bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 21 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said: 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! 1. Seems to be true wouldn't you say? still no answer to my Qs. 2. Killie against Celtic attendances are apples and oranges? What about the Livi Saturday game against Celtic crowds? As above, still waiting for you to answer the question on the likely Motherwell crowds as well... More deflection? That's fine, your choice. It doesn't change the fact in 13 pages you have refused to answer my simple questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 12 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: 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. Yet again, idealistic, if it was that easy everyone would do it. There always needs to be a balance between incentives and making money. Continuing the family season ticket deals for example is an incentive but then there was the hard decision to change it slightly. Crowds are up, season ticket sales are up, record numbers at the stadium, they must be doing something right. Honest question, do you think if we offered some more incentives we could turnover an extra circa 2,000 home fans in one season, increase income considerably to make the OF deal not required? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 14 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: 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! I don't, I was doing a hypothetical as you were with Kellerman. I don't think it makes sense to pin specific money to one player, you did it for dramatic effect and I simply pointed out it can work both ways. As for your 'good authority' prove it? Sounds like utter nonsense. Two can play at that game yes, exactly what I proved by responding to you. You clearly started it with Kellerman. Who's do say Kellerman won't turn out a good signing anyway? Are you a fortune teller now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 Baz, show some compassion and let this thread rest in peace. You don't have to obsessively respond to every single f**king post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, oaksoft said: Baz, show some compassion and let this thread rest in peace. You don't have to obsessively respond to every single f**king post. BAWA is a discussion forum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 2 hours ago, oaksoft said: Baz, show some compassion and let this thread rest in peace. You don't have to obsessively respond to every single f**king post 40 minutes ago, bazil85 said: BAWA is a discussion forum... And that concludes the case for the people mlud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 16 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: And that concludes the case for the people mlud Winning case like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 Yet again, idealistic, if it was that easy everyone would do it. There always needs to be a balance between incentives and making money. Continuing the family season ticket deals for example is an incentive but then there was the hard decision to change it slightly. Crowds are up, season ticket sales are up, record numbers at the stadium, they must be doing something right. Honest question, do you think if we offered some more incentives we could turnover an extra circa 2,000 home fans in one season, increase income considerably to make the OF deal not required? Very possibly.If we don't try we will never know!As you say... Crowds are up...Season ticket sales are up...Imagine what could have happened with even a modicum of effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 52 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Very possibly. If we don't try we will never know! As you say... Crowds are up... Season ticket sales are up... Imagine what could have happened with even a modicum of effort. You make the assumption there was little/ no effort. Advertising, social media campaigns, family tickets, children tickets, student tickets, in partnership with SMISA community tickets and children entertainment. Yes we might not be doing anything mould breaking but I'm sure people involved with the commercial side of things would take offence at eluding to minimum/ no effort. You are welcome to think there are thousands of other St Mirren fans that were on the cusp of taking a season ticket if only for a slight reduction in price or additional deal but as I have said, if it was that easy to bring in way more fans and still protect/ increase profit, every club in the world would do it. You aren't being innovative here, this isn't new to anyone at our club, it's idealistic. Plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 You make the assumption there was little/ no effort. Advertising, social media campaigns, family tickets, children tickets, student tickets, in partnership with SMISA community tickets and children entertainment. Yes we might not be doing anything mould breaking but I'm sure people involved with the commercial side of things would take offence at eluding to minimum/ no effort. You are welcome to think there are thousands of other St Mirren fans that were on the cusp of taking a season ticket if only for a slight reduction in price or additional deal but as I have said, if it was that easy to bring in way more fans and still protect/ increase profit, every club in the world would do it. You aren't being innovative here, this isn't new to anyone at our club, it's idealistic. Plain and simple. The only plain and simple thing here is you!Take the OF money.To hell with your own fans.It's for the good of the club... Aye right.We will