Jump to content

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


HSS
 Share

Recommended Posts


On 11/15/2018 at 2:58 PM, Graeme Aitken said:

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.

I'm confused, is our money going to Bud the Baker and he'll end up owning the club? FFS, he talks shite, we really are in trouble...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, bazil85 said:

As opposed to you who is all for changing process when SMISA haven't done it and completely against it when they have? (even at the determent of vulnerable, elderly members of our community) If ever it's been proven that your viewpoint is due to a personal gripe it has been this last week. 

Yet again, this is how business works. Exceptions to process exists for companies big and small. I can only imagine you have had no direct exposure to implementation of process and procedure in your working life to not understand this. 

Unless I am mistaken, no matter how big or small an organisation is, they should have a process for applying any exception to a process. Not on the whim you appear to be advocating for SMISA.

In my experiences of policy, standard operating procedure (SOP) writing, all exceptions were documented in the draft process and included in the published document. Of course, exceptions can be applied later but a newer version of the policy, sop or process etc gets published too. It just shouldn't happen with "we thought this would be ok to do so done it"

 

Edited by Graeme Aitken
grammar & typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2018 at 8:57 AM, Graeme Aitken said:

Unless I am mistaken, no matter how big or small an organisation is, they should have a process for applying any exception to a process. Not on the whim you appear to be advocating for SMISA.

In my experiences of policy, standard operating procedure (SOP) writing, all exceptions were documented in the draft process and included in the published document. Of course, exceptions can be applied later but a newer version of the policy, sop or process etc gets published too. It just shouldn't happen with "we thought this would be ok to do so done it"

 

This.

as you can see even in the latest vetsion of 'Election Rules' there isnt any reference to the smisa board being able to nominate one of their own to sit on the club board. should there not be a candidate winning the election. Its just all made up as they go along, hence only ONE person (who didnt get a lot of votes the last time) feeling inclined to put their name forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Hence only ONE person (who didnt get a lot of votes the last time) feeling inclined to put their name forward.

Last time was David's to lose, he couldn't have lost if he tried. Myself and David R were basically splitting the need for change voters. The worrying aspect is that only one person stood now. We're now well in to the takeover project and have reached a point where everyone is just "ach, it'll be alright" so nobody can really complain much. Even the recent £500 spend was authorisation via vote instead of the previous donations method, so lessons have been learned. 

The one huge cold sore is covering operatonal spend under various guises. Though, again, the majority vote it through and the £2 pot is further seen as at the club's becon call. I just hope it's all noted down for when the club is actually fan owned, because it'll be the same cycle again with potentially a lot less members paying in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2018 at 8:57 AM, Graeme Aitken said:

Unless I am mistaken, no matter how big or small an organisation is, they should have a process for applying any exception to a process. Not on the whim you appear to be advocating for SMISA.

In my experiences of policy, standard operating procedure (SOP) writing, all exceptions were documented in the draft process and included in the published document. Of course, exceptions can be applied later but a newer version of the policy, sop or process etc gets published too. It just shouldn't happen with "we thought this would be ok to do so done it"

 

Yep completely correct, I'd say though, where are you getting that they haven't followed an exceptions process?

Transparency is one thing but it isn't practical for them to run every single exception and change they make by members all the time. The reason we have a committee is to make these decisions and to aide in the running. The company I work for (fair enough they're a lot bigger than SMISA) has dozens of exceptions a week, same for anyone I have ever worked for. Some that have to be turned around very quickly, some that are worded purely for the purpose that has arisen. Given that we had over 90% member agreement for the £500, dare I say this is complaining for the sake of complaining?

Exceptions will be written into process yeah, again I don't know what level you'd expect us to see what they are? I think a lot of people are forgetting SMISA is still an organisation and is run as such. If you paid a subscription to Tesco or Amazon, would you expect to see all of their processes and procedures? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TsuMirren said:

Last time was David's to lose, he couldn't have lost if he tried. Myself and David R were basically splitting the need for change voters. The worrying aspect is that only one person stood now. We're now well in to the takeover project and have reached a point where everyone is just "ach, it'll be alright" so nobody can really complain much. Even the recent £500 spend was authorisation via vote instead of the previous donations method, so lessons have been learned. 

