Empowering the SMISA Membership to begin building for the future now.

[bazil85]

7 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Re the bit in bold, are we talking midweek or weekend posters? Baz has got some facts to dispute you somewhere!

Why won't you answer my questions? Is it because you'd have to agree with me? 

Q1 Are crowds influenced with weekday vs Weekend fixtures?

Q2 Are crowds influenced by perceived importance of the fixture to fans?

Have a wee think on them, look over my examples, then if you want give me informed answers. 

[Lord Pityme]

Here's one to rock your world Baz!

instead of patronising st mirren fans be continually 'telling' them why they are chosing not to attend bigot club games at SMFC, when the families and children have been kicked out of their stand.

try asking them why..! You may become enlightened, though i think we all know you'll just waffle on, even in the face of direct evidence.

[bazil85]

19 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Re the bit in bold, are we talking midweek or weekend posters? Baz has got some facts to dispute you somewhere!

Saturday 20^th October Kilmarnock crowd 5,889

Wednesday 31^st October Motherwell crowd 4,001

Crowd down 1,888

Sunday 27^th January Hibs crowd 5,650

Wednesday 6^th February Motherwell crowd 4,383

Crowd down 1,267

Wonder just how much evidence it will take for you to accept that mid-week fixtures have an impact on crowd numbers...

[Iamhammer]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 

Celtic didn't sell out both stands for that game, not sure what you're getting at here. 

 

 

Yes they did, their ticket sales website showed it as sold out a week before the game was played

[bazil85]

10 minutes ago, Iamhammer said:

Yes they did, their ticket sales website showed it as sold out a week before the game was played

There were a number of empty seats in the corners and at the front of the family stand from what I could see but fair enough if that's what it said. 

[Lord Pityme]

35 minutes ago, Iamhammer said:

Yes they did, their ticket sales website showed it as sold out a week before the game was played

Not if Baz says its a fact otherwise.

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Not if Baz says its a fact otherwise.

Do you ever read messages before making ridiculous claims? 

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

Do you know what the irony is Oak? I actually think we likely have very similar views on this. Why you have aligned with others and seem to be going for my posts is beyond me. Some examples below:

Look we can all agree or disagree about this but can we all PLEASE stop trying to push this utter shite argument.

It is not going to be anywhere NEAR enough for two players - possibly not even one.

My initial point was on one stand vs two. I know you didn't think this was appropriate (or the case) but I actually fully agree with you that comparing W6/7 to two stands is just about (over) one player. Would stand to reason my comparison of one stand vs two would therefore be accurate in roughly two players. I even went onto do the calculations of W6/7 vs two stands and it's consistent with the 'possibly not even one' It comes in just over (very reserved figures) 

When we were last in the top flight we averaged 6300 or so for OF home games.

This season we averaged about 6800.

I have no idea where you are getting this extra 1200 fans from.

Again I did clarify it was two stands vs one and even sent a screenshot of my first message to prove this. Fair enough you didn't think I should have done that comparison but it was completely transparent. Your crowd quotes though seem to be in line with an increased in crowd numbers which is literally my point (we aren't seeing a drop off, we do make money off this) 

And that is why your figures are so far out. You are making a mistake with your assertion above because the differential was being used to justify the change from giving them W6 and W7 to giving them the family stand. There is no way that the difference between those two situations is two players. It's obviously not and it's disengenious to claim that we are getting that advantage.

Again seems to be aligned views, just looking at the difference between one vs two and w6/7 vs two. 

I do run my own business but I purposely don't hire employees so I can't tell you the answer to that but I suspect you are right. You have to remember though that an employer will need to pay employers NI, sick pay, holiday pay and f**king pension contributions as well (don’t get me started on this nonsense) so it's not as clean cut as you would think.

Early on people were saying about tax, looks again like we agree. Point about all the other stuff is completely fair, never denied it

I understand where you are coming from but you are not asking WHY the gates have gone up which means you have no way of knowing whether it's a temporary high blip or not.

Could be a blip, never said otherwise and I have never tried to predict the future. Again agreement 

'll even help you out a wee bit basil.

One of the prime reasons we have such high crowds this season is because we have sold significantly (record?) numbers of season tickets off the back of the joy from the end of last season. We have, to my recollection, never had such optimism before the start of a new season.

