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

[Lord Pityme]

29 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

So did LPM's proxy support the committee

It is possible there was a problem down to technology and his proxy not registering. For that reason I PM Graeme to tell him what I had done to insure that my vote was included/registered.

My proxy was registered, i have a copy of the emai, and my proxy attended and confirmed my vote at the AGM.

interesting how so may of the proxies bothered to do so just to vote against? Was there a party whip when they realised how close it would be if they discounted the club board voting?

and just to highlight ffs, the club board voting agsinst a smisa members option for the £2 pot. I guess it shows how f**king desperate and skint they now are after the financial mismanagement. The poorest form imaginable, that and kicking families out of their seats.

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

My proxy was registered, i have a copy of the emai, and my proxy attended and confirmed my vote at the AGM.

interesting how so may of the proxies bothered to do so just to vote against? Was there a party whip when they realised how close it would be if they discounted the club board voting?

and just to highlight ffs, the club board voting agsinst a smisa members option for the £2 pot. I guess it shows how f**king desperate and skint they now are after the financial mismanagement. The poorest form imaginable, that and kicking families out of their seats.

Aw petal, you sound upset. Tinfoil hat stuff this though isn't it? 

1. They wouldn't have known how people would vote in advance of the meeting so there couldn't have been a 'whip' based on something they didn't know 

2. They had an opinion it would dilute votes and wouldn't be in the best interest. They are allowed to have an opinion.

3. It doesn't show any sign of desperation, financial mismanagement or being 'skint' does it? 

 

[Kombibuddie]

I didn't examine the list of proxies for names and but was told I had a "couple"
SMISA presented a sheet with proxies registered, i thought no need to examine until the vote was complete. If the vote was closer, i would have examined the list with a fine toothcombe. However, they said The St Mirren Board had submitted proxies against the proposal but they weren't going to include these. This was reiterated by George Adam ahead of the actual vote.

The minutes mention my realisation of the wording but acknowledeged the vote needed to go ahead as presented.
The wording was "until the buds is bought"

My original intention & one that I have championed since day 1 is having the option to save the pot on each & every vote (for "big ticket items" is how I worded it a couple of years ago.
Therein, lies the tweak [emoji16].

Valuable lesson in writing & submitting a members resolution.
The result has not put me off.

Next time, it'll be a full blown presentation [emoji23].

There is a growing trend to save the pot. Who knows, a near year long campaign 🤣 might just help swing that vote in Saves favour.

[Lord Pityme]

10 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

Got a reply, they've confirmed that the figures are correct.

Can I ask how you registered your proxy?

As advised by email to smisa. Think this needs further investigation, skullduggery or dark forces at play?

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

I didn't examine the list of proxies for names and but was told I had a "couple"
SMISA presented a sheet with proxies registered, i thought no need to examine until the vote was complete. If the vote was closer, i would have examined the list with a fine toothcombe. However, they said The St Mirren Board had submitted proxies against the proposal but they weren't going to include these. This was reiterated by George Adam ahead of the actual vote.

The minutes mention my realisation of the wording but acknowledeged the vote needed to go ahead as presented.
The wording was "until the buds is bought"

My original intention & one that I have championed since day 1 is having the option to save the pot on each & every vote (for "big ticket items" is how I worded it a couple of years ago.
Therein, lies the tweak .

Valuable lesson in writing & submitting a members resolution.
The result has not put me off.

Next time, it'll be a full blown presentation .

There is a growing trend to save the pot. Who knows, a near year long campaign 🤣 might just help swing that vote in Saves favour.
 

Your continued campaigning will probably only highlight what we already know. There is very little appetite for this or indeed any changes to the vote. The overwhelming majority seem happy just to have things as is and not get involved.

It also seems unlikely still, that the option would ever pass even if it was a standing option. Club benefits almost always win comfortably. 

Like I have said before, without a material and evidenced change in attitude I don’t think another resolution could be merited. 

[Lord Pityme]

44 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

I got a automated reply similiar to this one from yesterday for my email that they had received it, did you?

If not it might not have been sent correctly

My proxy was there and confirmed my vote. If it hasnt been included then smisa are in trouble for failing to follow their own process and procedure. Not for the first time!

still on the bright side that failure to ensure basic members rights are upheld could lead to a nice wee payday if they are forced to refund all subscriptions..!

