Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Lord Pityme

Smisa's Shame

Recommended Posts

Any smisa member can make a suggestion about any aspect of the society. Indeed if you have a specific idea about how the £2 discretionary pot could be spent, in theory you can ask for that idea to be put to the membership as an option on the 3 monthly ballot.

all it requires is a simple majority vote against the other options on that vote to be passed! ( if only 100 members vote on four options, you just need the most out of 100)

so... why is it a smisa member has been forced to put his idea on how the £2 discretionary pot be used as a proposal at the AGM where it needs the approval of two thirds of the membership to be passed???

remember when Smisa agreed on Mr Scott's behalf to rifle OUR ringfenced funds for purchasing the majority shareholding in the club?

such a fundamental change to a policy and guarantee to members should have been put forward at an EGM, and required a two thirds majority to pass. But oh no.... worried it wouldnt pass such a high bar it was put through like a request for Matchballs on the discretionary pot vote. Needing only to get the most votes. Shameful, and against the Smisa constitution rules!

its high time smisa (and the club) were held to account, and stopped from continually rifling the funds guaranteed to be ringfenced in our asset lock for majority shareholding purchase. Buds... we bought the buds, Mr Scott is getting all his money back, why is he being given access to the funds we will require to finance the club when we takeover?

this is the time for action!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Any smisa member can make a suggestion about any aspect of the society. Indeed if you have a specific idea about how the £2 discretionary pot could be spent, in theory you can ask for that idea to be put to the membership as an option on the 3 monthly ballot.

all it requires is a simple majority vote against the other options on that vote to be passed! ( if only 100 members vote on four options, you just need the most out of 100)

so... why is it a smisa member has been forced to put his idea on how the £2 discretionary pot be used as a proposal at the AGM where it needs the approval of two thirds of the membership to be passed???

remember when Smisa agreed on Mr Scott's behalf to rifle OUR ringfenced funds for purchasing the majority shareholding in the club?

such a fundamental change to a policy and guarantee to members should have been put forward at an EGM, and required a two thirds majority to pass. But oh no.... worried it wouldnt pass such a high bar it was put through like a request for Matchballs on the discretionary pot vote. Needing only to get the most votes. Shameful, and against the Smisa constitution rules!

its high time smisa (and the club) were held to account, and stopped from continually rifling the funds guaranteed to be ringfenced in our asset lock for majority shareholding purchase. Buds... we bought the buds, Mr Scott is getting all his money back, why is he being given access to the funds we will require to finance the club when we takeover?

this is the time for action!

If you ever turn your endless words into anything remotely resembling action I will lick five square foot of paving of your choice. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Any smisa member can make a suggestion about any aspect of the society. Indeed if you have a specific idea about how the £2 discretionary pot could be spent, in theory you can ask for that idea to be put to the membership as an option on the 3 monthly ballot.

all it requires is a simple majority vote against the other options on that vote to be passed! ( if only 100 members vote on four options, you just need the most out of 100)

so... why is it a smisa member has been forced to put his idea on how the £2 discretionary pot be used as a proposal at the AGM where it needs the approval of two thirds of the membership to be passed???

remember when Smisa agreed on Mr Scott's behalf to rifle OUR ringfenced funds for purchasing the majority shareholding in the club?

such a fundamental change to a policy and guarantee to members should have been put forward at an EGM, and required a two thirds majority to pass. But oh no.... worried it wouldnt pass such a high bar it was put through like a request for Matchballs on the discretionary pot vote. Needing only to get the most votes. Shameful, and against the Smisa constitution rules!

its high time smisa (and the club) were held to account, and stopped from continually rifling the funds guaranteed to be ringfenced in our asset lock for majority shareholding purchase. Buds... we bought the buds, Mr Scott is getting all his money back, why is he being given access to the funds we will require to finance the club when we takeover?

this is the time for action!