In addition, Hearts were pushing top of the league at one point, as were Killie and Aberdeen. Hibs were even doing well at one point. Add in more OF fans because Rangers have actually competed well this season and so both clubs have seen an upturn in interest and then finally throw in some relegation battles between the likes of us and Dundee and it's obvious where a lot of the increase has come from.

All relevant points I fully agree with, but again the point is, are we seeing a reduction in SMFC fans wanting to go to games because of the arrangement? Seems like you are in agreement that isn't the case given the 'optimism' from the situation. I think it's clear the positives for this season outstrip the negatives and that's evidenced in crowds not being down. For OF games or otherwise. 

If you had debated in this manner 20 pages ago we would quite possibly have got somewhere.

That's how long it has taken you to demonstrate that you have actually read my arguments and given them due credit.

You have had to have this dragged out of you and you do it on every thread you post on.

At least in this instance something worthwhile has perhaps been salvaged.

Edited April 15, 2019 by oaksoft

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

If you had debated in this manner 20 pages ago we would quite possibly have got somewhere.

That's how long it has taken you to demonstrate that you have actually read my arguments and given them due credit.

You have had to have this dragged out of you and you do it on every thread you post on.

At least in this instance something worthwhile has perhaps been salvaged.

My point is more your apparent siding on this one, it’s strange to me. I can sense a pride thing to admit their errors from a number of posters but like I say, for yourself, it seems like arguing on consensus... 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Take your paragraphs one at a time. 
1 & 2.  The away crowd stats aren't available for a lot of our games. I have evidenced we had more away fans for Celtic than we did for Killie (both weekday fixtures) we also had more in one mid-week Celtic game than a recent Saturday home game against Livi. My point is some figures are available, others are not. I don't necessarily need to see evidence, a high level explanation of how it is possible to have record crowds, season ticket sales, no clear dip in fans yet still not make decent money (based on away fans and ticket prices) would be enough. I don't think it could be provided (again I don't need the fact, I doubt they exist tbh).
3. Without numbers it is speculation correct, however we have some of the numbers which I have evidenced. I have also made some massively reserved calculations on crowds and income. My point here is common sense should prevail. If people still disagree, I simply ask what's their basis for that? Do they think my figures aren't reserved enough? Do they think the Motherwell away crowd was way lower than my estimate? Do they think GLS and SMFC are lying about attendances?
4. Again, I'm not looking for people to be proven right or wrong, just an explanation of how they arrived at it. It is a discussion forum after all. No one has been willing to provide reasoning yet. 
5. Where have I painted opinion as fact? I have stated where details are known and clearly referenced where it is estimates. 
6. I think it is based on likelihood, absolutely. Is this maybe peoples issue here? They aren't willing to admit my information is all very likely? Some people seem to proud to admit this and choose instead to twist my words as if I'm stating everything as fact, something I have never claimed. 

Well now that you've explained that celtic bring a bigger support than Livingston, that's me convinced 🤣

[Guest TPAFKATS]

If one of you wants to answer my question on how higher crowds (much), record season ticket sales & no clear evidence of a drop in attendances at these games can result in a scenario where my income calculations are wildly over exaggerated i’ll Leave this thread. No one has done. 
This isn’t about right/ wrong, opinion or anything else. I’m simply asking how people in light of the discussion can hold that view. It’s strange that roughly half a dozen people won’t answer that. 

Do you not see that your point about increased season ticket sales and larger average home supports together with the point that our home crowds are down for games against old firm doesn't necessarily support your argument.

[waldorf34]

The bottom line is ,the club should be doing more to get Saints fans through the door for old firm games instead of handing over a stand, if we do not include this "additional "funds at the start of the season,it might mean we do not sign a couple of duds to make up the numbers!

[bazil85]

The point is on the home crowds for this one but don’t let that get in the way of a good story. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

If one of you wants to answer my question on how higher crowds (much), record season ticket sales & no clear evidence of a drop in attendances at these games can result in a scenario where my income calculations are wildly over exaggerated i’ll Leave this thread. No one has done. 
This isn’t about right/ wrong, opinion or anything else. I’m simply asking how people in light of the discussion can hold that view. It’s strange that roughly half a dozen people won’t answer that. 

Do you not see that your point about increased season ticket sales and larger average home supports together with the point that our home crowds are down for games against old firm doesn't necessarily support your argument.

