Smisa's Shame

[bazil85]

10 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

Here's the quote from the website.

Q: How will SMiSA continue to raise money after the takeover, to pay unexpected or every day bills?
A: AQ and CO replied that the exact nature of how SMiSA will function post acquisition has not yet been determined, but a paper is currently being prepared by the committee which will propose various options and scenarios. This paper when finished will be sent to all members for their feedback. 

https://www.smisa.net/news-archive/5-general-smisa-news/270-smisa-agm-minutes

The plan is in the planning, when the planning is finished the plan is for the plan to be sent to all members if all the planning for that is planned correctly.

So nowhere that says ‘we don’t have a plan’ then? 

My point is a plan for the future, that’s a very targeted question on one off expenses or day to day bills & it still doesn’t say ‘we don’t have a plan’ 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by bazil85

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

 

 

Isn't everything to do with money.

I can give you a few quotes with the same meaning as above.

Well 1, but whats the difference between 1 and a few.

 

SMISA **** to prepare a paper that will go to committee for sign off, that proposes various options & scenarios for post purchase. The paper will then be sent to members for their input... 

I’m struggling for a word to use at the **** bit 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

It's called preparatory planning, the paper is the plan. Even Baldrick has got a better record than you when it comes to plans.

So... we’re saying there is a plan? Had me worried for a minute  

[bazil85]

40 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

No we are not, I'll try again. The plan is at the planning stage. If there is nothing forthcoming from the planning stage then there is no plan.

Ps I'm back at work working on a plan. My boss wont be happy if it's not produced by 2pm and I give her a excuse that I'm still at the planning stage but basil said it was ok.

So you’ll probably agree my off the cuff comment about them having a plan was correct. I didn’t go into granular detail regarding what stage the plan is at. 

[Lord Pityme]

To be clear. As stated by the committee.... Smisa are f**ked!
The only plan was to do what Scott wanted. There is not one future option even thought about.
Ask them!

[Kombibuddie]

Sorry fellas,

SMISA do have a plan, well it's a bit of a plan but it is a plan (of sorts).

The plan, for now, is not to complete the fan buyout of St Mirren FC until they have a plan.

A very cunning plan. Dontchya think?

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

To be clear. As stated by the committee.... Smisa are f**ked!
The only plan was to do what Scott wanted. There is not one future option even thought about.
Ask them!

 

10 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

Sorry fellas,

SMISA do have a plan, well it's a bit of a plan but it is a plan (of sorts).

The plan, for now, is not to complete the fan buyout of St Mirren FC until they have a plan.

A very cunning plan. Dontchya think?

 

2 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

But you wrote when you were on the committee you had discussed a future option of a coffee shop.

Unless you lied about that.

We all know LPM needs to believe SMISA are f***ed. It’s part of what keeps him going. His fairytale is everything falls apart to the detriment of SMFC & demise of BTB/ SMISA. 

The unfortunate reality for him is sadly that’s not even remotely the situation. putting maturity of plans aside some of the points to note are: 

-BTB is miles ahead of target 

- we will have fans willing to open ended contribute money on a month basis, which is income over and above money the club had survived 139 years on before this arrangement so even without it there is zero indication we wouldn’t be fine.   

- SMISA are on track to inherit the club in the healthiest position it’s been regarding no debt, season ticket sales, average attendances, stadium condition, training facilities, establishment of youth academy & quality of youth facilities for decades. Some of those factors are the best they’ve ever been. Can you imagine we grow them on the same scale we have in recent years over the next 5-7? 

- the idea that when SMISA takeover there will be a worry about funding is a complete fabrication. We’ve never had rich owners plowing in big bucks. Yes we’ve had people step in to save our skin in times of poor financial management (very rare for our club) but see above, we have taken a very risk averse approach to not be in that position again. 

I know it’s in the nature of a number of fans to always search out the negatives. LPM is the epitome of this regarding SMISA but the available facts & common sense interpretation of the situation simply does not back up his doomsday fantasy.

