Jump to content

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


Kombibuddie

Recommended Posts


16 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Made perfect sense.

Your wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble reply to Kombi, on the other hand... ... ... ... emoji15.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

It didn’t though did it. What lacked sense in my response? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think it makes sense to think a material change in desire for a proposal that got less than 10 votes out of over 1,200 would be required? :huh:
How the feck you concluded that, only your tiny brain can understand, if it does at all.

Kombibuddie gave you very comprehensive and convincing statistics that supported his opinion.

You went into tailspin wibble mode in return, as yet again, you had been shown up.

Now, yet again, you invent a whole new point to debate.

More classic deflection!

Wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

How the feck you concluded that, only your tiny brain can understand, if it does at all.

Kombibuddie gave you very comprehensive and convincing statistics that supported his opinion.

You went into tailspin wibble mode in return, as yet again, you had been shown up.

Now, yet again, you invent a whole new point to debate.

More classic deflection!

Wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble wibble

Well that was one of my responses wasn't it regarding the members change vote)? I responded saying that I feel a materiel change would be needed and we both agreed the Theresa May approach of vote, vote, vote isn't a good one. So I'll ask again, where does my response to him not make sense? 

I think you're possibly talking about his response on crowd numbers for Livi etc. I pointed out to him I have never claimed it is an exact science that better crowds = better performance. If it did then there would be no point playing the games. It doesn't mean we should just turn our nose up at potential income streams. Or do you disagree and think it is an exact science? Again feel free to actually enter the debate with a point on where I'm not making sense. 

You have again been completely caught out trying to create responses for me that don't exist :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was one of my responses wasn't it regarding the members change vote)? I responded saying that I feel a materiel change would be needed and we both agreed the Theresa May approach of vote, vote, vote isn't a good one. So I'll ask again, where does my response to him not make sense? 
I think you're possibly talking about his response on crowd numbers for Livi etc. I pointed out to him I have never claimed it is an exact science that better crowds = better performance. If it did then there would be no point playing the games. It doesn't mean we should just turn our nose up at potential income streams. Or do you disagree and think it is an exact science? Again feel free to actually enter the debate with a point on where I'm not making sense. 
You have again been completely caught out trying to create responses for me that don't exist :rolleyes:
I have a better idea.

I'm just going to picture that clown blowing your head up and pretend you no longer exist!

[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another response that avoids questions and doesn't admit to you being caught out :rolleyes:
I'm trying to stop taking your bait for the sake of every other BAWA forum user.

It's called consideration.

You might want to try it!

If I'm ever caught out by you, unlike you I will not deflect, spin, change the argument or simply lie and call it fact! Fact! [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

Bye.

PS... Feel free to reply one more time... I know it pains you not to have the last word! [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]
[emoji86] [emoji86] [emoji86]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I'm trying to stop taking your bait for the sake of every other BAWA forum user.

It's called consideration.

You might want to try it!

If I'm ever caught out by you, unlike you I will not deflect, spin, change the argument or simply lie and call it fact! Fact! emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png

Bye.

PS... Feel free to reply one more time... I know it pains you not to have the last word! emoji23.pngemoji23.pngemoji23.png
emoji86.pngemoji86.pngemoji86.png

I have never said the bigot brothers are needed or that they improve our game. Let's see if you stand up to your word and admit you were wrong on this? :rolleyes:

There's many other points I have proven you wrong on but that one will do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never said the bigot brothers are needed or that they improve our game. Let's see if you stand up to your word and admit you were wrong on this? :rolleyes:
There's many other points I have proven you wrong on but that one will do. 
Oh geez... You really ARE the master baiter.
This is definitely my last contribution to this pointless tail chasing exercise.

You "proved" that the thousands and thousands of extra pounds generated by the OF fans allowed us to sign Hladky and Popescu!

They improved our team.
That surely improved our game!

I thank you.

Away and get a fire extinguisher for your pants now!
[emoji91] [emoji91] [emoji91] [emoji90] [emoji91] [emoji91] [emoji91]

Right... Get yer last word and geez peace pinocchio! Over and out!

PS... You can have that one... I had intended my last post to be my final word but came back with one more post!

My bad! Happy?
[emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji14]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Oh geez... You really ARE the master baiter.
This is definitely my last contribution to this pointless tail chasing exercise.