The one huge cold sore is covering operatonal spend under various guises. Though, again, the majority vote it through and the £2 pot is further seen as at the club's becon call. I just hope it's all noted down for when the club is actually fan owned, because it'll be the same cycle again with potentially a lot less members paying in.

Not sure it can be described as a ‘cold sour’ as you’ve went onto say, that’s the will of the majority. 

I also really struggle to understand why people worry about this after BTB completes. The quarterly money is an absolutely tiny values compared to the money the club generates. We haven’t funded anything that would be make or break for the club if it was a no vote. We were fine for close to 140 years without it, we’ll be fine without it when we’re fan owned. (Also have the added benefit of not having an owner to take a cut of profits like so many other clubs at our level) 

Always presented as a bonus to help out with what we vote for and that hasn’t changed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Yep completely correct, I'd say though, where are you getting that they haven't followed an exceptions process?

Transparency is one thing but it isn't practical for them to run every single exception and change they make by members all the time. The reason we have a committee is to make these decisions and to aide in the running. The company I work for (fair enough they're a lot bigger than SMISA) has dozens of exceptions a week, same for anyone I have ever worked for. Some that have to be turned around very quickly, some that are worded purely for the purpose that has arisen. Given that we had over 90% member agreement for the £500, dare I say this is complaining for the sake of complaining?

Exceptions will be written into process yeah, again I don't know what level you'd expect us to see what they are? I think a lot of people are forgetting SMISA is still an organisation and is run as such. If you paid a subscription to Tesco or Amazon, would you expect to see all of their processes and procedures? 

 

There wasnt 90% member agreement for the £500! Less than half the members bothered to even vote!

and you display the classic lack of understanding many people show in how a CBS/Co-op should be run with absolute transparency. You compare it to a company, which it couldnt be more unlike!

it should be run for and by its members, for the benefit of the community, and its members who, unlike company shareholders are entitled to full disclosure on all its policy, proceedure and process. And it certainly shouldn't be just making it up (.or exceptions as you say) when dealing with one of the most important issues it was set up to achieve, i.e. Voting a club board director.

i get it now why you keep making blindingly crass statements about smisa, and how it operates, you just dont know how these types of organisations should actually function. Well you and most of the committee and club board also!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Not sure it can be described as a ‘cold sour’ as you’ve went onto say, that’s the will of the majority. 

I also really struggle to understand why people worry about this after BTB completes. The quarterly money is an absolutely tiny values compared to the money the club generates. We haven’t funded anything that would be make or break for the club if it was a no vote. We were fine for close to 140 years without it, we’ll be fine without it when we’re fan owned. (Also have the added benefit of not having an owner to take a cut of profits like so many other clubs at our level) 

Always presented as a bonus to help out with what we vote for and that hasn’t changed.  

Nonsense, just utter dripping nonsense. No  £2 pot = No new 4G pitch at Ralston. At the very least SMISA should spend the next 8 years putting away 150K. "A bonus...", so discuss footballs, discuss other operational spend facilitating additional spend on the wage budget and explain the 2K that the club couldn't find for the women's team. 

It was a cold sore because SMISA can't demonstrate that they qualify for community funding. A community benefit society that can't demonstrate community benefit. 

The above is all well beyond your comprehension as your attempts to defend it all fails every time. At least the majority are honest and just don't care. Even Gordon is just doing what he'd naturally do by looking for every commercial advantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

There wasnt 90% member agreement for the £500! Less than half the members bothered to even vote!

and you display the classic lack of understanding many people show in how a CBS/Co-op should be run with absolute transparency. You compare it to a company, which it couldnt be more unlike!

it should be run for and by its members, for the benefit of the community, and its members who, unlike company shareholders are entitled to full disclosure on all its policy, proceedure and process. And it certainly shouldn't be just making it up (.or exceptions as you say) when dealing with one of the most important issues it was set up to achieve, i.e. Voting a club board director.

i get it now why you keep making blindingly crass statements about smisa, and how it operates, you just dont know how these types of organisations should actually function. Well you and most of the committee and club board also!

90%+ voting members approval. We know there are considerable member numbers that are happy just to let things plod along. You’ve tried to use that as evidence things aren’t all well which is baffling to say the least. 