He’ll be hurting on the day the deal completes when the majority of us will celebrate the club we love being in the hands of the people that care the most, the fans. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by bazil85

[melmac]

It’s interesting to see that SMiSA are wondering how they will function post acquisition.

Once SMiSA become majority shareholder, there will be an immediate friction. SMFC are governed by the Company Acts and SMiSA are governed by Community Benefits legislation. 

As such, unless there is a change in their rules, I would presume SMiSA would need to continue to operate as they are as they are not the same as any other shareholder and cannot cough up money if / when needed by the club.

Touching on a point I raised previously on 19 June re the amendment to the Rules back in 2017, which did not have the requisite numbers at the AGM to approve the rule amendments. As I understand it, as the information was declared (before a solicitor) to be accurate and in accordance with its’ Rules (which it was not), then the Officer making the declaration to the FCA could be deemed to have committed perjury. Pretty serious if so.

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, melmac said:

It’s interesting to see that SMiSA are wondering how they will function post acquisition.

Once SMiSA become majority shareholder, there will be an immediate friction. SMFC are governed by the Company Acts and SMiSA are governed by Community Benefits legislation. 

As such, unless there is a change in their rules, I would presume SMiSA would need to continue to operate as they are as they are not the same as any other shareholder and cannot cough up money if / when needed by the club.

Touching on a point I raised previously on 19 June re the amendment to the Rules back in 2017, which did not have the requisite numbers at the AGM to approve the rule amendments. As I understand it, as the information was declared (before a solicitor) to be accurate and in accordance with its’ Rules (which it was not), then the Officer making the declaration to the FCA could be deemed to have committed perjury. Pretty serious if so.

Community benefits regulations  governs SMISA currently and the buyout, when the buyout is completed they will be company owners & all regulations & legislation that link to company ownership will apply. The form in which they take is yet to be seen (possibly a not for profit arrangement seems likely) but this is very unlikely to cause friction... it isn’t going to be a surprise to anyone that they’ll own a company at the end of this. 

As for the other point, there is different levels of rule changes & changes in process. SMISA have an appointed committee that have the delegates authority to make certain day to day decisions & changes. If any company had to run every single change by its stakeholders they’d never get anything done. I don’t know the ins & outs but I would be massively surprised if there was wrong doing here & near gobsmacked if there had been perjury.  

Again some People do seem to want to search for drama & negativity when it isn’t there & I fear this is one of those cases. 

As for Cockles point, yes a couple of people on here have danced around wrong doing and whistleblowing procedures. One did go to the FCA (apparently) and was told to jog on because there was no sign of regulatory wrongdoing, he was told it was a personal dispute then tried to backtrack & claim the FCA wouldn’t show an interest in breaches that could result in seven figure fines (madness) he used to be a very well known poster on here, three guesses who...

The other LPM. From what I can tell, He backed down very quickly when it was pointed out failure to report suspicions can also land you in trouble.

In short there is no evidence of wrong doing at SMISA or SMFC relating to BTB. Others have claimed it, no one has shown even a shred of evidence for it. 

[melmac]

Missing the point somewhat.

 

SMiSA will simply own the majority shareholding, which is an asset, and will still be a Com Ben Society. You will be aware that there is an asset lock in the Rules and as such, SMiSA are limited to what they can do.

 

The friction arises from what they may need to do as a majority shareholder and what they can do from being a Com Ben Society and answerable to their members.

 

As for the Rules, remember they were seeking to amend them, the original Rules stated: -

 

"In the case of this Rule, Rule 6 and Rule 106 the quorum at any general meeting called to consider a resolution to amend shall be: -

 

1. not less than one half of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has up to 200 members when the meeting is called;

 

2. not less than one third of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has more than 200 but less than 1000 members when the meeting is called; and

 

3. not less than one quarter of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has more than 1000 members when the meeting is called."