My argument is that we make good money off this arrangement (estimated figures provided) and that there isn’t considerable drop off in St Mirren fans attending these games. 

[bazil85]

48 minutes ago, waldorf34 said:

The bottom line is ,the club should be doing more to get Saints fans through the door for old firm games instead of handing over a stand, if we do not include this "additional "funds at the start of the season,it might mean we do not sign a couple of duds to make up the numbers!

Agreed, this should be the long-term plan but until we’re regularly filling our stands for the majority of games there is still justification in this. 

It could be a couple of duds, it could easily have been the difference in getting Popescu and hladky over the line though. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. 

[BuddieinEK]

Agreed, this should be the long-term plan but until we’re regularly filling our stands for the majority of games there is still justification in this. 

It could be a couple of duds, it could easily have been the difference in getting Popescu and hladky over the line though. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. 

Long term?

 

It should have been plan A!

 

Our starting point.

 

Hell... Failing to build upon the incredible positivity... The strongest unity at the club since the days of Fergies Furies... Failing to build upon that was nothing short of criminal neglect!

 

They took the easy money and the easy option.

 

You say long term... HOW long term are you planning?

 

I reckon we were best placed in around four decades! You happy to wait four more?

 

MAKE the magic happen... Don't wait for it!

 

We missed a huge opportunity but hey... You are happy at displaced home fans, the cancellation of Saints youth facilities, and the potential loss of future support as we got enough money to buy three quarters of a Kellerman!

 

Yippee! Go you!

 

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

My point is more your apparent siding on this one, it’s strange to me. I can sense a pride thing to admit their errors from a number of posters but like I say, for yourself, it seems like arguing on consensus... 

We clearly don't have consensus. The point was that we could have started with an interesting debate about whether the experiment of moving the OF to the family stand worked followed by what we should now do.

It should have been done in that order - assessment of experiment and THEN a discussion about what next.

Your stubborn determination to put the cart before the horse combined with a ridiculous and unnecessary level of defensiveness has alienated everyone and cost you the debate.

[Kombibuddie]

In 4 years time, SMISA will have the funds in place to be in a position to complete the purchase of St Mirren FC "within 10 years" of the BTB project.

Whilst I appreciate the reasons why 2 stands are given, I don't agree.

Not when clubs in the division with considerably less average attendances can continually outperform St Mirren in the league.

More money does not guarantee success, as we are demonstrating right now.

Anyways, in 4 years, SMISA will be in a position to buy St Mirren. A SMISA board can then be tasked to reconsider the decision to give up our stadium to rangers and celtic for a few dollars more if the current BoD have not already done so.

4 years is not a ling time..

[Lord Pityme]

5 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

In 4 years time, SMISA will have the funds in place to be in a position to complete the purchase of St Mirren FC "within 10 years" of the BTB project.

Whilst I appreciate the reasons why 2 stands are given, I don't agree.

Not when clubs in the division with considerably less average attendances can continually outperform St Mirren in the league.

More money does not guarantee success, as we are demonstrating right now.

Anyways, in 4 years, SMISA will be in a position to buy St Mirren. A SMISA board can then be tasked to reconsider the decision to give up our stadium to rangers and celtic for a few dollars more if the current BoD have not already done so.

4 years is not a ling time..

 

I know it should be in four years time, but Scott has already positioned himself to block that happening. One tactic is to continually take smisa money for Ralston, USH, draw diwn facility etc..

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

Long term?

 

It should have been plan A!

 

Our starting point.

 

Hell... Failing to build upon the incredible positivity... The strongest unity at the club since the days of Fergies Furies... Failing to build upon that was nothing short of criminal neglect!

 

They took the easy money and the easy option.

 

You say long term... HOW long term are you planning?

 

I reckon we were best placed in around four decades! You happy to wait four more?

 

MAKE the magic happen... Don't wait for it!

 

We missed a huge opportunity but hey... You are happy at displaced home fans, the cancellation of Saints youth facilities, and the potential loss of future support as we got enough money to buy three quarters of a Kellerman!

 

Yippee! Go you!

 

That’s your opinion, mine is while we can’t fill our own stands & need to be as financially competitive as possible this is a solution that works. 

How have we failed to capitalise? We have sold record season tickets at the new stadium & crowds are way up. Seem to have capitalised pretty well. Take this scenario, we don’t give them the extra stand & that difference in money means we’re cut adrift at the bottom. Hypothetical yes but it would likely do much more harm to the momentum. We have a duty to explore all income streams  

You share an idealistic view with many on here, the hard reality is we won’t likely grow home crowds quick & fast. If it was that easy, everyone would do it. 