Your next couple of paragraph are garbage as is 90%+ of what you type...  there’s a difference between transparency and publishing full internal processes and procedures. Would you expect to see the process published for dealing with suspected fraudulent DDI claims or member grievances? You really need to have a word with yourself regarding your clear lack of knowledge on this. 

Again why be critical of changing the process for a vote to support the most vulnerable in our society but be all for it when it’s to do with SMISA elections? Completely hypocritical and blatantly changing your view to aligne with a negative view of SMISA. 

I’ll refer to my previous point. With all these votes passing more or less at a canter. Is it fair to say a small (very very small) number of members are trying to hide behind the processes point as a means of being negative? Does anyone genuinely thing the outcome of any vote would be different if we published our full processes (which we absolutely do not need to do) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TsuMirren said:

Nonsense, just utter dripping nonsense. No  £2 pot = No new 4G pitch at Ralston. At the very least SMISA should spend the next 8 years putting away 150K. "A bonus...", so discuss footballs, discuss other operational spend facilitating additional spend on the wage budget and explain the 2K that the club couldn't find for the women's team. 

It was a cold sore because SMISA can't demonstrate that they qualify for community funding. A community benefit society that can't demonstrate community benefit. 

The above is all well beyond your comprehension as your attempts to defend it all fails every time. At least the majority are honest and just don't care. Even Gordon is just doing what he'd naturally do by looking for every commercial advantage. 

4G pitch - club stated they’d fund it another way. Even if they didn’t would the club collapse? 

Do you genuinely think the club was on the brink over the equivalent of less than £3k a month? That’s probably less than one of our top players make. If so, where’s your evidence? How are we coping right now when it’s reduced by £5k? 

You might be of the opinion we should be saving the money but unless you can physically show evidence these tiny sums of money were make or break then I stand by my point. 

Some of us have the opinion we should spend these on short-term costs meaning the club has a bigger budget here and now.

My personal opinion is if the short-term spends that save the club money help keep us and establish us as an SP club over the next few years, that’ll be worth way, way, way more to us than having £150k and being a championship club. 

Two different points, one not any more right than the other. Only difference is the voting members would seem to support my view that short-term benefit is the best right now. 

As for proving the funds regarding community benefit. It’s been well documented that someone blew the whistle and FCA told them where to go. BTB meet all regulatory requirements as has been shared on here many times. 

How you can say I’m wrong and it’s beyond my comprehension when the FCA stance backs me up, I don’t know. I’ll go with the FCA over your opinion though thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Yep completely correct, I'd say though, where are you getting that they haven't followed an exceptions process?

As far as I have read, there is nothing in SMISA's constitution detailing an exception process.

I am more than happy for you to point it out if I have missed it.

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Transparency is one thing but it isn't practical for them to run every single exception and change they make by members all the time.

The exceptions should be published. I'll refer you back to my statement about Policies and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's), having been the author for some used within the NHS (Britains biggest employer (allegedly) and being involved in their implementation, all exceptions are duty bound to be published beforehand.

If SMISA had the exception in their rules / constitution, they wouldn't have to run any exception by the members at any time. You appear to fail to grasp that fact. If it is in the rules beforehand, they then don't need to run any exception past their members. It's already been taken care of.

In this case, it appears SMISA have not "taken care" and have made an exception on a whim. A well intentioned whim but a whim nonetheless, If the company you work for that you've taken great pains to explain, makes regular exceptions, if they are not following due process, could be creating major problems for itself if someone became aggrieved with their action or practices. Exceptions are included in proposals, policies, SOP's etc, for safeguarding said company. I am sure you know this.

Discussing a wish for SMISA to be consistent and transparent is not complaining for complaining's sake, it is a desire to see an organisation I am investing in, behave and act in an appropriate manner, within the bounds of their operational capabilities and not appear to make things up as they go along.

and here we are again Bazil, the wheel has made another full revolution and you churn the same old same old out

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

90%+ voting members approval. We know there are considerable member numbers that are happy just to let things plod along.

