Jump to content

SMISA Annual Report 2018 email


bazil85

Recommended Posts

I'd already decided to stay on after Gordon made his statement, but it was evident even after then that I needed to resign. I spent time researching numerous things, to no avail and all because a few people didn't agree. I proposed to put a 16K vote for the women's team to the members, the committee weren't comfortable with that though put out the recent 4K vote. I offered to look at fund raising, nobody was interested. I got press coverage, university radio and kept members appraised across social media...to not much thanks, indeed much questioning. Every meeting was about how we'd get to 1,400 members, with nothing much offered from those pushing it.  You would not believe the lack of engagement on the women's team and if I'd heard "we don't want another Glenvale" one more time...
They have a current need to simply the members spreadsheet etc, I offered to assist with looking at getting Joomla support to do it alongside the website. I stated we should have a pop-up banner in the members bar, gor nowhere with that. I spoke with a rep from the SMDSA about further disabled facilities, turns out the club aren't interested. I looked at netting behind the goals, passed what I had over and it went nowhere. I stared discussions at the meeting with the SMFC board and was spoken over. Just so many double standards, so much they'd already decided they wouldn't do, so many hours wasted and it all became very obvious I was wasting my time.
But, the absolute final straws were members of the St Mirren board starting to ignore me and not come over to say hello or even wave when before we'd stopped for a chat. That and the way the women's team were treated like outsiders by people who would like you all to think they are beyond reproach. So, I don't want to help them, don't want to enable their careers and I'm certainly not a patsy who'll sit and nod. Yet, I'll still offer advice or views on here as I obviously stIl support St Mirren.
I take people very much as I find them.
Going right back to the days of ll the official forum, you have often been a pain in the arse...

But a pain in the arse I respect!

You do not toe any party line and are not afraid to call a spade an effin shovel... And that is to be commended.

You fight and advocate for what you believe in and that too I respect.

When in post, you were not afraid to stick your head above the parapet and actually try to engage with the membership.

It was obvious that you were not self seeking but seeking to represent the fans.

I was sorry when you stood down. I still am.

I too believe battles are best fought from within and hope that at some point in the future I can vote for you to represent me on the board.

Unlike some others, I do not believe you have an agenda... just one helluva lot of frustration which I share.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'd already decided to stay on after Gordon made his statement, but it was evident even after then that I needed to resign. I spent time researching numerous things, to no avail and all because a few people didn't agree. I proposed to put a 16K vote for the women's team to the members, the committee weren't comfortable with that though put out the recent 4K vote. I offered to look at fund raising, nobody was interested. I got press coverage, university radio and kept members appraised across social media...to not much thanks, indeed much questioning. Every meeting was about how we'd get to 1,400 members, with nothing much offered from those pushing it.  You would not believe the lack of engagement on the women's team and if I'd heard "we don't want another Glenvale" one more time...
They have a current need to simply the members spreadsheet etc, I offered to assist with looking at getting Joomla support to do it alongside the website. I stated we should have a pop-up banner in the members bar, gor nowhere with that. I spoke with a rep from the SMDSA about further disabled facilities, turns out the club aren't interested. I looked at netting behind the goals, passed what I had over and it went nowhere. I stared discussions at the meeting with the SMFC board and was spoken over. Just so many double standards, so much they'd already decided they wouldn't do, so many hours wasted and it all became very obvious I was wasting my time.
But, the absolute final straws were members of the St Mirren board starting to ignore me and not come over to say hello or even wave when before we'd stopped for a chat. That and the way the women's team were treated like outsiders by people who would like you all to think they are beyond reproach. So, I don't want to help them, don't want to enable their careers and I'm certainly not a patsy who'll sit and nod. Yet, I'll still offer advice or views on here as I obviously stIl support St Mirren.


Sounds frustrating. But why so much focus on the women’s team? I think it’s great that it’s up and running but asking members to fund 16k seems an awful lot. If they’re properly affiliated to the club, the money should have come from the club not the fans. As a member I wouldn’t have voted for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lovestlegend said:

 


Sounds frustrating. But why so much focus on the women’s team? I think it’s great that it’s up and running but asking members to fund 16k seems an awful lot. If they’re properly affiliated to the club, the money should have come from the club not the fans. As a member I wouldn’t have voted for that.