 

So, on the presumption that at the annual general meeting to agree to the amendments, there would need to have been more than 250 members to ensure a quorum and 2/3's of those members would need to have positively voted for the resolution to be passed.

 

I suspect there has never been anything like 250 people at a SMiSA AGM but I’m sure SMiSA could confirm, if it wished.

 

Alas, most SMiSA members don’t give a shit about what SMiSA do and those running SMiSA are happy with that, nobody to call them to account.

[bazil85]

19 minutes ago, melmac said:

Missing the point somewhat.

I’m not, I understand your point i just think your worrying over nothing. Two points need to be true for your concerns to be material 

- no one has realised that SMISA will own a company at the end of this & need to work as such 

- SMISA have knowingly breached regulations that they are guaranteed to get caught out but the FCA have just ignored it (remember they need to report to them) 

neither are overlay likely don’t you think? Specifics below: 

SMiSA will simply own the majority shareholding, which is an asset, and will still be a Com Ben Society. You will be aware that there is an asset lock in the Rules and as such, SMiSA are limited to what they can do.

This isn’t something that will be an issue, the arrangement is in place & it's known they’ll be buying a company, dozens of other clubs are now fan owned & don’t have problems with asset locks. To think smisa & SMFC haven’t thought at all about day one or this will be the one nature of club purchase that breaks when all the rest have been fine is completely unfounded  

The friction arises from what they may need to do as a majority shareholder and what they can do from being a Com Ben Society and answerable to their members.

Have you any evidence there will be friction or that these concerns will actually crystallise or are you just assuming the worst? 

As for the Rules, remember they were seeking to amend them, the original Rules stated: -

I know what it states, it doesn’t change my point or my view. If you genuinely think there’s an issue here, whistleblow to the FCA & they’ll put your mind at ease. 

"In the case of this Rule, Rule 6 and Rule 106 the quorum at any general meeting called to consider a resolution to amend shall be: -

 

1. not less than one half of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has up to 200 members when the meeting is called;

 

2. not less than one third of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has more than 200 but less than 1000 members when the meeting is called; and

 

3. not less than one quarter of the members entitled to vote at the meeting if the Society has more than 1000 members when the meeting is called."

 

So, on the presumption that at the annual general meeting to agree to the amendments, there would need to have been more than 250 members to ensure a quorum and 2/3's of those members would need to have positively voted for the resolution to be passed.

 

I suspect there has never been anything like 250 people at a SMiSA AGM but I’m sure SMiSA could confirm, if it wished.

 

Alas, most SMiSA members don’t give a shit about what SMiSA do and those running SMiSA are happy with that, nobody to call them to account.

You have to remember these are regulatory guidelines, 

as someone that’s worked in risk management for years these situations aren’t always black or white. There is often ways around & additional circumstances. Like I said above, if you think there is wrong doing, I am absolutely sure the FCA would put your concerns to rest & tell you it’s fine. That’s what whistleblowing is there for. 

 

[melmac]

If they were regulatory guidelines, they would be called that.

This is not risk management, this is about good governance - doing what you should / need to do and not what you want to do and protecting people's money. I want to see SMiSA succeed, like most folks, but its' got to be within the Rules otherwise what is the point.

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, melmac said:

If they were regulatory guidelines, they would be called that.

This is not risk management, this is about good governance - doing what you should / need to do and not what you want to do and protecting people's money. I want to see SMiSA succeed, like most folks, but its' got to be within the Rules otherwise what is the point.

You might want to look into regulatory compliance a wee bit further, do you think absolutely every organisation is 100% regulatory compliant & if they weren’t they’ve immediately breached & face penalties? Regulations aren’t necessarily red lines with absolutely no room for interpretation or mitigation. 

Again, go to the FCA, I am as close to certain as it comes that they won’t find any material breaches regarding what you’re saying, they’ll put your mind at ease. There is no public evidence of SMISA wrongdoings.  

[Lord Pityme]

4 hours ago, melmac said:

If they were regulatory guidelines, they would be called that.

