f*** that" donkeys ago & the outcome still is, it's not going to change to how you think it should be managed. 1, 2 or a few dissenting voices is not going to make one iota of difference if the vast majority are happy with how things are. What you are looking for from the whole shebang is very very different to the vast majority & therein lies your sticking point. If SD agreed with any of your concerns, the fella Jenkins ears would have pricked up & he'd have got onto SMISA, the fact they haven't suggests SD are comfortable with the way SMISA are conducting their business & the vast majority appear happy to go with the flow and for those reasons, it appears to me, your arguments are futile. I signed up to donate £12 per month to SMISA knowing £2 would go to a discretionary pot. Like you, I don't agree with how it's been spent to date & I don't agree with it being used to pay wages (of players or sports scientists) but a lot more members did agree to do so. I will respect their choice The biggest concern for me is the carnage that I expect will ensue when The Buds are bought & the SMISA membership proceed to electing a BOD that will be the St Mirren BOD. Back to the £2 spend, instead of spunking it every 3 months, I suggested to SMISA that it gets saved into a fund for when The Buds are Bought. The Club will need money then & it won't have the support like what SMISA provides just now to turn to. I cannot imagine all 1300 curren SMISA members will continue paying monthly fees on the never never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.