Your view seems to be that those who are not prepared to just plod along are complaining for the sake of complaining or just plain critical of SMISA for the sake of it. You couldn't be further from the truth but I have no confidence you will ever understand as you are fixed on the here and now and seem to think, looking to the future being a bad thing as it doesn't align with yours and SMISA thoughts to 'spend it all now'

The wheel starts to go round again,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Graeme Aitken said:

As far as I have read, there is nothing in SMISA's constitution detailing an exception process.

I am more than happy for you to point it out if I have missed it.

The exceptions should be published. I'll refer you back to my statement about Policies and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's), having been the author for some used within the NHS (Britains biggest employer (allegedly) and being involved in their implementation, all exceptions are duty bound to be published beforehand.

If SMISA had the exception in their rules / constitution, they wouldn't have to run any exception by the members at any time. You appear to fail to grasp that fact. If it is in the rules beforehand, they then don't need to run any exception past their members. It's already been taken care of.

In this case, it appears SMISA have not "taken care" and have made an exception on a whim. A well intentioned whim but a whim nonetheless, If the company you work for that you've taken great pains to explain, makes regular exceptions, if they are not following due process, could be creating major problems for itself if someone became aggrieved with their action or practices. Exceptions are included in proposals, policies, SOP's etc, for safeguarding said company. I am sure you know this.

Discussing a wish for SMISA to be consistent and transparent is not complaining for complaining's sake, it is a desire to see an organisation I am investing in, behave and act in an appropriate manner, within the bounds of their operational capabilities and not appear to make things up as they go along.

and here we are again Bazil, the wheel has made another full revolution and you churn the same old same old out

Your view seems to be that those who are not prepared to just plod along are complaining for the sake of complaining or just plain critical of SMISA for the sake of it. You couldn't be further from the truth but I have no confidence you will ever understand as you are fixed on the here and now and seem to think, looking to the future being a bad thing as it doesn't align with yours and SMISA thoughts to 'spend it all now'

The wheel starts to go round again,

Exceptions process are part of all businesses and financial dealing. If anyone genuinely thinks SMISA have done anything wrong in not publishing every aspect of their internal processes and procedures, I would encourage them to follow the FCA whistleblower process as I did with Mr D. I’m equally confident you’ll get the same ‘no wrongdoing response’ 

people know that processes and procedures have different categorisations right? Public, internal, confidential and secret to name them. 

Do the NHS publish all of their internal, confidential and secret processes and procedures? I’d very much doubt that, I’d do it would be a massive breach and likely in the papers. 

I work in a compliance and conduct risk role for a large financial institution. I see no wrongdoing here at all and dare I say it, a lot of sour grapes. If you don’t believe anything I’m saying, as above FCA is where to go. 

Yep here we are again. I make no apologise for defending SMISA or SMFC against people claiming regulatory wrongdoing. I was right the last time when people were saying ‘club benefits are illegal’ and I’d wager I was right this time as well. 

Ive said many times, I have no issue with people having a different opinion from me but when they question the team I support and associate it with breaking binding regulation without evidence. I’m pretty much against that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bazil,

I found this of interest in the constitution.

 

Quote

 

26. The members may by a resolution carried by not less than two-thirds of the members voting

in person or by proxy at a general meeting but not otherwise give directions to the Society

Board. A member wishing to propose a members’ resolution for consideration at a general

meeting shall give notice in writing to the Secretary of such wish, and of the justification for,

form and content of the resolution, not later than noon 28 days before that meeting is to be

held. The following provisions apply to any directions given:

 

Lets put it to the test.

Interestingly, I popped into the official site for a wee nosey and found, there's a couple of SMISA members thinking similarly to me about saving the money too. I'll refer back to a previous comment about a change in tides.

 

I'll propose it to SMISA, as a members resolution for

  • This quarterly pot is saved (fully) for when the buds is bought

is included as an option on every £2 pot vote.

 

The members who favour club centric options will have that option, the members who favour community options will have that option and the members who favour saving the pot will have that option. Obviously based on 2/3rds of the members voting approval.

We can then shut up about it as if it is approved or not, it will be the wishes of at least 2/3rds of the members voting to approve or not. Happy Days.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

Bazil,

I found this of interest in the constitution.

 

Lets put it to the test.

Interestingly, I popped into the official site for a wee nosey and found, there's a couple of SMISA members thinking similarly to me about saving the money too. I'll refer back to a previous comment about a change in tides.

