Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
HSS

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

Recommended Posts


12 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Yawn...

the valid question given the membership are being given no option, no choice is were there any others that applied, and if so, on what grounds were they deemed unacceptable?

I am sure the majority of Smisa members would want to know if there is/was anyone else, they! As the membership may want to consider to be their representative on the board.

you dont like this democracy thing do you? Scweaming fir a new vot because you didnt like the last one, and wanting to keep,it hushed if smisa are keeping info on potential candidates from the membership.

still i suppose it very possible no one else wanted anything to do with them, save David R, hence the growing apathy towards the whole set up, and its warped decision making.

So wait you’re saying we SHOULD change process regarding SMISA director eligibility and that’s a valid reason. but being in a position to donate money to a charitable cause that helps some of the communities most vulnerable is not worthy of a process change even when it still follows a democratic vote? (That won overwhelmingly by the way) Pathetic as usual.

I voted for the goals which won. What has been pointed out to you many times,  club benefits remain king. Just because an overwhelming number of people aren’t completely heartless in donating money to a good cause does not mean that view will change. 

Again it’s amazing how long you’re holding onto the blatant contradiction ‘SMISA is geered to only SMFC benefits’ ‘SMISA wanted the community option to win and are embarrassed’  

How do you know SMISA are withholding the information? Have you emailed to ask? When a business hires a new person or appoints a new CEO do they announce all the applicants that didn’t meet the criteria? You’re just making stuff up as usual to struggle to remain negative after all your pre-mentioned (wrong) assumptions haven’t come to pass. 

Share this post


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


BAZILLLL

It ain’t me, don’t worry. I’m not sure who the guy is but I wish him well if he gets in (which I imagine he will) 

He’ll have the backing of over 1,200 paying members though, don’t let LPM taking 3-5 commenters on here as a sign for ‘growing apathy’ for a deal that is over 30% ahead of target :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

It ain’t me, don’t worry. I’m not sure who the guy is but I wish him well if he gets in (which I imagine he will) 

He’ll have the backing of over 1,200 paying members though, don’t let LPM taking 3-5 commenters on here as a sign for ‘growing apathy’ for a deal that is over 30% ahead of target :rolleyes:

I know it ain't you, I have read the guys statement, watched the video and voted accordingly.

I doubt though that he will get 1200 or so votes as backing as SMiSA votes rarely get more than around 60% participation. (Apathy)

I wonder if there is a minimum level required for a vote to count though for this, can not see in the election rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, alanb said:

I know it ain't you, I have read the guys statement, watched the video and voted accordingly.

I doubt though that he will get 1200 or so votes as backing as SMiSA votes rarely get more than around 60% participation. (Apathy)

I wonder if there is a minimum level required for a vote to count though for this, can not see in the election rules.

Minimum should be 51percent of members

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, alanb said:

I know it ain't you, I have read the guys statement, watched the video and voted accordingly.

I doubt though that he will get 1200 or so votes as backing as SMiSA votes rarely get more than around 60% participation. (Apathy)

I wonder if there is a minimum level required for a vote to count though for this, can not see in the election rules.

It appears, even if the vote was no. SMISA can parachute him in to the SMFC Board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, alanb said:


Looks like he was the only one who gained enough backing of 10 seconds or proposers.

without being told how many applied and why they were deemed not eligible will we ever know?

I don't recall anyone posting on here, or anywhere else (I recall Tsumirren posting  last time canvassing support for his nomination & I think the other fella did too) trying to drum up any support, that is a wee bit surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know David and would say he's a decent guy who has supported St. Mirren through thick and thin and has the interests of the club at heart.
Not sure why he's putting himself through this and the 2 years that follow though...

Share this post


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

So wait you’re saying we SHOULD change process regarding SMISA director eligibility

when an employer puts out a job advert and gets little or no interest, they often review their job description or eligibility criteria and make appropriate adjustments and re-advertise to try secure more applicants and increase the talent pool to choose from.

It appears to me, when the cap fits, SMISA is more than willing to reconsider its rules/processes but they hide behind "this is the rules/process" when it suits and they want to maintain a fixed position..

Consistency isn't too much to ask.

  1. SMISA refuse to budge on adding "save the pot" to the quarterly vote because "it was always intended to be spent" (that is a direct quote) despite a change in St Mirren FC's financial position, increased revenue and incoming transfer fees etc.
  2. I seem to recall, SMISA refused to consider part funding an unsuccessful option on a previous vote because the vote opted for something else (I am sure someone will be able to fill in the blanks there)
  3. SMISA now decide to add a yes/no vote on the Christmas meal after it came 2nd to goalposts. (I refer you to number 2 (& ask SMISA. Make up your minds and not just when the cap fits). it is well documented on this thread, I support SMISA being involved in this but be I wish SMISA would be consistent.
  4. SMISA deems only David Riley as the only suitable applicant for the SMISA/St Mirren Board member vote but fails to even consider re-advertising and casting the net again.