You "proved" that the thousands and thousands of extra pounds generated by the OF fans allowed us to sign Hladky and Popescu!

They improved our team.
That surely improved our game!

I thank you.

Away and get a fire extinguisher for your pants now!
emoji91.pngemoji91.pngemoji91.pngemoji90.pngemoji91.pngemoji91.pngemoji91.png

Right... Get yer last word and geez peace pinocchio! Over and out!

PS... You can have that one... I had intended my last post to be my final word but came back with one more post!

My bad! Happy?
emoji38.pngemoji38.pngemoji38.pngemoji14.png

Happy for it to be my last post. I never ‘proved’ the point you claim and never  attempted to. My response about those players was to show comments about Kellerman work both ways.

The income I claimed was all estimates based on what we know as facts, they weren’t claims of fact.

Your last post is in line with your rest, falsified claims about my posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You don't think it makes sense to think a material change in desire for a proposal that got less than 10 votes out of over 1,200 would be required? :huh:


You need to go back & check the result [emoji2]

The proposal got 1/3 of the votes cast.
SMISA' got 2/3 of the votes cast.
It doesn't need 2/3 of the 1221, it needs 2/3 of the votes cast.

Somethings need a wee bit of tweaking to improve & be accepted.

10 months to tweak.

But back to other matters......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 1:58 PM, bazil85 said:

 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. 

should it happen "regardless". Therein lies the problem. An acceptance that bigotry should be tolerated.

Is there any appetite in Scotland to seriously tackle bigotry? Whilst there is an acceptance "as long as these teams exist, we'll always have bigots"

Because of the bigotry alone, St Mirren FC & every other club should be taking a stand & saying "No More, not in our grounds" instead, we condone bigotry. You are condoning bigotry by advocating giving the two bigoted clubs an extra 1600 seats in our ground 'for the money'

There may always be bigots at the games but bigotry is a major blight on Scottish society, we should not be condoning it, we should not be giving it a platform (the family stand} to flourish but we should be making every effort to reduce and eradicate bigotry from our society. That is a tough task, no doubts. But if Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Anti-Semitism, Ageism and other forms of prejudice can be tackled, why not the religious prejudice so openly displayed by both sets of supporters of rangers & celtic.

Scottish football is morally bankrupt in it's failure to seriously tackle bigotry. We are complicit in this by voluntarily giving them double the platform to display their inappropriate behaviours, prejudices  and hatred.

Is the money really worth it? I & others on this thread suggest not. I am convinced, it is not. More seats is their oxygen, give them less seats and start to suffocate their behaviours.

a wee sidestep (of sorts),

I was working last night, walking through the ED (of the hospital, I work in), I was stopped by one of the nurses to have a chat about something & one of the Doctors asked me "rangers or celtic" .

When I replied "neither" he looked quizzically at me. "I dislike them both in equal measures, St Mirren is my team" said I.

There remains a belief that all Scots must have an affinity to one or the other based purely on religious grounds. Therein lies another huge slice of the problem. Och, I could go on all day about why rangers & celtic are an embarrassment to Scottish football & to Scotland itself.

St Mirren shouldn't be any part of a slice of the problem but whilst we give over our family stand to them, we are. The money really isn't worth making us complicit in the problem. I don't think I am the only one thinking this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

should it happen "regardless". Therein lies the problem. An acceptance that bigotry should be tolerated.

Is there any appetite in Scotland to seriously tackle bigotry? Whilst there is an acceptance "as long as these teams exist, we'll always have bigots"

Because of the bigotry alone, St Mirren FC & every other club should be taking a stand & saying "No More, not in our grounds" instead, we condone bigotry. You are condoning bigotry by advocating giving the two bigoted clubs an extra 1600 seats in our ground 'for the money'

There may always be bigots at the games but bigotry is a major blight on Scottish society, we should not be condoning it, we should not be giving it a platform (the family stand} to flourish but we should be making every effort to reduce and eradicate bigotry from our society. That is a tough task, no doubts. But if Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Anti-Semitism, Ageism and other forms of prejudice can be tackled, why not the religious prejudice so openly displayed by both sets of supporters of rangers & celtic.

Scottish football is morally bankrupt in it's failure to seriously tackle bigotry. We are complicit in this by voluntarily giving them double the platform to display their inappropriate behaviours, prejudices  and hatred.