have NO club to support in future with that idiotic approach.So I obviously missed the rallying call. The shouting from the rooftops.Folks laughed at Fergie shouting through a loud speaker from a car... But it damned well worked.You would have had him locked up for daring to believe we could be better than we are with hard work and belief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: The only plain and simple thing here is you! Take the OF money. To hell with your own fans. It's for the good of the club... Aye right. We will have NO club to support in future with that idiotic approach. So I obviously missed the rallying call. The shouting from the rooftops. Folks laughed at Fergie shouting through a loud speaker from a car... But it damned well worked. You would have had him locked up for daring to believe we could be better than we are with hard work and belief! You say all this but I'm afraid it is simply not evidenced. You claim it's not for the good of the club 'we will have no club to support' but what you completely ignore is in the first season we have done this, we have record crowds and season ticket sales at the stadium. The evidence is most fans aren't being impacted by this and it is NOT turning crowds away. There is no evidence this is turning fans off from watching St Mirren whether you like it or not. Them be the facts, you can dislike it, you can hate the idea but you can't deny the brilliant sales numbers this season and the growth in people through the doors. What seems far more likely is most fans tolerate this for the good of the club. No one likes it (me included) but for the actual harm it does, it isn't all that much. Everyone can watch the team on these match-days if they want, is moving seats such a massive hardship? Y ou seem to think a massive number of SMFC fans are fickle enough to cause their club harm over a seat move for a few games. Also before that vein in your head pops, I am not talking about the bigotry. It happens regardless, one stand, two stands, half a stand, as long as these teams exist, we'll always have bigots at the games. Your comment about my thoughts on pushing our club forward are just silly. I would love to see 7,000-8,000 St Mirren fans every game and the bigots to get the absolute minimum. For about the 10th time though, it is completely idealistic and won't happen over the space of a season. There is nothing to stop us growing the club and keeping this arrangement. There are 16 other home games completely unaffected. I would even say St Mirren fans that use this arrangement as a reason not to attend are the ones hurting the clubs growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 You say all this but I'm afraid it is simply not evidenced. You claim it's not for the good of the club 'we will have no club to support' but what you completely ignore is in the first season we have done this, we have record crowds and season ticket sales at the stadium. The evidence is most fans aren't being impacted by this and it is NOT turning crowds away. There is no evidence this is turning fans off from watching St Mirren whether you like it or not. Them be the facts, you can dislike it, you can hate the idea but you can't deny the brilliant sales numbers this season and the growth in people through the doors. What seems far more likely is most fans tolerate this for the good of the club. No one likes it (me included) but for the actual harm it does, it isn't all that much. Everyone can watch the team on these match-days if they want, is moving seats such a massive hardship? Y ou seem to think a massive number of SMFC fans are fickle enough to cause their club harm over a seat move for a few games. Also before that vein in your head pops, I am not talking about the bigotry. It happens regardless, one stand, two stands, half a stand, as long as these teams exist, we'll always have bigots at the games. Your comment about my thoughts on pushing our club forward are just silly. I would love to see 7,000-8,000 St Mirren fans every game and the bigots to get the absolute minimum. For about the 10th time though, it is completely idealistic and won't happen over the space of a season. There is nothing to stop us growing the club and keeping this arrangement. There are 16 other home games completely unaffected. I would even say St Mirren fans that use this arrangement as a reason not to attend are the ones hurting the clubs growth. Duh! You won't have a "knock on" effect part way through the first season! Surely even you can understand that very simple point. Yet again, you have spun this around full circle! For the sake and sanity of other posters, I refuse to be drawn back into your pointless debates! My point here is simple. We could have and should have done more to maximise our home support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said: Duh! You won't have a "knock on" effect part way through the first season! Surely even you can understand that very simple point. Yet again, you have spun this around full circle! For the sake and sanity of other posters, I refuse to be drawn back into your pointless debates! My point here is simple. We could have and should have done more to maximise our home support. Belatedly even Killie have. With the evidence at the Dundee game family stand promo of "if you build it, they will come" we should have done what Killie are doing, when we played the celtic game at ours. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47945450 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said: Duh! You won't have a "knock on" effect part way through the first season! Surely even you can understand that very simple point. Yet again, you have spun this around full circle! For the sake and sanity of other posters, I refuse to be drawn back into your pointless debates! My point here is simple. We could have and should have done more to maximise our home support. Oh I understand your point, don't you worry about that. I'm just drawing your attention to the very valid point you can provide no evidence that our future crowds are at risk, the decision has impacted SMFC fans desire to attend games, it has been negative to younger fans or we could have vastly increased our home support above already record levels with not taking this decision and more incentives. We spent nine seasons in top flight last time and didn't give them two stands, why did our home crowds not go way up then? We won the Championship, won a major trophy, plenty to build on if your theory is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Belatedly even Killie have. With the evidence at the Dundee game family stand promo of "if you build it, they will come" we should have done what Killie are doing, when we played the celtic game at ours. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47945450 The evidence of the Livi/ Morton and Falkirk game last season, is that people attended the Dundee game in numbers in no small part because of the occasion. You make it out like promos will get those attendee numbers to all games with zero evidence. Idealistic view. Again whether you like it or not, Killie made that call based on the occasion, a game that could get them European football. I'm sure if we went on a similar run to Killie next season, there's every chance we'd make the same call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted April 16, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 Anyway, back on topic.Kombi, any planned tweaks to the vote change?10 months before resubmission date, we've got time.Obvious tweak is remove the words "until the Buds is Bought"When that comes around, there'll be only 3 years for the next proposal of "Buy the Buds Now" (if it's required) [emoji16] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said: 10 months before resubmission date, we've got time. Obvious tweak is remove the words "until the Buds is Bought" When that comes around, there'll be only 3 years for the next proposal of "Buy the Buds Now" (if it's required) Are you giving consideration to the lack of interest in this? Surely any future proposal would only be prudent if there is evidence of significant change in will from members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted April 16, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 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. If money is the answer, why are Livingston, Motherwell, St Johnstone and (at this moment in time), Hamilton performing better than us?Our average attendances far exceeds all of theirs). 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. Like livingston? Over the last 3 seasons, the average attendances for Livingston 2,334St Mirren 4443 The difference of 2109 is considerably (about 25%) more than selling out the family stand to the rangers & celtic hordes. Yet Livingston are faring a damn site better than us. The additional income compared to the teams round about us, is not having the desired effect. Referring back to a post I made a week or two ago, for the clubs we are competing against, it's how the money gets spent.Who is Livingstons Hladky, Popescu, Kellerman? With SMISA paying for all sorts for the club, which (as far as I know), Livingston does not have that luxury, St Mirren, by your reasoning, should be doing far better than Livingston in the league. The additional income from selling our soul for a few dollars more is not making the difference you are arguing for. St Mirren's BoD would be better putting their efforts into investing in the home supporr. Demonstrate to the fans "we believe in you. Come and support us" Loads of clubs state how important their support is, as a "12th man" yet we gift wrap rangers & celtic a 12th man by giving their support 2 full stands. Invest in the home support & give them the opportunity to be that 12th man v rangers & celtic and put an end to volunteering any kind of advantage we could have to the opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted April 16, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 Are you giving consideration to the lack of interest in this? Surely any future proposal would only be prudent if there is evidence of significant change in will from members? Absolutely. You didn't make the AGM did you? Quite a bit of intelligence gathered from it. Enough to consider, revisiting the proposal. I found the discussion/debate enlightening and extremely valuable. I won't be adopting the Theresa May methodolgy but more the Mighty Oaks grow from small acorns analogy. [emoji16] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted April 16, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 Sinces our TV income will be similar, I will use Livingston FC again for demonstration purposes. Googling SPL & Scottish Championship average attendances, I found, St Mirren average attendance over the past 3 seasons has been 2109 MORE per match than Livingston FC. 2109 per match.more. There were 18 league matches in both 2016/17 & 2017/18 seasons + 16 home matches this season (so far) Additional income 2109 ×£15 = £31635 per match2109 x £10 = £21090 per match(Conservative guesstimates). Over the 3 seasons, St Mirren should have realised somewhere between £717,060 & £1,075,590 at least, additional income but here we are, 21 points behind Livingston FC. Potentially 1 million pounds plus, more