Bazil, to save you the bother, this post is not about saving the pot but about SMISA changing things when it suits and lack of transparency. We've done the "Save pot" to death.

Edited by Graeme Aitken
typo

Share this post


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

I know David and would say he's a decent guy who has supported St. Mirren through thick and thin and has the interests of the club at heart.
Not sure why he's putting himself through this and the 2 years that follow though...

It appears a bolt on that he will become the SMISA rep on the Trust board. As such, his primary role is to represent the SMISA membership as well as club interests. I wish him well in this adventure

Edited by Graeme Aitken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, waldorf34 said:

Minimum should be 51percent of members

And here is the main issue of apathy running rampant, due to Smisa's intransigence, allowing the club to rifle ring fenced funds, and refusing to put forward members suggestions for the £2 spend.

in the £500 embarrassment/shame vote on the xmas dinner ss than half smisa members actually voted. We could see even less on this director vote. If thats not the beginning of the end i dont know what is.

Share this post


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

And here is the main issue of apathy running rampant, due to Smisa's intransigence, allowing the club to rifle ring fenced funds, and refusing to put forward members suggestions for the £2 spend.

in the £500 embarrassment/shame vote on the xmas dinner ss than half smisa members actually voted. We could see even less on this director vote. If thats not the beginning of the end i dont know what is.

I think there's a few  SMISA members who've bought into the ideology of fan ownership and are happy to part with their contribution but not too bothered about the ins and outs.

At the outset, I expected to cough up my £12 per month and that would be it. Then the quarterly votes started coming and I got to thinking "hold on a minute". That said, I think it's more than likely, folk just aren't as bothered about how the whole BTB initiative goes and they are content seeing their bit being paid each month. I respect that choice.

That may go towards explaining a perceived apathy as I don't think a low turnout for any of these votes could be heralded as a beginning of an end. More likely, folk aren't fussed one way or the other. The only things that will jeopardise BTB is, the ring fenced money gets raided again and SMISA cannot conclude the deal to BTB within the agreed timeframe.

That's really when the fun starts. If we think it is carnage now, it'll be mental when SMISA is the majority shareholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here is the main issue of apathy running rampant, due to Smisa's intransigence, allowing the club to rifle ring fenced funds, and refusing to put forward members suggestions for the £2 spend.
in the £500 embarrassment/shame vote on the xmas dinner ss than half smisa members actually voted. We could see even less on this director vote. If thats not the beginning of the end i dont know what is.
You don't know what's the beginning of the end.

FFS. You, yes YOU started a thread 5 months ago stating it had ended.

https://www.blackandwhitearmy.com/forums/applications/tapatalk/index.php?/topic/45177-SMISA-no-more...

Was that about the time you first stated your intentions of leaving SMISA, or was it the 2nd or 3rd time?

Share this post


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

I know it ain't you, I have read the guys statement, watched the video and voted accordingly.

I doubt though that he will get 1200 or so votes as backing as SMiSA votes rarely get more than around 60% participation. (Apathy)

I wonder if there is a minimum level required for a vote to count though for this, can not see in the election rules.

There isn’t and nor should their be for something at this level. SMISA members have the right to vote or right not to vote. A lot (probably even a majority) only really care about the end result and don’t bother voting or give voting little thought. That’s everyone’s right, can’t force people to vote by potentially saying ‘if you don’t the outcome might not count for the people that do engage’ 

this is the reality that LPM can’t stomach, that’s why he makes stuff up about ‘growing apathy’ 

 can see voting numbers being low but I can also see a significant percentage of people that do vote, voting yes. 

Share this post


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

It appears, even if the vote was no. SMISA can parachute him in to the SMFC Board.

They potentially could within process but it would never likely happen because of the backlash. Will be a moot point IMO because I do feel he’ll win comfortably 

Share this post


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

when an employer puts out a job advert and gets little or no interest, they often review their job description or eligibility criteria and make appropriate adjustments and re-advertise to try secure more applicants and increase the talent pool to choose from.

It appears to me, when the cap fits, SMISA is more than willing to reconsider its rules/processes but they hide behind "this is the rules/process" when it suits and they want to maintain a fixed position..

Consistency isn't too much to ask.