 

Many wouldn't, the vote of 2K per next 8 polls may have been voted down, but it was the whole mood around it that didn't sit well with me. The club had no money to give, the women's team have a 25K budget over 2 years. Heck, I'm not even comfortable that the team need to pay monthly subs. "They need to do their own fund raising" then move on, not very inclusive when you've no issue covering everything for the men's team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

I take people very much as I find them.
Going right back to the days of ll the official forum, you have often been a pain in the arse...

But a pain in the arse I respect!

You do not toe any party line and are not afraid to call a spade an effin shovel... And that is to be commended.

You fight and advocate for what you believe in and that too I respect.

When in post, you were not afraid to stick your head above the parapet and actually try to engage with the membership.

It was obvious that you were not self seeking but seeking to represent the fans.

I was sorry when you stood down. I still am.

I too believe battles are best fought from within and hope that at some point in the future I can vote for you to represent me on the board.

Unlike some others, I do not believe you have an agenda... just one helluva lot of frustration which I share.

I've been online for at least as long as you BinEK and Kenny's been around all the time I've been on and I don't think it's any secret to say I don't like him. I've argued online with loads of St Mirren fans and most of the time I've forgotten their names within days, but I've just never respected Kenny in any way shape or form. And that was amplified even more in that boardroom meeting years ago where I found a whole new level of disrespect for him.  I'm sure some of the forum users will know that when Kenny put himself up for election to the club board I absolutely slated him, not as a wind up, but because I genuinely believed he'd be the worst thing that could happen to the club - and in my defence his responses only strengthened my belief he'd be an absolute disaster. He really didn't seem to understand what a community represents, or what it is. 

Yet just before he resigned I'd got a copy of The Saint newspaper - the Paisley Pravda. In that paper there were a lot of false platitudes mentioning "community" over and over again. "Community club", "Importance of involving the Paisley Community" blah, blah, shite from most of them - Tony Fitzpatrick in particular. And then there was an article about the womens football team and on Kenny Morrison and the penny dropped. By f**k either Kenny had changed his mind, had an epiphany, or maybe, just maybe, I'd got him wrong! He genuinely seemed to be the ONLY person in that whole copy of the Paisley Pravda that was actually talking my language. 

Then he resigned! 

For my tuppence worth - I always thought an adult womans team was ambitious. A far easier place to start would have been to set up a girls academy with girls teams in each age group. Hamilton Accies have done that for years and it's self funding. Wishaw Wycombe were late starters but when I left the club they had as many girls training at the club in each age group as they did boys.  It's an easier place to start because the costs are less, it's more community inclusive, and there's a great deal of grants and funding around for girls football at grassroots level - and with the level of growth going on in that sector of the sport it could easily have seen 200 - 300 girls playing regularly for St Mirren with all those parents potentially becoming SMISA members, and perhaps being interested enough to go along to a few of the first team squad matches. But it is a disgrace that a club that thinks of itself as a "community club" doesn't have female teams, and that given the prospect of having a womans team they won't let them use the facilities at Ralston. 

And what exactly was the issue with Glenvale that meant the SMISA board didn't want another? Is Gordon Scott's influence as a single member of SMISA really that overbearing? 

Mis-priced footballs - I guessed that. So much for the properly costed out options on each ballot. Dis-interest in providing more disabled facilities - well that's always looked obvious too. The only reason the disabled platform got the go ahead was because St Mirren were about to lose some licence or another - and therefore their ability to host Scotland games at St Mirren Park. 

Even this latest release looks like SMISA have looked at the dissent, and possible FCA complaints and decided to concoct some other story so they can claim they haven't touched ring-fenced funds and there's no rule change required. 