 

I'll propose it to SMISA, as a members resolution for

  • This quarterly pot is saved (fully) for when the buds is bought

is included as an option on every £2 pot vote.

 

The members who favour club centric options will have that option, the members who favour community options will have that option and the members who favour saving the pot will have that option. Obviously based on 2/3rds of the members voting approval.

We can then shut up about it as if it is approved or not, it will be the wishes of at least 2/3rds of the members voting to approve or not. Happy Days.

 

 

Fill your boots, I have absolutely no issue with this being an option on every vote and would be perfectly happy if that was the way members vote. It wouldn't get my vote but as I have said many times, I have no issue with people having a different opinion from me. 

I do standby my comments that I would be very surprised if it did take enough votes to win any lot. Out of all the votes we've had, I haven't seen an appetite for it but will put my hands up if wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fill your boots, I have absolutely no issue with this being an option on every vote and would be perfectly happy if that was the way members vote. It wouldn't get my vote but as I have said many times, I have no issue with people having a different opinion from me. 
I do standby my comments that I would be very surprised if it did take enough votes to win any lot. Out of all the votes we've had, I haven't seen an appetite for it but will put my hands up if wrong. 
I hope I am right and you are wrong 🤣
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

90%+ voting members approval. We know there are considerable member numbers that are happy just to let things plod along. You’ve tried to use that as evidence things aren’t all well which is baffling to say the least. 

Your next couple of paragraph are garbage as is 90%+ of what you type...  there’s a difference between transparency and publishing full internal processes and procedures. Would you expect to see the process published for dealing with suspected fraudulent DDI claims or member grievances? You really need to have a word with yourself regarding your clear lack of knowledge on this. 

Again why be critical of changing the process for a vote to support the most vulnerable in our society but be all for it when it’s to do with SMISA elections? Completely hypocritical and blatantly changing your view to aligne with a negative view of SMISA. 

I’ll refer to my previous point. With all these votes passing more or less at a canter. Is it fair to say a small (very very small) number of members are trying to hide behind the processes point as a means of being negative? Does anyone genuinely thing the outcome of any vote would be different if we published our full processes (which we absolutely do not need to do) 

 

Listen I know now you do not have a clue how a Com/Ben or Co-op is legally bound to operate. Smisa is supposed to be run by and for its members and the community. It HAS by law to make all its policy and procedure, transparent and available to its members. The process or proceedure for dealing with everything has to be published!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Graeme Aitken said:

I hope I am right and you are wrong

My belief is club benefits will still win. I know the community option ran it close last time and might see that happen more but if history tells us anything it’ll still be club benefit. We’ve had other ‘save’ options in the past that haven’t won so that’s pretty much my basis. 

If im wrong and it does win, I’ll hold my hands up. I’m not one for rubbing it in someone’s face though, don’t worry haha 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Listen I know now you do not have a clue how a Com/Ben or Co-op is legally bound to operate. Smisa is supposed to be run by and for its members and the community. It HAS by law to make all its policy and procedure, transparent and available to its members. The process or proceedure for dealing with everything has to be published!

Keep digging yourself that hole. I’ll wait for the FCA to confirm me right and you wrong yet again. 

I said in the previous post, I absolutely wouldn’t mind if I turn out to be wrong regarding members wanting to save the money.

I very much enjoyed the FCA telling Mr D (his opinion that you shared) that he was wrong and i’ll Enjoy it this time as well. 

I’m very sure I have more experience in regulatory compliance and conduct than yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

4G pitch - club stated they’d fund it another way. Even if they didn’t would the club collapse? 

Do you genuinely think the club was on the brink over the equivalent of less than £3k a month? That’s probably less than one of our top players make. If so, where’s your evidence? How are we coping right now when it’s reduced by £5k? 

You might be of the opinion we should be saving the money but unless you can physically show evidence these tiny sums of money were make or break then I stand by my point. 

Some of us have the opinion we should spend these on short-term costs meaning the club has a bigger budget here and now.

My personal opinion is if the short-term spends that save the club money help keep us and establish us as an SP club over the next few years, that’ll be worth way, way, way more to us than having £150k and being a championship club. 

Two different points, one not any more right than the other. Only difference is the voting members would seem to support my view that short-term benefit is the best right now. 