LPM once again inaccurately thinking he speaks for the majority of SMISA members when he is likely still in the extreme minority. I feel like correcting him and pointing out his ignorance is become even more regular and even easier. To break it down (again)

 

-          This isn’t a majority vote on a one off option, it’s on a fundamental change to the discretionary fund with a free standing option being proposed (that evidence suggests will fail anyway). Completely reasonable like any other fundamental change it would require a solid consensus to pass.

-          You have once again showed yourself as nothing more than a hypocrite. On one hand saying ‘it should only take a majority of voting members regardless of how low the turnout is’ and on the other having a go at a voting member majority on using £50k for the pitch and then saying it should need two thirds. (let us just ignore the fact the ring fence as confirmed will be completely unaffected given the repayment vehicle is clear, costed and way ahead of schedule)

-          I’ll reiterate, a majority of voting SMISA members wanted the funds to be used in this way, until such time as you can evidence a majority that agree with your view, your call to action will fall on deaf ears and you’ll have to continue to painfully watch a plan that obviously irritates you creep ever closer. I for one could not be more happy about this.

Still think you can stop BTB from completing or it’s doomed to fail? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

LPM once again inaccurately thinking he speaks for the majority of SMISA members when he is likely still in the extreme minority. I feel like correcting him and pointing out his ignorance is become even more regular and even easier. To break it down (again)

 

-          This isn’t a majority vote on a one off option, it’s on a fundamental change to the discretionary fund with a free standing option being proposed (that evidence suggests will fail anyway). Completely reasonable like any other fundamental change it would require a solid consensus to pass.

-          You have once again showed yourself as nothing more than a hypocrite. On one hand saying ‘it should only take a majority of voting members regardless of how low the turnout is’ and on the other having a go at a voting member majority on using £50k for the pitch and then saying it should need two thirds. (let us just ignore the fact the ring fence as confirmed will be completely unaffected given the repayment vehicle is clear, costed and way ahead of schedule)

-          I’ll reiterate, a majority of voting SMISA members wanted the funds to be used in this way, until such time as you can evidence a majority that agree with your view, your call to action will fall on deaf ears and you’ll have to continue to painfully watch a plan that obviously irritates you creep ever closer. I for one could not be more happy about this.

Still think you can stop BTB from completing or it’s doomed to fail? :rolleyes:

 

IMG_1783.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is a riddle LPM.

IMO SMiSA is a discredited organisation.

Q - When are guaranteed "ring-fenced" monies "no-longer-ring-fenced" ?

A - Whenever it suits the purposes of someone influential within SMiSA.

Bizarrely I still retain my membership of SMiSA (minimum monthly contribution only) essentially because I can't be arsed cancelling the direct debit I set up years ago. Sadly I now have no faith or trust in the motives of those who are currently controlling SMiSA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Yes, it is a riddle LPM.

IMO SMiSA is a discredited organisation.

Q - When are guaranteed "ring-fenced" monies "no-longer-ring-fenced" ?

A - Whenever it suits the purposes of someone influential within SMiSA.

Bizarrely I still retain my membership of SMiSA (minimum monthly contribution only) essentially because I can't be arsed cancelling the direct debit I set up years ago. Sadly I now have no faith or trust in the motives of those who are currently controlling SMiSA.

 

 

Feck, Baz is in on the act, thats this thread goosed.

Anyway,  alas, they were never truly ring fenced but we know that now - too trusting at the outset - the sheep are out of the pen and never likely to be back in.

Be interesting once Scexit happens and the smisa numbers fall off a cliff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Yes, it is a riddle LPM.

IMO SMiSA is a discredited organisation.

Q - When are guaranteed "ring-fenced" monies "no-longer-ring-fenced" ?

A - Whenever it suits the purposes of someone influential within SMiSA.

Bizarrely I still retain my membership of SMiSA (minimum monthly contribution only) essentially because I can't be arsed cancelling the direct debit I set up years ago. Sadly I now have no faith or trust in the motives of those who are currently controlling SMiSA.