Honestly SMISA looks like an absolute cluster f**k yet supporter apathy gives them a free run to f**k it up all they want. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Yeah but that's nothing to worry about - when they were targeting an increase to 1,400 - and have now changed that to 1,300.  :rolleyes: 
Christ, that guy who claims to work around the financial sector makes you look good with numbers [emoji57]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

Many wouldn't, the vote of 2K per next 8 polls may have been voted down, but it was the whole mood around it that didn't sit well with me. The club had no money to give, the women's team have a 25K budget over 2 years. Heck, I'm not even comfortable that the team need to pay monthly subs. "They need to do their own fund raising" then move on, not very inclusive when you've no issue covering everything for the men's team.

TBF  I  voted that down , there's no great interest in the woman's team imo , I know if they were ever successful I wouldn't bother my arse turning up to see it. I support St Mirren , not a woman's team of the same name , just like back in the 70s when I didn't support St Mirren Amateurs , in fact I had a great dislike for them !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, billyg said:

TBF  I  voted that down , there's no great interest in the woman's team imo , I know if they were ever successful I wouldn't bother my arse turning up to see it. I support St Mirren , not a woman's team of the same name , just like back in the 70s when I didn't support St Mirren Amateurs , in fact I had a great dislike for them !

There you go, but at least the question was asked on the just over 2K and could have been asked in a supplementary question also. The supplementary question could have all sorts of supporting detail and been used to define the SMISA memberships view on the women's team. Especially as it wasn't part of the survey, which at this point is now pretty much obsolete/served its purpose as SMISA have committed 50K to the Academy via funding the 4G. Heck, a stand alone poll could have gone up...they only cost £90 each to run.

I will say this though, St Mirren isn't just the first team anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Hold on, I thought the £50k was coming out of ringfenced money that was "just sitting gathering dust"

Now, David Nicol presents to the membership

"The £35k used will be reinstated from the £10 bit of your monthly subscription between September and December this year. That money will then be replaced by the £2s (ie £5k from each of the following seven quarterly spends). So by January 2019 the credit facility will be back to £50k, and by April 2020, the share purchase pot will have been restocked using the £2s."

Not gathering dust at all, the money has not yet been collected.

88% of the voting members may not care enough but when things like this happen & previous guarantees/assurances are broken, i will voice my objections.

If that makes me a c**t, i am happy to be a c**t.

Aye aye aye, the money will be repaid eventually but SMISA, for f**ksake, if you are going to continue spinning us lines, remember what you have spun & stick to it.

I think the important aspect you're missing is the contractual agreement written into BTB to be able to request this money. That means three things:

1. Legal right for St Mirren to ask

2. No legal right for SMISA to say no, they are contractually require to make this money available at the agreement of members (Or that's certainly how I've read it)

3. As we know it was a landslide Yes for members that voted.

 So in a nutshell, no assurances broken, previous grantees have actually been upheld and the fund use is directly in line with what the £50k facility was designed for. What's the issue?

Any members that cancelled following this reconsidering their stance based on the new legal information? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, lovestlegend said:

 


Sounds frustrating. But why so much focus on the women’s team? I think it’s great that it’s up and running but asking members to fund 16k seems an awful lot. If they’re properly affiliated to the club, the money should have come from the club not the fans. As a member I wouldn’t have voted for that.

 

I agree it's too much to fund and wouldn't have voted for it either (as an actual member)

I do feel the club could make a donation to help in the set-up. I don't feel they should fund the women'd team though (not sure if that's what you meant) I feel for the women's team to be a success they need to be self-funded and raise funds themselves from an early stage in their life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, StuD said:

Yeah but that's nothing to worry about - when they were targeting an increase to 1,400 - and have now changed that to 1,300.  :rolleyes: 

SMISA have put their hands up they didn't have the right process in place to back-up the 1,400 and have said they'll try to do better to get to 1,300. Taking a potshot at anyone who's held their hands-up is kinda low don't you think? 

Former members having a go at falling SMISA numbers is like standing on a boat, saying 'it's going to sink' then punching the holes yourself. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the important aspect you're missing is the contractual agreement written into BTB to be able to request this money. That means three things:
1. Legal right for St Mirren to ask
2. No legal right for SMISA to say no, they are contractually require to make this money available at the agreement of members (Or that's certainly how I've read it)
3. As we know it was a landslide Yes for members that voted.
 So in a nutshell, no assurances broken, previous grantees have actually been upheld and the fund use is directly in line with what the £50k facility was designed for. What's the issue?
Any members that cancelled following this reconsidering their stance based on the new legal information? 
Basil,
I am not missing anything.