As for proving the funds regarding community benefit. It’s been well documented that someone blew the whistle and FCA told them where to go. BTB meet all regulatory requirements as has been shared on here many times. 

How you can say I’m wrong and it’s beyond my comprehension when the FCA stance backs me up, I don’t know. I’ll go with the FCA over your opinion though thanks. 

Yup, as I was saying. FSA took nothing to do with the accusations. All that was covered at the time, you chose to ignore fact yet again. I said they can't demonstrate that they qualify for community funding, also a fact. 

Meanwhile, you're having a one man debate about the club collapsing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Keep digging yourself that hole. I’ll wait for the FCA to confirm me right and you wrong yet again. 

I said in the previous post, I absolutely wouldn’t mind if I turn out to be wrong regarding members wanting to save the money.

I very much enjoyed the FCA telling Mr D (his opinion that you shared) that he was wrong and i’ll Enjoy it this time as well. 

I’m very sure I have more experience in regulatory compliance and conduct than yourself. 

What the hell are you on about man? Do you think if you keep saying this stuff inside your head it will actually become the truth?

you have demonstrated time and again you do not have a clue how an organisation like smisa should work, and do so in the legal framework set up by govt to ensure transparency, but also to ensure that if you create a Community Benefit Society, you will be called upon to demonstrate how it has, and will continue to add value to the community.

all its policy and procedures should be transparent and available to all its members. There are NO exceptions to that. Do yourself a favour and actually do at least some research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

What the hell are you on about man? Do you think if you keep saying this stuff inside your head it will actually become the truth?

you have demonstrated time and again you do not have a clue how an organisation like smisa should work, and do so in the legal framework set up by govt to ensure transparency, but also to ensure that if you create a Community Benefit Society, you will be called upon to demonstrate how it has, and will continue to add value to the community.

all its policy and procedures should be transparent and available to all its members. There are NO exceptions to that. Do yourself a favour and actually do at least some research.

You have kept on at this for the best part of two years. Even when certain facts have been brought to your attention (many times) 

- whistleblowing process was followed and the FCA came back saying they had no concerns 

- Community benefit criteria is met both directly and indirectly in the support for SMFC. This is further substantiated that no SMISA committee member profits from member donations 

- you have not been able to provide a shred of evidence that SMISA are committing illegal activity. 

Now you show an almost comical lack of knowledge regarding process and procedural documentation and completely deny the existing of internal, confidential and secret procedural policy. These are process not made public to protect the integrity of said documents. 

All of which makes it completely clear that you’re gutted BTB is looking like it’ll succeed so you sit and try to make up negativity to hamper the deal and club you ‘support’ you hide behind your fairytale world where ‘tides are turning’ because you’re clearly raging that all your bluster is not stopping this deal.

I’m afraid you’ll just have to accept, your fantasy of stopping SMISA ain’t happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You have kept on at this for the best part of two years. Even when certain facts have been brought to your attention (many times) 

- whistleblowing process was followed and the FCA came back saying they had no concerns 

- Community benefit criteria is met both directly and indirectly in the support for SMFC. This is further substantiated that no SMISA committee member profits from member donations 

- you have not been able to provide a shred of evidence that SMISA are committing illegal activity. 

Now you show an almost comical lack of knowledge regarding process and procedural documentation and completely deny the existing of internal, confidential and secret procedural policy. These are process not made public to protect the integrity of said documents. 

All of which makes it completely clear that you’re gutted BTB is looking like it’ll succeed so you sit and try to make up negativity to hamper the deal and club you ‘support’ you hide behind your fairytale world where ‘tides are turning’ because you’re clearly raging that all your bluster is not stopping this deal.

I’m afraid you’ll just have to accept, your fantasy of stopping SMISA ain’t happening. 

Re, your second line! If by "whistleblowing process" you are referring to Dicko's ill fated attempt to get his subs back then once more you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about! Dicko did not inact the FCA's whistleblowers process, he made a personal complaint, and was re-directed to the supposedly independent arbitrator Supporters Direct.

the whistleblower process is for an issue, or issues that affect all or the vast majority of members. Not individual grievances.

the rest of your post is the usual inane drivel

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...