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

My proxy was there and confirmed my vote. If it hasnt been included then smisa are in trouble for failing to follow their own process and procedure. Not for the first time!

still on the bright side that failure to ensure basic members rights are upheld could lead to a nice wee payday if they are forced to refund all subscriptions..!

Yet again the glee in your posts at the hope of a SMISA collapse that would seriously damage the club you ‘support’ 

unfortunately for you that will never happen and as I have said many times you’ll be unable to stop BTB. You’ll have to sit back, watch and remain raging 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

That's a big allegation and threat.

For anyone that has any doubt about your grievance you could publish the email confirmation that you sent one rather than basing it on hearsay.

*empty threat. As usual from him

[Lord Pityme]

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

That's a big allegation and threat.

For anyone that has any doubt about your grievance you could publish the email confirmation that you sent one rather than basing it on hearsay.

Not a big allegation, a fact!

i followed smisa's process to the letter. If that process failed its their problem.

[Lord Pityme]

14 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

I'm guessing that you don't have a confirmation of a sent email.

Would you still have the sent email by chance that would have the date and time stamp on it?

Keep guessing.

[Kombibuddie]

Your continued campaigning will probably only highlight what we already know. There is very little appetite for this or indeed any changes to the vote. The overwhelming majority seem happy just to have things as is and not get involved.

It also seems unlikely still, that the option would ever pass even if it was a standing option. Club benefits almost always win comfortably. 

Like I have said before, without a material and evidenced change in attitude I don’t think another resolution could be merited. 

Visibly, there's only you banging that drum with any gusto.

 

More than happy to see how things develop over the next 10 months.

 

Like I said before, there was encouragement at the SMISA AGM, so

If, I think it merited, i will submit a tweaked proposal.

 

But 1st, we have the club AGM to look forward to. Defo making this years.

 

[bazil85]

On 5/3/2019 at 4:06 PM, Kombibuddie said:

Visibly, there's only you banging that drum with any gusto.

 

More than happy to see how things develop over the next 10 months.

 

Like I said before, there was encouragement at the SMISA AGM, so

If, I think it merited, i will submit a tweaked proposal.

 

But 1st, we have the club AGM to look forward to. Defo making this years.

 

I am the campaigner (if you like) for a silent majority that seem to have no appetite/ interest to have a standing option on the vote. 

All I mean is unless a material change in interest can be evidenced I would hope a tiny minority view wouldn’t be pushed in the hope of sneaking it under the radar. It’s not very democratic IMO. 

[bazil85]

On 5/6/2019 at 7:05 PM, cockles1987 said:

You do know that a vote that gets communicated to every member can't be sneaked under a radar..

 

It is possible that folk didn't think they'd be so little numbers against the proposal that they didn't bother to vote, and would vote now seeing that there wasn't the hundreds against it.

 

I know I was surprised with the numbers that voted.

 

What I mean is the overwhelming majority aren’t bothered about change and won’t actively vote for or against. In a membership of over 1,200 I don’t think something that can’t muster 10 votes should be getting re-presented at the risk it goes through with 20-30 votes. I think it’s clear there isn’t an appetite for change. 

If he gets ‘hundreds’ of members proactively giving their backing by next year then I would think it was absolutely justified, don’t see it though. 

Think people also need to remember this is only stage one to get it a free standing option. There is no evidence it would even pass. Much more likely options that benefit the club we support will continue to win 

[BuddieinEK]

What I mean is the overwhelming majority aren’t bothered about change and won’t actively vote for or against. In a membership of over 1,200 I don’t think something that can’t muster 10 votes should be getting re-presented at the risk it goes through with 20-30 votes. I think it’s clear there isn’t an appetite for change. 
If he gets ‘hundreds’ of members proactively giving their backing by next year then I would think it was absolutely justified, don’t see it though. 
Think people also need to remember this is only stage one to get it a free standing option. There is no evidence it would even pass. Much more likely options that benefit the club we support will continue to win 

It's a wonderful skill to know the will of over 1,100 non voters!

For all you know, if pushed to vote, they could all be in favour of change but be denied that democratic right by the "champion of democracy" when people are told what they will get once voted!

You cannot uphold democracy then deny it just to suit your own personal stance on a debate.

Well, actually, YOU can!
[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

[oaksoft]

53 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

It's a wonderful skill to know the will of over 1,100 non voters!

For all you know, if pushed to vote, they could all be in favour of change but be denied that democratic right by the "champion of democracy" when people are told what they will get once voted!

You cannot uphold democracy then deny it just to suit your own personal stance on a debate.