than Livingstone & folk really believe giving rangers & celtic 2 stands is going to make that big a difference. Acting in St Mirren FC's best interests, St Mirren FC would find the greater good by having their own supporters in the 3 stands of West, South & East. If need be, employ some additional security to prevent away supporters admission to the home stands when rangers & celtic call. They can be used to remove away supporters should they be found astray in the home stands uninvited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted April 16, 2019 Report Share Posted April 16, 2019 Sinces our TV income will be similar, I will use Livingston FC again for demonstration purposes. Googling SPL & Scottish Championship average attendances, I found, St Mirren average attendance over the past 3 seasons has been 2109 MORE per match than Livingston FC. 2109 per match.more. There were 18 league matches in both 2016/17 & 2017/18 seasons + 16 home matches this season (so far) Additional income 2109 ×£15 = £31635 per match2109 x £10 = £21090 per match(Conservative guesstimates). Over the 3 seasons, St Mirren should have realised somewhere between £717,060 & £1,075,590 at least, additional income but here we are, 21 points behind Livingston FC. Potentially 1 million pounds plus, more than Livingstone & folk really believe giving rangers & celtic 2 stands is going to make that big a difference. Acting in St Mirren FC's best interests, St Mirren FC would find the greater good by having their own supporters in the 3 stands of West, South & East. If need be, employ some additional security to prevent away supporters admission to the home stands when rangers & celtic call. They can be used to remove away supporters should they be found astray in the home stands uninvited. Oh shit...You just pumped Baz's head full of real facts and common sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 17, 2019 Report Share Posted April 17, 2019 14 hours ago, Kombibuddie said: If money is the answer, why are Livingston, Motherwell, St Johnstone and (at this moment in time), Hamilton performing better than us? Our average attendances far exceeds all of theirs). Like livingston? Over the last 3 seasons, the average attendances for Livingston 2,334 St Mirren 4443 The difference of 2109 is considerably (about 25%) more than selling out the family stand to the rangers & celtic hordes. Yet Livingston are faring a damn site better than us. The additional income compared to the teams round about us, is not having the desired effect. Referring back to a post I made a week or two ago, for the clubs we are competing against, it's how the money gets spent. Who is Livingstons Hladky, Popescu, Kellerman? With SMISA paying for all sorts for the club, which (as far as I know), Livingston does not have that luxury, St Mirren, by your reasoning, should be doing far better than Livingston in the league. The additional income from selling our soul for a few dollars more is not making the difference you are arguing for. St Mirren's BoD would be better putting their efforts into investing in the home supporr. Demonstrate to the fans "we believe in you. Come and support us" Loads of clubs state how important their support is, as a "12th man" yet we gift wrap rangers & celtic a 12th man by giving their support 2 full stands. Invest in the home support & give them the opportunity to be that 12th man v rangers & celtic and put an end to volunteering any kind of advantage we could have to the opposition. Money is not an exact science, if it was there would be no point in even playing the fixtures. You will always get teams over performing & teams under performing. An argument saying ‘we might over perform with less money’ is not really a strong one for not exploring revenue streams. By that logic why don’t we just let everyone in for free and sell our shirts for a fiver? To answer one of your questions, yes we should be performing better but Livi are far punching above their weight. We have a poor management choice to thank for the situation we find ourselves in. As for comments about investing in home fans and selling our soul. I will yet again refer people to record ticket sales this season. There is no evidence this decision is causing fans to stay away. We have had lots of praise this season over the 12th man nature of our fans, so again I don’t see the point. I don’t like what happened in those three games anymore than the next fan but in the grand scheme, any SMFC fan can still attend those games and we are given away what ultimately would be empty seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 17, 2019 Report Share Posted April 17, 2019 13 hours ago, Kombibuddie said: Absolutely. You didn't make the AGM did you? Quite a bit of intelligence gathered from it. Enough to consider, revisiting the proposal. I found the discussion/debate enlightening and extremely valuable. I won't be adopting the Theresa May methodolgy but more the Mighty Oaks grow from small acorns analogy. No I did a proxy vote. That’s refreshing to hear. I’m not one for the keep voting on the same thing until something changes approach either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 17, 2019 Report Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: No I did a proxy vote. That’s refreshing to hear. I’m not one for the keep voting slabbering on the same thing until something changes approach either. Fify.... classic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 17, 2019 Report Share Posted April 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Fify.... classic Not like you to make absolutely no sense... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.