 

 

There is a building mistrust which i think will result, (should a proposal like KB's not be passed at the agm) to a fair few cancelling their direct debits, and saving their money' for the inevitable "S.O.S" Save Our Saints campaign when it goes tits up.

what is the point in being a member of an organisation, that promised you involvement and a say in how the club would be run, when you cant even get an option on a discretionary £2 vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a building mistrust which i think will result, (should a proposal like KB's not be passed at the agm) to a fair few cancelling their direct debits, and saving their money' for the inevitable "S.O.S" Save Our Saints campaign when it goes tits up.
what is the point in being a member of an organisation, that promised you involvement and a say in how the club would be run, when you cant even get an option on a discretionary £2 vote?
I'm getting you're not a big fan of democracy.

I would have added a question mark, but I'm not asking a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

I'm getting you're not a big fan of democracy.

I would have added a question mark, but I'm not asking a question.

Is it democratic for smisa to simply add an option on the 3 monthly vote, that only needs a majority to pass so they can rifle £50k of ringfenced funds.

but insist a member has to put forward amotion at the agm requiring two thirds of members to vote for, simply to ADD an option to the 3 monthly vote?

why didnt the match ball proposal require two thirds of members to vote for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it democratic for smisa to simply add an option on the 3 monthly vote, that only needs a majority to pass so they can rifle £50k of ringfenced funds.
but insist a member has to put forward amotion at the agm requiring two thirds of members to vote for, simply to ADD an option to the 3 monthly vote?
why didnt the match ball proposal require two thirds of members to vote for it?
Was the £2 portion not set up to be spent, whereas the proposal I'll be voting FOR is for the option to be on all the time to save for, so in the future after SMISA is the majority shareholder it could be used for a unexpected repair (undersoil heating plant) or replacing something that is expensive (academy astroturf).

I've gave two recent examples of how the savings could be used, there is plenty more if folk channel there views positively. Like....

It could even be used for reinvestment uses as such as the ground source heating and/or rainwater storage schemes.

It may just be me, but your negative comments aren't helping with getting this proposal passed.

I'm a believer of talking things up to get results rather than moaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am a believer of talking things up to get results.

That f~~~~~ proposal took me donkeys to write. Purely because, I have never written a proposal before and wanted to ensure it couldn't be railroaded off the table at the 1st chance.

I firmly believe there is a requirement for the option I have proposed and I haven't seen anything yet to suggest it does't stand a chance. Not unless the AGM gets loaded with folk who wouldn't usually be there to vote the proposal down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No harm of a reminder

I too am a believer of talking things up to get results.

That f~~~~~ proposal took me donkeys to write. Purely because, I have never written a proposal before and wanted to ensure it couldn't be railroaded off the table at the 1st chance.

I firmly believe there is a requirement for the option I have proposed and I haven't seen anything yet to suggest it does't stand a chance. Not unless the AGM gets loaded with folk who wouldn't usually be there to vote the proposal down.

If any member of SMISA is unable to attend the meeting, they can nominate a proxy vote to another person. To register for a proxy please email [email protected] no later than Thursday 28 March, stating your name and the person you wish to attend and vote on your behalf.

 

 

Member resolution

 

This year, one of our members (Graeme Aitken) has put forward a resolution (in line with rule 26 of our constitution) to be voted on at the AGM.

 

Graeme believes the quarterly £2 pot ballots should contain an option allowing members to save unspent money for when SMISA is the majority owner of the club. He has submitted a document with full background and text of the resolution

https://smisa.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0f54247fc9ff7bbd101a51da4&id=82c7383358&e=85ca6f656a

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

Was the £2 portion not set up to be spent, whereas the proposal I'll be voting FOR is for the option to be on all the time to save for, so in the future after SMISA is the majority shareholder it could be used for a unexpected repair (undersoil heating plant) or replacing something that is expensive (academy astroturf).

I've gave two recent examples of how the savings could be used, there is plenty more if folk channel there views positively. Like....

It could even be used for reinvestment uses as such as the ground source heating and/or rainwater storage schemes.

It may just be me, but your negative comments aren't helping with getting this proposal passed.

I'm a believer of talking things up to get results rather than moaning.