Is the money really worth it? I & others on this thread suggest not. I am convinced, it is not. More seats is their oxygen, give them less seats and start to suffocate their behaviours.

a wee sidestep (of sorts),

I was working last night, walking through the ED (of the hospital, I work in), I was stopped by one of the nurses to have a chat about something & one of the Doctors asked me "rangers or celtic" .

When I replied "neither" he looked quizzically at me. "I dislike them both in equal measures, St Mirren is my team" said I.

There remains a belief that all Scots must have an affinity to one or the other based purely on religious grounds. Therein lies another huge slice of the problem. Och, I could go on all day about why rangers & celtic are an embarrassment to Scottish football & to Scotland itself.

St Mirren shouldn't be any part of a slice of the problem but whilst we give over our family stand to them, we are. The money really isn't worth making us complicit in the problem. I don't think I am the only one thinking this way.

What does Smisa have to say on behalf of the supporters and as the second highest shareholder and soon to be owners, silence??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

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.

Basil,
I won't go into a war of attrition with you on this.

Why do St Mirren FC give rangers & celtic the south stand as well as the north stand?
All through this thread & in your debate/discussion with others, you have consistently stated, it is for the money & what that money can do for the club.

The additional revenue generated from giving up a 2nd stand, is so much less than the additional income already generated (from ticket sales alone) over 4 of our competitors.

It is ludicrous to suggest them faring better is down to them over performing.

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 ‘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? 

St Mirren has generated in excess of £1 million more than Livingston (our closest comparable) over the past 3 seasons.

"We need the extra revenue to compete" (I paraphrase)
Livingston FC, have burst that myth.

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

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. 

and Hamilton and St Johnstone and Motherwell

Oh hold on, what about Dundee? are we punching above our weight in comparison to them?

Their average attendance over the last 3 seasons is 6186.
They have averaged 1743 more than us over the last 3 seasons.

Punching below their weight?

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

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.  

That is not my argument.

I am saying, encourage the support. There is an element of our support that has been disenchanted by the decision to give up the family stand to the rangers & celtic support.
I am saying, demonstrate to our support, all of it, The Club believes in you & want you at every game, in the part of the ground you want to be in (got 3 stands to choose from).

Encourage them & reap the rewards of doing so.

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

We have had lots of praise this season over the 12th man nature of our fans, so again I don’t see the point.

Having our support in 3 stands will have more of an effect as the 12th man over being just down the sides.

Having their support in 2 stands, behind both gosls will have more of an effect for them opposed to being behind just one stand.

Being the home team, we are voluntarily giving up any advantage the 12th man could be.
Additional income, really, It is not worth it.

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 I don’t like what happened in those three games anymore than the next fan

We have a start.
Welcome to the revolution Buddie Bazil

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

is not an exact science

it isn't, we are agreed. :D
 

Edited by Kombibuddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:


 

 


You need to go back & check the result emoji2.png

The proposal got 1/3 of the votes cast.
SMISA' got 2/3 of the votes cast.
It doesn't need 2/3 of the 1221, it needs 2/3 of the votes cast.

Somethings need a wee bit of tweaking to improve & be accepted.

10 months to tweak.

But back to other matters......

 

No I know that, my point isn't on the voting numbers, over 99% of SMISA members don't care about the proposal enough to engage in the vote. While that is the case, IMO there is no reasonable grounds to return this vote. I don't agree in returning it if you hit a target of 10-20 more people, it would need to be significantly more to make the case valid. Again my opinion.

Of course you can do but I think SMISA would be completely justified in saying there isn't enough interest to vote again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

should it happen "regardless". Therein lies the problem. An acceptance that bigotry should be tolerated.

Is there any appetite in Scotland to seriously tackle bigotry? Whilst there is an acceptance "as long as these teams exist, we'll always have bigots"

Because of the bigotry alone, St Mirren FC & every other club should be taking a stand & saying "No More, not in our grounds" instead, we condone bigotry. You are condoning bigotry by advocating giving the two bigoted clubs an extra 1600 seats in our ground 'for the money'

There may always be bigots at the games but bigotry is a major blight on Scottish society, we should not be condoning it, we should not be giving it a platform (the family stand} to flourish but we should be making every effort to reduce and eradicate bigotry from our society. That is a tough task, no doubts. But if Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Anti-Semitism, Ageism and other forms of prejudice can be tackled, why not the religious prejudice so openly displayed by both sets of supporters of rangers & celtic.

