Jump to content

David Nicol To Stand Down..........


HSS

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Graeme Aitken said:
8 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
I get where you are coming from Kenny. But its never actually been tried as a bespoke option before. The committee were always careful/sly in suggesting 'well its there as an option, if members dont chose the two/three/four options on the vote"
but smisa have been careful never to put it up front and centre as a "fully costed option by a member" its always been left as "this is what will happen if NO ONE votes for any of the others, which was/is never going to happen.
i would be happy to second it. Anyone else want to see this actually listed as an option n the vote?

As far as I know, it has never been put forward in this way and I have been very specific the option is added "to each and every future vote" to ensure, the option is to save and not be added to a future vote as it was put before.

You are spot on sir!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

You are spot on sir!

I’m all for either of you trying to get this on the vote in any manner you please. As per usual there’s a dig from LPM about SMISA somehow doing some underhanded means when it comes to voting options. Once again not giving fellow fans credit and suggesting they aren’t savvy enough to make informed decisions. 

No acknowledgment to the stone cold facts right in front of us all that no matter what the options have been in the past, any variation, any form, the club benefit always wins. SMISA don’t have to be ‘sly’ to get club benefits through because that has always been and remains the popular option for voting members. 

I don’t think there’s ever been a vote where over 50% of voting members haven’t voted for a club benefit, last one being the closest run with a very good community benefit up against it. (51% last time for either goal posts or hand dryers) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m all for either of you trying to get this on the vote in any manner you please. As per usual there’s a dig from LPM about SMISA somehow doing some underhanded means when it comes to voting options. Once again not giving fellow fans credit and suggesting they aren’t savvy enough to make informed decisions. 
No acknowledgment to the stone cold facts right in front of us all that no matter what the options have been in the past, any variation, any form, the club benefit always wins. SMISA don’t have to be ‘sly’ to get club benefits through because that has always been and remains the popular option for voting members. 
I don’t think there’s ever been a vote where over 50% of voting members haven’t voted for a club benefit, last one being the closest run with a very good community benefit up against it. (51% last time for either goal posts or hand dryers) 
The members have never been given the option to Save the pot for when the buds is bought.

Ultimately, the club benefits either way.

£3k - £8k every quarter on whatever option gets voted through.

Or

Potentially, a far bigger pot at a later date whn SMISA owns the club.

The latter wins hands down for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I’m all for either of you trying to get this on the vote in any manner you please. As per usual there’s a dig from LPM about SMISA somehow doing some underhanded means when it comes to voting options. Once again not giving fellow fans credit and suggesting they aren’t savvy enough to make informed decisions. 

No acknowledgment to the stone cold facts right in front of us all that no matter what the options have been in the past, any variation, any form, the club benefit always wins. SMISA don’t have to be ‘sly’ to get club benefits through because that has always been and remains the popular option for voting members. 

I don’t think there’s ever been a vote where over 50% of voting members haven’t voted for a club benefit, last one being the closest run with a very good community benefit up against it. (51% last time for either goal posts or hand dryers) 

But Baz surely as a committee man you remember the 'Glenvale Incident'?

you know when the club chairman was so incensed that a community option might actually win the vote he issued a statement pleading with members to reject the community and replace the matchballs, or nets or line paint or whatever instead?

i mean its not like you to totally ignore the elephants in the room, is it??? Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

The members have never been given the option to Save the pot for when the buds is bought.

Ultimately, the club benefits either way.

£3k - £8k every quarter on whatever option gets voted through.

Or

Potentially, a far bigger pot at a later date whn SMISA owns the club.

The latter wins hands down for me.

Yeah I know it does. My only point is there doesn’t appear to be an appetite for it. Will see what happens but I fear it’s a bit of a waste of time given all the available evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

But Baz surely as a committee man you remember the 'Glenvale Incident'?

you know when the club chairman was so incensed that a community option might actually win the vote he issued a statement pleading with members to reject the community and replace the matchballs, or nets or line paint or whatever instead?

i mean its not like you to totally ignore the elephants in the room, is it??? Lol

You can return to the committee debate all you want. I’m not on and never have been anywhere near the committee. One of my biggest critics Mr D himself confirmed it to you.

Why you hold onto this is beyond me... well actually it isn’t, given practically everything you post is made up drivel. 

The incident represented in GLS opinion a conflict of interest, as someone that claims to know so much about regulation, you’d think you could at least pretend to be aware of duty bound requirements to highlight COI.  

The only elephant in the room is your continual denial that SMFC benefits have always been the popular choice, any way you try and tart it up, they always win. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I know it does. My only point is there doesn’t appear to be an appetite for it. Will see what happens but I fear it’s a bit of a waste of time given all the available evidence. 
There is no evidence as its never been put to the membership.

What was put before that you use as evidence was not what I have proposed.

It has never been put to the members to save the pot for after the buds is bought.

I am going for long term gain rather than short term. Club budgeting is and should be the short term game.