We've done the merrygoround on the other thread to death. I have no interest in debating the same old same old again.
Groundhog day is over.

I am talking about the inconsistencies in where the money comes from.

SMISA could have said

"you know that £50k, we have as a loan facility for the club. They've asked for it to replace the astro at Ralston.
We can give them £5k from before BTB that we had in the bank gathering dust. Add that to £5k from each of the April & July votes (if vote says yes) and top it up with £35k from the loan facility.

No need to look at ring fenced money. No need to have 88% of yes voters or 12% of no voters voting on a needless vote.

Instead, we got presented "use money that is just sitting there, gathering dust"
There was also the line about gathering little interest.

Turns out, it wasn't gathering dust at all and it wasn't gathering any interest either.
Why not?
Because the members haven't paid it in yet.

My point, that you are missing is, if SMISA are going to spin us lines. Remember what you've spun and stick to it.

I may not agree with proposals but I will accept the vote results.
In that statement, SMISA has done nothing to allay concerns that this is (to quote Cockles) a clusterf**k.

To recap

SMISA has a legal obligation to loan St Mirren FC £50000 and has that facility available to be used (if the members agree)

Use that. No need to touch ring fenced money.

Everyone is a winner.

Job done.

Oh hold on, by using the ring fenced pot and SMISA repaying its own loan to the club (now by December)
The £50000 loan facility will be replenished and available again for the club.

And all this despite revenue being up big style and £1 million or thereabouts coming in in transfer fees with potentially more to come in (lots of speculation about John McGinn being on the move with a fair wedge coming our way).

Hmmmmmmmm,
SMISA has got to say no sometime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Basil,
I am not missing anything.

We've done the merrygoround on the other thread to death. I have no interest in debating the same old same old again.
Groundhog day is over.

I am talking about the inconsistencies in where the money comes from.

SMISA could have said

"you know that £50k, we have as a loan facility for the club. They've asked for it to replace the astro at Ralston.
We can give them £5k from before BTB that we had in the bank gathering dust. Add that to £5k from each of the April & July votes (if vote says yes) and top it up with £35k from the loan facility.

No need to look at ring fenced money. No need to have 88% of yes voters or 12% of no voters voting on a needless vote.

Instead, we got presented "use money that is just sitting there, gathering dust"
There was also the line about gathering little interest.

Turns out, it wasn't gathering dust at all and it wasn't gathering any interest either.
Why not?
Because the members haven't paid it in yet.

My point, that you are missing is, if SMISA are going to spin us lines. Remember what you've spun and stick to it.

I may not agree with proposals but I will accept the vote results.
In that statement, SMISA has done nothing to allay concerns that this is (to quote Cockles) a clusterf**k.

To recap

SMISA has a legal obligation to loan St Mirren FC £50000 and has that facility available to be used (if the members agree)

Use that. No need to touch ring fenced money.

Everyone is a winner.

Job done.

Oh hold on, by using the ring fenced pot and SMISA repaying its own loan to the club (now by December)
The £50000 loan facility will be replenished and available again for the club.

And all this despite revenue being up big style and £1 million or thereabouts coming in in transfer fees with potentially more to come in (lots of speculation about John McGinn being on the move with a fair wedge coming our way).

Hmmmmmmmm,
SMISA has got to say no sometime.

Well you're a wee bit all over the place there but I think I got it. I would say SMISA have said they could have been clearer in regards to how the funds were being used. They did it high level and admitted their mistake in that. If you want to hold that against them after admitting their shortcomings then fine. 

The key messages are

1. Contractual agreement about using the £50k 

2. The £50k existing is part of BTB so of course it'll get replenished after this. We aren't paying anything twice here, it's paying something once on a members vote then going forward having the credit facility as part of BTB. 

3. All your chat about income being up is irrelevant. We're still going into a league where we'll have one of the lowest budgets going. Transfer income and the McGinn move all good news but it won't put us in a position where we can be lax with the budget. Every penny will be important as it will be to the other clubs at our level. 