We have firmly established the income is likely much more than 3/4 a squad/ prospect player. What if it was the difference between getting Hladky & Popescu wages paid to the end of the season? 

[bazil85]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

We clearly don't have consensus. The point was that we could have started with an interesting debate about whether the experiment of moving the OF to the family stand worked followed by what we should now do.

It should have been done in that order - assessment of experiment and THEN a discussion about what next.

Your stubborn determination to put the cart before the horse combined with a ridiculous and unnecessary level of defensiveness has alienated everyone and cost you the debate.

I think we have a consensus on much but not all.

Backed with much evidence, common sense views, coupled with a refusal from others to address my questions, I have far from lost this debate. 

[bazil85]

20 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I know it should be in four years time, but Scott has already positioned himself to block that happening. One tactic is to continually take smisa money for Ralston, USH, draw diwn facility etc..

None of the noted examples extends the deal by even one day.

He may stay for the full 10 years if he wishes but I don’t see it. He isn’t taking a penny profit from this deal so no real reason to delay BTB

[Bud the Baker]

20 hours ago, bazil85 said:

1. I am more than happy for people to have different opinions from me. I have simply asked how it is possible for home crowds to be massively up on average, season ticket sales to be up, no sign of significantly lower crowds at these games (due to fans staying away) yet income to not be significant and/ or us to be somehow losing considerable fans to these games? My point has never been on the disagreement, it's asking for an explanation. Which none of you have provided.

2. I have not deflected, I have provided evidence where it's available and been honest where it has not, where it is not I have made an educated guess. You might disagree in the guess and for example think Motherwell only took a few hundred fans in our last game or that day light savings has cause 100s of St Mirren fans to attend the Celtic game but not Kilmarnock, that's your choice. I disagree and think it's massively unrealistic. 

1. Keep on telling yourself this!  

2. A couple of "apples and oranges" type comparisons don't prove what you claim.

******************

I'm satisfied with my opinion and I have no wish to continue the argument, you can continue with the attritional posting but after 13 pages of paraphrasing I doubt very much whether you will bring anything new to the debate, I leave an image of you in a previous life - Melchett85!

 

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[BuddieinEK]

That’s your opinion, mine is while we can’t fill our own stands & need to be as financially competitive as possible this is a solution that works. 
How have we failed to capitalise? We have sold record season tickets at the new stadium & crowds are way up. Seem to have capitalised pretty well. Take this scenario, we don’t give them the extra stand & that difference in money means we’re cut adrift at the bottom. Hypothetical yes but it would likely do much more harm to the momentum. We have a duty to explore all income streams  
You share an idealistic view with many on here, the hard reality is we won’t likely grow home crowds quick & fast. If it was that easy, everyone would do it. 
We have firmly established the income is likely much more than 3/4 a squad/ prospect player. What if it was the difference between getting Hladky & Popescu wages paid to the end of the season? 

What effort was made to increase the home support.

Tell me.

What incentive?
What initiative?
What plan?

It was never going to magically happen at the wave of a wand.

So what exactly did they try?

Once you have given me one of your exhaustive detailed lists, THEN you can talk about us not filling our own stands.

Oh... And none of that defeatist looking back.... Look forward.
You are missing so many possibilities.

[BuddieinEK]

That’s your opinion, mine is while we can’t fill our own stands & need to be as financially competitive as possible this is a solution that works. 
How have we failed to capitalise? We have sold record season tickets at the new stadium & crowds are way up. Seem to have capitalised pretty well. Take this scenario, we don’t give them the extra stand & that difference in money means we’re cut adrift at the bottom. Hypothetical yes but it would likely do much more harm to the momentum. We have a duty to explore all income streams  
You share an idealistic view with many on here, the hard reality is we won’t likely grow home crowds quick & fast. If it was that easy, everyone would do it. 
We have firmly established the income is likely much more than 3/4 a squad/ prospect player. What if it was the difference between getting Hladky & Popescu wages paid to the end of the season? 

Nice that you now have the money earmarked specifically for Hladky and Popescu.

I have it on good authority it went towards Kellermans transfer fee!

Two can play at that game!
[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]