  1. SMISA refuse to budge on adding "save the pot" to the quarterly vote because "it was always intended to be spent" (that is a direct quote) despite a change in St Mirren FC's financial position, increased revenue and incoming transfer fees etc.
  2. I seem to recall, SMISA refused to consider part funding an unsuccessful option on a previous vote because the vote opted for something else (I am sure someone will be able to fill in the blanks there)
  3. SMISA now decide to add a yes/no vote on the Christmas meal after it came 2nd to goalposts. (I refer you to number 2 (& ask SMISA. Make up your minds and not just when the cap fits). it is well documented on this thread, I support SMISA being involved in this but be I wish SMISA would be consistent.
  4. SMISA deems only David Riley as the only suitable applicant for the SMISA/St Mirren Board member vote but fails to even consider re-advertising and casting the net again.

Bazil, to save you the bother, this post is not about saving the pot but about SMISA changing things when it suits and lack of transparency. We've done the "Save pot" to death.

I feel taking a sentence out my post and putting it in isolation isn’t all that fair. To clarify I would be absolutely fine if they decided to change something (within reasonable grounds) due to only one applicant. 

My point was the embarrassing view LPM holds that we should consider changing in this circumstance but not in a circumstance where we can help a group of vulnerable people in our community. 

As for your points 

1. It’s clear there is no appetite for this, no point diluting the vote further when it’s proven time and time again club benefits are king 

2. Not sure what that was but the reasoning that the vote was so close this time and excess cash was available is good enough for me. Possibly not others 

3. Again referring to point two, cases in isolation. Anyone that thinks and scheme, company or charity for that matter can run with zero exceptions to rules has either never had exposure to how business actually works or lives in an idealistic world. Consistency is not only not always possible, it often makes thinks unfairer instead of fairer 

4. Yeah possibly true, why is that a bad thing? If we didn’t get suitable applicants this time, why would we when we extent? There’s nothing that says they need to do that. My previous point about other companies not posting ineligible candidate details also stands up here. 

I know the post is about transparency and sticking to process. I don’t really see any part of this where I would expect more transparency, feel free to share where we should. And hopefully I’ve explained a reasonable opinion of mine on the disadvantages of completely stringent, unmoving process 

Share this post


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

And here is the main issue of apathy running rampant, due to Smisa's intransigence, allowing the club to rifle ring fenced funds, and refusing to put forward members suggestions for the £2 spend.

in the £500 embarrassment/shame vote on the xmas dinner ss than half smisa members actually voted. We could see even less on this director vote. If thats not the beginning of the end i dont know what is.

Your relentless with this really knows no bounds does it? I’ll Sit patiently and wait for your evidence that the above being the reason a considerable number of people aren’t voting... 

Noticed a complete side step of the ‘GLS controls all and wants all money to go to SMFC’ ‘SMISA embarrassed money didn’t go to the community’ contradiction. 

Share this post


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

I feel taking a sentence out my post and putting it in isolation isn’t all that fair.

isn't fair?

I took that sentence out as that was the only part of your post that I was referring to. Hope that clears it up for you.

On the other thread, we quoted and counter quoted each other and it got a wee bit ridiculous with the lengths of the posts. Other folk stop contributing when they are reading the same old drivel time and again because folk are quoting each other then requoting. I learned from that.

It becomes tedious trying to sift through and determining what are new points in a discussion and what is old. So, my point was about reviewing eligibility criteria for changing process as that was the point of discussion. The rest of your post was of not being replied to.

Edited by Graeme Aitken
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

isn't fair?

I took that sentence out as that was the only part of your post that I was referring to. Hope that clears it up for you.

On the other thread, we quoted and counter quoted each other and it got a wee bit ridiculous with the lengths of the posts. Other folk stop contributing when they are reading the same old drivel time and again because folk are quoting each other then requoting. I learned from that, it becomes tedious trying to sift through and determining what are new points in a discussion and what is old.

So, my point was about reviewing eligibility criteria for changing process as that was the point of discussion. The rest of your post was of not being replied to

If you looked at the sentences after it, you would see I wasn't making any sort of reference to us categorically not looking at other options or changing process regarding who gets appointed. The sentence refereed only to a shocking POV from LPM. 

I agree but that's more or less what football forums are. If everyone had the same opinion they wouldn't be a thing. 

Back to the point though, I would be fine with SMISA if they decided to change the process in this circumstances as long as it was fair and democratic. I would also be fine (and it would be my preference) with them keeping as is. Again the sentence you quotes was only to highlight a blatant contradiction. 

Share this post


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

If you looked at the sentences after it, you would see I wasn't making any sort of reference to us categorically not looking at other options or changing process regarding who gets appointed. The sentence refereed only to a shocking POV from LPM. 

I agree but that's more or less what football forums are. If everyone had the same opinion they wouldn't be a thing. 

Back to the point though, I would be fine with SMISA if they decided to change the process in this circumstances as long as it was fair and democratic. I would also be fine (and it would be my preference) with them keeping as is. Again the sentence you quotes was only to highlight a blatant contradiction. 

Happy to stick with the salient points.

How's your day? Good I hope

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...