That last line is a peach! I am sure anyone who can be bothered could test the veracity of it by sampling some of your previous moan ladened, vitriolic rants. Nice try though, looking forward to all your positive posts to come lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

That last line is a peach! I am sure anyone who can be bothered could test the veracity of it by sampling some of your previous moan ladened, vitriolic rants. Nice try though, looking forward to all your positive posts to come lol.

To be fair to Cockles, (a practice for which I am not best known), I honestly can’t recall ever reading a post of his that was as you describe.

can you post links/examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, antrin said:

To be fair to Cockles, (a practice for which I am not best known), I honestly can’t recall ever reading a post of his that was as you describe.

can you post links/examples?

Just look at his responses on my posts, there all their to be read.

what he also fails to recognise, or ignores is that this isnt the proposers thread! It was started by me, specifically to avoid any debate on the proposers thread. Still lets not let the facts get in the way of a load of pishy made up nonsense lol.

Edited by Lord Pityme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antrin, as you can see he's not able to provide actual proof just posting words without being able to back it up with the actual quotes.

Any time I've challenged him on providing proof of something he usual says he has me on ignore and just burys his head in the sand.

Ps i really hope he asks for the said questions and says he'll answer them all, as I've bookmarked them all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

Antrin, as you can see he's not able to provide actual proof just posting words without being able to back it up with the actual quotes.

Any time I've challenged him on providing proof of something he usual says he has me on ignore and just burys his head in the sand.

Ps i really hope he asks for the said questions and says he'll answer them all, as I've bookmarked them all emoji23.png
 

 

IMG_1784.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2019 at 2:41 PM, cockles1987 said:

Was the £2 portion not set up to be spent, whereas the proposal I'll be voting FOR is for the option to be on all the time to save for, so in the future after SMISA is the majority shareholder it could be used for a unexpected repair (undersoil heating plant) or replacing something that is expensive (academy astroturf).

I've gave two recent examples of how the savings could be used, there is plenty more if folk channel there views positively. Like....

It could even be used for reinvestment uses as such as the ground source heating and/or rainwater storage schemes.

It may just be me, but your negative comments aren't helping with getting this proposal passed.

I'm a believer of talking things up to get results rather than moaning.

You write the kind of things I would like to see money saved for. Those giving their time to run smisa really need to sit up and take note. Football clubs drink money at some point. You can't budget for maintenance 100% you need a sum set a side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You write the kind of things I would like to see money saved for. Those giving their time to run smisa really need to sit up and take note. Football clubs drink money at some point. You can't budget for maintenance 100% you need a sum set a side. 
As much as i wrote them here. It would be wrong of me to take the credit for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas, this forum is only a talking shop - the chances of any forward looking, money saving suggestions actually being taken forward are remote at best.

To infinity and beyond! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, melmac said:

Alas, this forum is only a talking shop - the chances of any forward looking, money saving suggestions actually being taken forward are remote at best.

To infinity and beyond! 

This is the creeping feeling of inevitability that we (because as a smisa member you are smisa) need to reverse. The committee members dont want you to change the 'Gordon's Shopping List' discretionary fund, as they agreed it all with??? Guess who.

the reality they dont see is if nothing members wish to change, actually changes, then members will simply drift away leaving smisa and the club in a vulnerable position. They Theresa May-esque style of 'My deal, or No deal' just turns people off. Smisa really needs this proposal to be accepted to show that being a member actually involves planning for the club's financial future, not buying frigging hand dryers, or match balls.

membership numbers are slowly dropping off, the grim reaper will shave some off every year, as will a poorly functioning team and club. If members cant see how their funds and input can be heard and make a difference then drop offs will snowball. Smisa cant fill committee places, or even generate competition to become the Smisa club board rep. That is and will continue to be reflected in membership numbers.

its unlikely there will be a sudden big drop off, the decline will be as a result of apathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Smisa,the club,and even the SFA chip in to erect a board that tells the thousands of cars that pass the stadium every week(And trains) when our next home game is and who we are playing.

It could also advertise Scotland games.

This would catch those not looking at St Mirren social media, and pull in some  the 73000 Paisley punters that do not currently support the club.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...