4. I also read it that the £50k was in place, did you read it that the money wasn't already there? I believe we're taking £35k from there (leaving £15k) and then that will be replenished ultimately from the £2

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Well you're a wee bit all over the place there but I think I got it. I would say SMISA have said they could have been clearer in regards to how the funds were being used. They did it high level and admitted their mistake in that. If you want to hold that against them after admitting their shortcomings then fine. 

The key messages are

1. Contractual agreement about using the £50k 

2. The £50k existing is part of BTB so of course it'll get replenished after this. We aren't paying anything twice here, it's paying something once on a members vote then going forward having the credit facility as part of BTB. 

3. All your chat about income being up is irrelevant. We're still going into a league where we'll have one of the lowest budgets going. Transfer income and the McGinn move all good news but it won't put us in a position where we can be lax with the budget. Every penny will be important as it will be to the other clubs at our level. 

4. I also read it that the £50k was in place, did you read it that the money wasn't already there? I believe we're taking £35k from there (leaving £15k) and then that will be replenished ultimately from the £2

aye, SMISA are all over the place with this.

 

Hey ho, it is done now. Hopefully won't get done again (unless the interested and sheep (disinterested) continue voting yes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

aye, SMISA are all over the place with this.

 

Hey ho, it is done now. Hopefully won't get done again (unless the interested and sheep (disinterested) continue voting yes).

Yep done now. best just to move on with it. People have different opinions, always going to be the case.

I'm sure you'll also agree that it won't be all 'sheep' there will be a significant number that have reviewed this carefully and fully trust this is in the best interest of SMFC, SMISA or both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I'm sure you'll also agree that it won't be all 'sheep' there will be a significant number that have reviewed this carefully and fully trust this is in the best interest of SMFC, SMISA or both. 

I did distinguish the interested from the sheep (disinterested). Perhaps you didn't notice that.

What we cannot quantify within the SMISA flock is how many are interested and how many are sheep so we'll never know how many of your 88% (of voters) are interested and how many are sheep just as we won't know, how many of the 12% (of voters) are interested and how many are sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

SMISA have put their hands up they didn't have the right process in place to back-up the 1,400 and have said they'll try to do better to get to 1,300. Taking a potshot at anyone who's held their hands-up is kinda low don't you think? 

Former members having a go at falling SMISA numbers is like standing on a boat, saying 'it's going to sink' then punching the holes yourself. :blink:

And yet Kenny says the SMiSA board focused on it at every meeting. 

It'd be really interesting to see what their recruiting strategy is now cause each time they f**k up their proposals and their statements they risk losing members and you do a good job of alienating them too. I'd reckon membership from the hard core support peaked during BTB initial campaign. They are going to have to look to the community to grow and yet they seems scared to do that cause they dont want to "risk another Glenvale".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I did distinguish the interested from the sheep (disinterested). Perhaps you didn't notice that.

What we cannot quantify within the SMISA flock is how many are interested and how many are sheep so we'll never know how many of your 88% (of voters) are interested and how many are sheep just as we won't know, how many of the 12% (of voters) are interested and how many are sheep.

True, although I’d speculate the ‘sheep’ are probably a minority. We’re all adults and should be able to make our own opinion. I think people that don’t have an opinion of their own are a lot more likely not to vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, StuD said:

And yet Kenny says the SMiSA board focused on it at every meeting. 

It'd be really interesting to see what their recruiting strategy is now cause each time they f**k up their proposals and their statements they risk losing members and you do a good job of alienating them too. I'd reckon membership from the hard core support peaked during BTB initial campaign. They are going to have to look to the community to grow and yet they seems scared to do that cause they dont want to "risk another Glenvale".

Will be interesting to see, I agree. I’ve always said I don’t think they’re proactive enough. Had people mention about sign-up forms inside the newspaper and presences at games etc but as a season ticket holder and SMISA member I have never seen one shred of promotion to sign-up for BTB since the deal concluded. That would suggest to me a lot of others haven’t seen it either, so plenty to do. I’m excited to hear what they propose in the summer  

It does disappoint me the number of (former) members that are so harsh on SMISA & BTB. One of the main things they said was they’re learning as well and doing what they can, they’ll make mistake but they asked for patience. To highlight ‘f*ck ups’ (personal opinion) and be IMO so harsh on a group of people that aren’t in this for profit, that are only in it for the love of their football club to me is very unfortunate. 