We should get an answer to, if there is an appetite or not, assuming SMISA include what i have proposed to the agenda of a general meeting and members actually vote yes or no.

If there is no appetite as you claim, there should be no fear for adding it to each and every future vote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

There is no evidence as its never been put to the membership.

What was put before that you use as evidence was not what I have proposed.

It has never been put to the members to save the pot for after the buds is bought.

I am going for long term gain rather than short term. Club budgeting is and should be the short term game.

We should get an answer to, if there is an appetite or not, assuming SMISA include what i have proposed to the agenda of a general meeting and members actually vote yes or no.

If there is no appetite as you claim, there should be no fear for adding it to each and every future vote.

There’s strong evidence when you look at other similar votes and no matter what variation of vote happens, the club benefits always come through. To say that isn’t a strong evidence indicator is simply not correct. 

I have absolutely no fear of adding it. Not because it might win but because I have no issue with going with the will of the majority.

Clearly a select few do on here but I will always go with a majority vote. Big difference between what I think will happen, what I hope will happen and my opinion on if this option did win. 

I know you think it’s good to save for the future. My opinion is, it’s better to spend now in the hope that our income streams are stronger in the future. We save up over the next 6-8 years and that money is the difference between as being a Championship club or an SP club, it’ll cost us way more than we could ever save. 

Like I say, that’s just my opinion vs yours. Neither one is right or wrong, just opinions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

There’s strong evidence when you look at other similar votes and no matter what variation of vote happens, the club benefits always come through. To say that isn’t a strong evidence indicator is simply not correct.

No, there is not. The  question posed previously was to save the money and add it to a future pot.  That is quite a different question to

"Save the money until The Buds is bought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

No, there is not. The  question posed previously was to save the money and add it to a future pot.  That is quite a different question to

"Save the money until The Buds is bought.

You genuinely don’t think we can use any of the data from previous votes as evidence to how people will vote in the future? That’s quite an outlandish claim. Almost LPM level infact. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites



You genuinely don’t think we can use any of the data from previous votes as evidence to how people will vote in the future? That’s quite an outlandish claim. Almost LPM level infact. 


Oh dear,
Me and you have managed to debate and disagree quite successfully without the need for bullshit.
"almost LPM level infact" 🤣🤣
is probably the weakest insult these pages have ever seen.

Outlandish as it may seem to you. As explained a couple of times now, The option to "Save the pot until the buds is bought" has never been put to the members.

Save it and add to a future pot has. This is quite a differesnt question (imho).

For that purpose, there is no data. There is data that members have preferred the option of spending now on club related things rather than saving it to be spent as part of a bigger pot at a later date (& not after btb is complete)

That may give you confidence of the members not having an appetite to save the pot but i'll make an outlandish claim on epic LPM proportions to say, i don't agree with you on that.

Hopefully we will get to find out if there is your appetite or not.

Another revolution of the wheel and we are still in the same place [emoji23]

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:


 

 


Oh dear,
Me and you have managed to debate and disagree quite successfully without the need for bullshit.
"almost LPM level infact" is probably the weakest insult these pages have ever seen.

Outlandish as it may seem to you. As explained a couple of times now, The option to "Save the pot until the buds is bought" has never been put to the members.

Save it and add to a future pot has. This is quite a differesnt question (imho).

For that purpose, there is no data. There is data that members have preferred the option of spending now on club related things rather than saving it to be spent as part of a bigger pot at a later date (& not after btb is complete)

That may give you confidence of the members not having an appetite to save the pot but i'll make an outlandish claim on epic LPM proportions to say, i don't agree with you on that.

Hopefully we will get to find out if there is your appetite or not.

Another revolution of the wheel and we are still in the same place

.
 

 

I know it’s never been brought forward and I know what you’re talking about. I’m asking you a genuine question. Do you see no (as in zero) evidence from previous votes that the options for club benefits are still likely to be the popular vote? 

I’ll put it another way, I’ve spoken to many people about SMISA in my time both on here and in other St Mirren circles. That being an option, I know for fact won’t change the voting behaviour of many members (including myself) 

I’m not saying it categorically won’t win, my observation is we can look at previous votes and make and educated guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it’s never been brought forward and I know what you’re talking about. I’m asking you a genuine question. Do you see no (as in zero) evidence from previous votes that the options for club benefits are still likely to be the popular vote? 
I’ll put it another way, I’ve spoken to many people about SMISA in my time both on here and in other St Mirren circles. That being an option, I know for fact won’t change the voting behaviour of many members (including myself) 
I’m not saying it categorically won’t win, my observation is we can look at previous votes and make and educated guess. 
I don't think SMISA has an appetite to put it as an option as it "was intended to be spent"

previous votes are suggestive the members will back club related options at just about every turn.

That said, there is nothing to fear by putting a save option on every vote.

As you say, democracy wins. If there is no appetite for it, it won't get the votes. Having the option will shut me up completely about it.