Well, actually, YOU can!

His mindset and thought process is utterly baffling.

To be including non-voters to prove your point is intellectually bankrupt.

And I thought he couldn't stoop any lower than attempting to compare one stand with two stands. That was another intellectually bankrupt position to take.

I assume the thought process is something like:

"Hmm I think I will take a completely arbitrary reference point with just a seed of truth in it and use it to compare this real number here. The arbitrary point has to be good enough to make others points seem ludicrous. Yes it's stupid but nobody will notice and I will win the argument."

This is a classic abuse of statistics and only works if you assume that other people are thick as shit.

We saw it in IndyRef 1. Rather than admit Yes voters scored 45% of votes, many people tried to persuade others to assume ALL non-voters were against Yes and added that to the No side. Therefore they take the ludicrous position that Yes only secured the votes of 33% of Scots. Of course this is ludicrous because despite being technically true, the important thing is that it falsely implys 67% voted No. The hope is that a lot of people are too stupid to know they are being manipulated and that's all that counts. This is the exact same stunt being pulled by Baz. He is assuming you'll believe that 1190 were against an idea with just 10 in favour because this is how little he respects the intelligence of posters on here and fellow Saints fans.

I was always taught never to get into discussions with such people because they were so focussed on winning an argument and destroying their opponents that they simply couldn't be trusted.

They both waste your time and suck the life out of everyone they come into contact with.

Edited May 8, 2019 by oaksoft

[bazil85]

On 5/8/2019 at 2:29 PM, cockles1987 said:

 

 

So you'll have no objection as the proposal had 11 votes for.



I agree with what is much more likely will win.

Just remember much more likely isn't guaranteed.

 

If they got 11 votes it would certainly be progress but not enough to win based on this year haha. 

Very true but ‘much more likely’ to get beat 

[bazil85]

On 5/8/2019 at 6:00 PM, BuddieinEK said:

It's a wonderful skill to know the will of over 1,100 non voters!

For all you know, if pushed to vote, they could all be in favour of change but be denied that democratic right by the "champion of democracy" when people are told what they will get once voted!

You cannot uphold democracy then deny it just to suit your own personal stance on a debate.

Well, actually, YOU can!

I didn’t claim to know their will ffs, do you actively go out the way to disagree with me?  what it does suggest is roughly 1,100 are not overlay concerned with the vote one way or another based on their lack of voting. 

Is it democratic to ‘push’ people to vote? 

my opinion (I know you struggle with interpreting opinions) is without clear evidence of a material change in voters attitudes, a second vote couldn’t be justified. Once again it’s an opinion and I’m allowed to have a. Different one from you. 

[bazil85]

Just now, cockles1987 said:

Wasn't if, it did. Insert banging head against wall smiley

I think that smiley would be more relevant for people trying to push a second vote on something that got less than 1% approval last time.

If there’s a ‘flogging a dead horse’ emoji though that might be more appropriate 

[Kombibuddie]

I think that smiley would be more relevant for people trying to push a second vote on something that got less than 1% approval last time.
If there’s a ‘flogging a dead horse’ emoji though that might be more appropriate [emoji38]

Basil,

Sorry fella but you are absolutely obsessed with this "less than 1%"

Going with your interpretation, just over 2% voted against the proposal.

That's not too big an obstacle to overcome. Who gives up so easily these days?

We've gone over & over but you remain unmoved in your recognition of the small numbers that actually voted

I don't think you are adding anything new to the discussion but regurgitating the same old argument.

We now have 8 months or so before resubmission day.
We'll see how things develop between now & then before I decide to resubmit an amended proposal.
Anyways, you repeating the same figures will not influence that decision.

We'll have a beer after the SMISA AGM if you make it or The Club AGM later this year since I am planning on making that one too.
All the best fella.

.

[bazil85]

16 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Basil,

Sorry fella but you are absolutely obsessed with this "less than 1%"

Going with your interpretation, just over 2% voted against the proposal.

That's not too big an obstacle to overcome. Who gives up so easily these days?

We've gone over & over but you remain unmoved in your recognition of the small numbers that actually voted

I don't think you are adding anything new to the discussion but regurgitating the same old argument.

We now have 8 months or so before resubmission day.
We'll see how things develop between now & then before I decide to resubmit an amended proposal.
Anyways, you repeating the same figures will not influence that decision.

We'll have a beer after the SMISA AGM if you make it or The Club AGM later this year since I am planning on making that one too.
All the best fella.