Almost as if there is zero tolerance to get things wrong with some people. It’s off to the bank to cancel their 10 year commitment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

One of the main things they said was they’re learning as well and doing what they can, they’ll make mistake but they asked for patience.

I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. They talk as if they know exactly what they're doing and are doing as little as possible. To be fair to Gordon, he queried why the £2 pot took up so much time and he's very correct in the majority of cases. The £2 is lauded as great engagement, but when you're taking at least £144 a year from people then you should have something. They make mistakes because they're either so sure of themselves or just refuse to listen to or seek advice. 

As for the 1,400, the strategy was to go to the pub occasionally. They got one sign-up who then cancelled. Yes we had the paper, flyers at the open day etc...that's business as usual though. It needed rammed down your throat more, better engagement (there wasn't even a happy new year tweet) and further involvement in the community.  Trawl Buddievision, you'll find nothing on SMISA and it's never mentioned on St Mirren TV. Again, I suggested options and got absolutely no take up or encouragement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He forwarded me the message.

Dear former SMISA member

Your contribution to the future of St Mirren FC won’t ever be forgotten. It’s there in permanent ink on the SMiSA wall on the south-east corner of the Paisley 2021 Stadium, alongside all the other names who helped make the dream of St Mirren one day being owned by its supporters possible.

We noticed your membership of SMISA has lapsed and we would love to have you back on board.

Since the takeover of the club in 2016 following the #BuyTheBuds campaign, we’ve seen St Mirren go from the brink of the lowest moment in its history to one of the best – from the edge of a first-ever relegation to the third tier of Scottish football to the incredible title-winning celebrations of the last few weeks, and the return of Premier League football.

Be in no doubt SMISA played a role in that – the additional investment our members have made on and off the park through the £2 pot is already making a real difference, and one the club have acknowledged. At the same time, we are investing in projects which are bringing the club and community closer together. You can read more detail on our website here.

We are proud of what we’ve achieved to date and want to achieve more. It was only possible because of the strength and commitment of SMISA’s membership. The more members we have the stronger we are – now and over the long term as we build for a fan-owned future which ensures St Mirren can forever stay in the hands of the people who care for it most…you.

You can still be a part of that. We have a range of membership options, with various benefits attached. Signing up is easy to do via our website. We’d be delighted to answer any questions you may have via [email protected]

You played your part before in helping shape St Mirren’s future. We’d love you to come back and do so once again.

We’re on our way

The SMISA committee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. They talk as if they know exactly what they're doing and are doing as little as possible. To be fair to Gordon, he queried why the £2 pot took up so much time and he's very correct in the majority of cases. The £2 is lauded as great engagement, but when you're taking at least £144 a year from people then you should have something. They make mistakes because they're either so sure of themselves or just refuse to listen to or seek advice. 

As for the 1,400, the strategy was to go to the pub occasionally. They got one sign-up who then cancelled. Yes we had the paper, flyers at the open day etc...that's business as usual though. It needed rammed down your throat more, better engagement (there wasn't even a happy new year tweet) and further involvement in the community.  Trawl Buddievision, you'll find nothing on SMISA and it's never mentioned on St Mirren TV. Again, I suggested options and got absolutely no take up or encouragement.

In what way is it nonsense? Is it nonsense that this is all new to the people doing it? They don't have a great deal of power to be 'sure of themselves' They need to vote on use of the funds, is that nonsense? Is it they don't seek your advice or can't take forward every proposal that makes it nonsense? 

Bottom line is people have spat the dummy through grievances in the here and now. For me that's very disappointing, given the fan owned club will be here longer than anyone currently involved with BTB that you might not agree with. The commitment was 10 years and a poxy £12/ £25 a month. I know some people would have dropped out because they can't afford it but people dropping out because they don't like that we aren't a slick, flawless, operating machine after two years... Well, not the best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...