Scottish football is morally bankrupt in it's failure to seriously tackle bigotry. We are complicit in this by voluntarily giving them double the platform to display their inappropriate behaviours, prejudices  and hatred.

Is the money really worth it? I & others on this thread suggest not. I am convinced, it is not. More seats is their oxygen, give them less seats and start to suffocate their behaviours.

a wee sidestep (of sorts),

I was working last night, walking through the ED (of the hospital, I work in), I was stopped by one of the nurses to have a chat about something & one of the Doctors asked me "rangers or celtic" .

When I replied "neither" he looked quizzically at me. "I dislike them both in equal measures, St Mirren is my team" said I.

There remains a belief that all Scots must have an affinity to one or the other based purely on religious grounds. Therein lies another huge slice of the problem. Och, I could go on all day about why rangers & celtic are an embarrassment to Scottish football & to Scotland itself.

St Mirren shouldn't be any part of a slice of the problem but whilst we give over our family stand to them, we are. The money really isn't worth making us complicit in the problem. I don't think I am the only one thinking this way.

Absolutely not SFA and SPFL should be much tougher on it. Our game is a joke for it being tolerated. The mitigation of it and its existence are two very different points. 

I am in no way condoning it, if I was in charge of our game, Celtic, Rangers, Hearts Hibs, Motherwell and St Mirren (likely others) would have all faced empty stand games/ point deductions this season from offences from bigotry to object throwing. As I said in previous posts, people are attaching emotion to my view which is purely realist. While the people in our game continue to bend over and take it from the bigots, our fans don't fill stands and while money dominates football, difficult calls need to be made. 

The point on the more seats being their oxygen I also don't take, they will and have in the past just end up in home stands. 

Your sidestep, I couldn't agree more. It is a frustration and a massive part of the problem. I am therefore sure you join me in my disappointment of BuddieEK for his posts eluding to me having an allegiance to one of the teams (with absolutely zero evidence, foundation or suggestion I might add). It's bad enough fans of the bigots do it without fellow budides doing the same. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

Basil,
I won't go into a war of attrition with you on this.

Why do St Mirren FC give rangers & celtic the south stand as well as the north stand?
All through this thread & in your debate/discussion with others, you have consistently stated, it is for the money & what that money can do for the club.

The additional revenue generated from giving up a 2nd stand, is so much less than the additional income already generated (from ticket sales alone) over 4 of our competitors.

It is ludicrous to suggest them faring better is down to them over performing.

St Mirren has generated in excess of £1 million more than Livingston (our closest comparable) over the past 3 seasons.

"We need the extra revenue to compete" (I paraphrase)
Livingston FC, have burst that myth.

and Hamilton and St Johnstone and Motherwell

Oh hold on, what about Dundee? are we punching above our weight in comparison to them?

Their average attendance over the last 3 seasons is 6186.
They have averaged 1743 more than us over the last 3 seasons.

Punching below their weight?

That is not my argument.

I am saying, encourage the support. There is an element of our support that has been disenchanted by the decision to give up the family stand to the rangers & celtic support.
I am saying, demonstrate to our support, all of it, The Club believes in you & want you at every game, in the part of the ground you want to be in (got 3 stands to choose from).

Encourage them & reap the rewards of doing so.

Having our support in 3 stands will have more of an effect as the 12th man over being just down the sides.

Having their support in 2 stands, behind both gosls will have more of an effect for them opposed to being behind just one stand.

Being the home team, we are voluntarily giving up any advantage the 12th man could be.
Additional income, really, It is not worth it.

We have a start.
Welcome to the revolution Buddie Bazil

it isn't, we are agreed. :D
 

So your first point, Livi on by far the smallest budget aren’t over performing? You’re basically saying there is no justification in exploring additional income streams. That is the ludicrous part I’m afraid. Do you think Livi will always be able to out muscle us because money isn’t important so we shouldn’t care about it? How many seasons in their existence have we been above them in league standing?

By your logic why are the richest clubs generally at the top end of the structure & the poorest at the bottom? Cowdenbeath stopping 10 in a row... 

You then go onto completely ignore my point that income isn’t an exact science  I’m not sure how I can put that any other way. 