I hope SMISA share your confidence and vote to put the option on.
If grass seed for the Simply Dig arena comes up as an option or something just as ludicrous and wins a quarterly spend vote, if "save" has also been an option, there'll be no bumping of gums from me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has never once been an option on the £2 vote to bank the pot. Basil knows this, and its obviously giving him sleepless nights worrying, if it was included as an actual choice, it might be picked. Like i said previously Basil and the Smisa committee share the same fear as they have point blank refused thus far to make it a printed option.

and the way this board are burning through club and smisa cash we seriously need the breaks put on before we end up having to bale out a massive financial clusterf**k. Remember come rain, hail or shine the chairman has a cast iron agreement to have his shares bought from him at the price he paid!

will they be worth anything like that by then? Its only the smisa members money that is staying in the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I don't think SMISA has an appetite to put it as an option as it "was intended to be spent"

previous votes are suggestive the members will back club related options at just about every turn.

That said, there is nothing to fear by putting a save option on every vote.

As you say, democracy wins. If there is no appetite for it, it won't get the votes. Having the option will shut me up completely about it.

I hope SMISA share your confidence and vote to put the option on.
If grass seed for the Simply Dig arena comes up as an option or something just as ludicrous and wins a quarterly spend vote, if "save" has also been an option, there'll be no bumping of gums from me.

Like I say, more than happy it was an option and likewise if it won a majority vote. 

I just don’t think it’s realistic to say there’s no evidence at all to suggest it wouldn’t be the popular vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

There has never once been an option on the £2 vote to bank the pot. Basil knows this, and its obviously giving him sleepless nights worrying, if it was included as an actual choice, it might be picked. Like i said previously Basil and the Smisa committee share the same fear as they have point blank refused thus far to make it a printed option.

and the way this board are burning through club and smisa cash we seriously need the breaks put on before we end up having to bale out a massive financial clusterf**k. Remember come rain, hail or shine the chairman has a cast iron agreement to have his shares bought from him at the price he paid!

will they be worth anything like that by then? Its only the smisa members money that is staying in the club.

It’s not though is it, yet more spin from you. I have consistently said I have no issue with it being an option and would have no issue if it won. 

I realise the SMISA pot is a very small sum of money (as our accounts show) and however it is spent won’t greatly impact the club. 

Just because my preference is short term spend and save the club money now, does not mean I’m worried about people voting differently for what is more or less pennies in the grand scheme. 

Your gleeful fantasy of a SMISA colapse and ‘clusterf**k’ is so apparent. It’s really quite pathetic someone claiming to be a st Mirren fan so desperate to see the club fail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Like I say, more than happy it was an option and likewise if it won a majority vote. 

I just don’t think it’s realistic to say there’s no evidence at all to suggest it wouldn’t be the popular vote. 

 

Me and you have become St Mirren version of the chuckle brothers with our version of to me, to you on this.

 

Oh yes there is/oh no there's not.....

 

I think it has potential and only by putting it on each and every vote will the intelligence be gathered to demonstrate there is an appetite or not.

 

Going back to my turning tides analogy, if the tide isn't turning. the Spend It Now folks (the SINners) have nothing to fear from its inclusion.

 

to you..... [emoji23]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Graeme Aitken said:

 

 

 

 

 

Me and you have become St Mirren version of the chuckle brothers with our version of to me, to you on this.

 

Oh yes there is/oh no there's not.....

 

I think it has potential and only by putting it on each and every vote will the intelligence be gathered to demonstrate there is an appetite or not.

 

Going back to my turning tides analogy, if the tide isn't turning. the Spend It Now folks (the SINners) have nothing to fear from its inclusion.

 

to you..... emoji23.png

 

Can’t diagre with that haha 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
14 minutes ago, jaybee said:

How Lonnnnnnnnng does it take to stand down,?  Was he on Mount Olympus or somewhere such like as it seem s to be taking a looooooooooooooooooong time to get down?  B)

:) I'm assuming that smilie means your a jesting jaybee.

Read what was written. The headline is misleading1192754741_readcarefully.png.bfd812909094671a9de8b408e5dd8f92.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, stlucifer said:
44 minutes ago, jaybee said:

How Lonnnnnnnnng does it take to stand down,?  Was he on Mount Olympus or somewhere such like as it seem s to be taking a looooooooooooooooooong time to get down?  B)

:) I'm assuming that smilie means your a jesting jaybee.

Read what was written. The headline is misleading1192754741_readcarefully.png.bfd812909094671a9de8b408e5dd8f92.png

Yerrrrrrrrrrrrrs, I was / am / trying to be humorous about a less than entertaining thread. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2018 at 4:08 PM, melmac said:

As the additional funds are essentially surplus, any vote (or all votes rather) should require 75% of all members to vote through something and not a majority of those who vote.

Why? A majority is the best way for this to happen. Listening to the will of the majority people that pay the money. If it required 75% of all members, There pretty much wouldn’t ever be a point in even doing the vote. 

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...