.

Not sure if you’re understanding me right on this one. My point is not on people being opposed to it, it’s on people with no appetite for change, which seems like the overwhelming majority (based on voting numbers).

I imagine you probably could garnish a passing majority which would be what? About 20 odd? My opinion is the vote has been and it is very clear there isn’t an appetite for change and unless there is evidence a significant number (far more than 20) want this, it shouldn’t be represented. 

I believed from your previous posts you were in agreement that you shouldn’t present the same thing again (or similar) unless you were going to get significantly more support? 

[Kombibuddie]

Not sure if you’re understanding me right on this one. My point is not on people being opposed to it, it’s on people with no appetite for change, which seems like the overwhelming majority (based on voting numbers).

I imagine you probably could garnish a passing majority which would be what? About 20 odd? My opinion is the vote has been and it is very clear there isn’t an appetite for change and unless there is evidence a significant number (far more than 20) want this, it shouldn’t be represented. 

I believed from your previous posts you were in agreement that you shouldn’t present the same thing again (or similar) unless you were going to get significantly more support? 

I got your point bang on. It's just you keep regurgitating the same old same old.

 

My stance hasn't changed. I'll keep an eye on how things develop between now and next February. If f I think there is enough encouragement to submit an amended proposal, it'll get submitted.

 

My stance/opinion is not fixed and I won't submit for the sake of submitting.

 

The point of my post is, you hark on about less than 1% of SMISA voters supported this proposal, therefore it is not merited.

You continue to fail to recognise, only 2% voted against it.

 

Of those that voted 30% voted for it, 70% against.

 

We can dress it up whichever way we like but any proposal is unlikely to get 100% of the membership voting.

 

Since that is the case, that 30% only needs to get a wee bit more than double & it could be job done.

 

Luckily, St Mirren haven't thrown in the towel as quickly as you think I should.

 

 

[bazil85]

16 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

I got your point bang on. It's just you keep regurgitating the same old same old.

 

My stance hasn't changed. I'll keep an eye on how things develop between now and next February. If f I think there is enough encouragement to submit an amended proposal, it'll get submitted.

 

My stance/opinion is not fixed and I won't submit for the sake of submitting.

 

The point of my post is, you hark on about less than 1% of SMISA voters supported this proposal, therefore it is not merited.

You continue to fail to recognise, only 2% voted against it.

 

Of those that voted 30% voted for it, 70% against.

 

We can dress it up whichever way we like but any proposal is unlikely to get 100% of the membership voting.

 

Since that is the case, that 30% only needs to get a wee bit more than double & it could be job done.

 

Luckily, St Mirren haven't thrown in the towel as quickly as you think I should.

 

 

So I’d probably say you don’t get it by again bringing up the 2% against it. Yet again, that is in no way, shape or form my point. My point is and always has been that an overwhelming majority haven’t shown an appetite & until that changes I don’t think there is any justification in representing this or any slightly amended form of this. 

My concern is if you feel you can get 20-30 people behind this you might feel that is enough to go back because it would be enough to pass under the current rules. I don’t think that would be appropriate because it’s still showing there is no appetite in the vast majority (for or against) 

sounds like you’re saying that is your intention. Do you feel that’s in the best interest of the overall numbers? It’s very Theresa May IMO. 

I could give you a for instance. My personal opinion is a standing option for the money raised to be given to the club every month would be great. It’s my go to for every vote & I think given we’re all St Mirren fans our club having the money makes sense. If we voted on that and had 20 for & 10 against or vice versa I would rather the vote was thrown out because it’s clear there isn’t appetite for a change to the constitution. 

For this I don’t think it’s a matter of you giving up, it’s a matter of you acknowledging no one really cares enough to justify further pursuit. If that was to change fill your boots.  

[Kombibuddie]

Groundhog day

[bazil85]

40 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Groundhog day

It would be if you hadn’t mentioned the small vote in favour again, that’s what showed me you weren’t understanding my point. 

[Kombibuddie]

It would be if you hadn’t mentioned the small vote in favour again, that’s what showed me you weren’t understanding my point. 

Unfortunately, you hark on about "less than 1%" but fail to acknowledge only 2% voted against it.

But that doesn't suit your argument.

I've voiced my opinion on it a couple of times now.
Your perseverance is akin to a war of attrition hence, the groundhog day.

Me & a couple of others disagree with you on this. Let's see what the next couple of votes throw up and we will go from there.