Again our fans numbers and season ticket sales this season are at record highs. Fans might not like it (myself included) but there’s no evidence this difficult decision is impacting us  

if we can fill our three stands, we won’t have them in two. This should be where our energy is focussed. 

I have never liked it and never will. This isn’t a change or anything different I have been totally transparent  

you don’t think it’s worth it, I do. It’s simply a difference of opinion. I won’t change that and neither will you. The point of this part of the thread has been on the financial benefit and pitfalls, not really on people’s opinion of the actual deal 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
25 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
No I know that, my point isn't on the voting numbers, over 99% of SMISA members don't care about the proposal enough to engage in the vote. While that is the case, IMO there is no reasonable grounds to return this vote. I don't agree in returning it if you hit a target of 10-20 more people, it would need to be significantly more to make the case valid. Again my opinion.
Of course you can do but I think SMISA would be completely justified in saying there isn't enough interest to vote again. 

Not sure if I read that correctly, are you saying that the committee could block a legitimate proposed change to the constitution because they think/believe there isn't supposedly enough interest?

Fair enough, I’ve maybe not been clear. My point fleshed out is:

They had the vote this year with very little interest in it. if the same idea comes back with little/ no changes and there is no evidence of a change in member desire should they vote on it again? It’s a bit Theresa May for me. 

Im not sure of the logistics in blocking a vote but my point is I don’t think it should even be suggested unless we can evidence that now a significant (not 10 or 20) number of SMISA members have fundamental desire for this change. 

What do you think? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Fair enough, I’ve maybe not been clear. My point fleshed out is:
They had the vote this year with very little interest in it. if the same idea comes back with little/ no changes and there is no evidence of a change in member desire should they vote on it again? It’s a bit Theresa May for me. 
Im not sure of the logistics in blocking a vote but my point is I don’t think it should even be suggested unless we can evidence that now a significant (not 10 or 20) number of SMISA members have fundamental desire for this change. 
What do you think? 

If a proposal is legitimate wither I like or agree with it, then it should be voted on by the members.

My point is in the legitimacy of proposing the vote. If we take out any legality or regulation adherence in doing the actual vote, would you say in good faith someone could present a proposal that got less than 1% of members votes again without a significant fundamental change in proposal/ interest? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:
22 minutes ago, bazil85 said:
Fair enough, I’ve maybe not been clear. My point fleshed out is:
They had the vote this year with very little interest in it. if the same idea comes back with little/ no changes and there is no evidence of a change in member desire should they vote on it again? It’s a bit Theresa May for me. 
Im not sure of the logistics in blocking a vote but my point is I don’t think it should even be suggested unless we can evidence that now a significant (not 10 or 20) number of SMISA members have fundamental desire for this change. 
What do you think? 

If a proposal is legitimate wither I like or agree with it, then it should be voted on by the members.

I've had a wee look at the requirements under the specific legislation on 'special resolution' 

It states 'justification for' has to be submitted which in my reading is to say, it would need to be justified with the board being able to decide on said justification (subjective). I would think a recent vote that failed to get even 1% of the possible vote would be vastly enough evidence to prevent another from happening. That is to say unless Graeme can provide supporting evidence of a drastic change in desire. 

Time will tell, I just think it's a bit pointless, not only in getting it on the paper, I don't imagine it will be a proposal that would pass given previous vote results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely not SFA and SPFL should be much tougher on it. Our game is a joke for it being tolerated. The mitigation of it and its existence are two very different points. 
I am in no way condoning it, if I was in charge of our game, Celtic, Rangers, Hearts Hibs, Motherwell and St Mirren (likely others) would have all faced empty stand games/ point deductions this season from offences from bigotry to object throwing. As I said in previous posts, people are attaching emotion to my view which is purely realist. While the people in our game continue to bend over and take it from the bigots, our fans don't fill stands and while money dominates football, difficult calls need to be made. 
The point on the more seats being their oxygen I also don't take, they will and have in the past just end up in home stands. 
Your sidestep, I couldn't agree more. It is a frustration and a massive part of the problem. I am therefore sure you join me in my disappointment of BuddieEK for his posts eluding to me having an allegiance to one of the teams (with absolutely zero evidence, foundation or suggestion I might add). It's bad enough fans of the bigots do it without fellow budides doing the same. 
 
Awwww diddums.

Well... If you keep banging a drum... ... [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji15]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...