This is not risk management, this is about good governance - doing what you should / need to do and not what you want to do and protecting people's money. I want to see SMiSA succeed, like most folks, but its' got to be within the Rules otherwise what is the point.

Sadly smisa are run by the club chairman who has always said that smisa members subscriptions were " just hanging around doing nothing"

smisa broke its asset lock by shelling out £50k from the ringfenced fund to buy a plastic pitch.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Lord Pityme

[bazil85]

10 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Sadly smisa are run by the club chairman who has always said that smisa members subscriptions were " just hanging around doing nothing"

smisa broke its asset lock by shelling out £50k from the ringfenced fund to buy a plastic pitch.

They changed the terms to release £50k based on the democratic will of the voting majority remember. 

If anyone is in any doubt about the hypocrite LPM is. Remember this claim goes along with him cancelling his membership because only a tiny minority of paying members agreed with him on the last members resolution to change part of the process.

Blatant double standards that either highlight a disregard or a complete lack of understanding around democratic voting. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by bazil85

[jaybee]

10 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

Sadly smisa are run by the club chairman who has always said that smisa members subscriptions were " just hanging around doing nothing"

smisa broke its asset lock by shelling out £50k from the ringfenced fund to buy a plastic pitch.

It's about time you shut up about things you quite obviously know very little about. I spent 6 years working for a charity during which my role was to help various groups (some of them similar to SMISA) to set up Charities, CIC's which are community interest companies as well as ordinary limited companies  and variations thereof. And whilst it is true certain companies/charities do indeed have asset locks; that does not mean money cannot be spent, or indeed items cannot be sold, because  you can buy things and sell things, what you cannot do is sell the company Rolls to your brother, uncle, mate for £50 when it clearly has a value of let's just say £50.000. Assets can be sold at their actual value as long as there is a justification for doing so, likewise assets can be purchased using the same rationale. What could not and would not be allowed might be the sale of the stadium (if your business was a football club) unless a replacement was lined up.   An asset lock is primarily about keeping the value of what the company owns within the company and it not being sold for peanuts, as explained it does not mean assets cannot be sold / bought and in the case of SMISA which clearly was formed to ultimately take  over the club,  where is there any misuse of funds, if those funds are spent on what SMISA will one day own/ control.

[bazil85]

38 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

Oi, it's not been proven that he agreed with the tiny minority of members.

Only one proxy vote for the resolution and I have the actual evidence that it was mine.

As far as I'm aware he hasn't/hadn't even contacted SMISA regarding his supposed proxy vote.

Oh yes, I should clarify. He agreed in hot air only, didn’t take any action to back it up. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if he cancelled his membership a long time ago & has been lying since. 

[Lord Pityme]

4 hours ago, jaybee said:

It's about time you shut up about things you quite obviously know very little about. I spent 6 years working for a charity during which my role was to help various groups (some of them similar to SMISA) to set up Charities, CIC's which are community interest companies as well as ordinary limited companies  and variations thereof. And whilst it is true certain companies/charities do indeed have asset locks; that does not mean money cannot be spent, or indeed items cannot be sold, because  you can buy things and sell things, what you cannot do is sell the company Rolls to your brother, uncle, mate for £50 when it clearly has a value of let's just say £50.000. Assets can be sold at their actual value as long as there is a justification for doing so, likewise assets can be purchased using the same rationale. What could not and would not be allowed might be the sale of the stadium (if your business was a football club) unless a replacement was lined up.   An asset lock is primarily about keeping the value of what the company owns within the company and it not being sold for peanuts, as explained it does not mean assets cannot be sold / bought and in the case of SMISA which clearly was formed to ultimately take  over the club,  where is there any misuse of funds, if those funds are spent on what SMISA will one day own/ control.

The one flaw in your long winded response is that Smisa's only asset at present is its members contributions and funds. It doesnt own smfc yet, so can't sell it or any part of it. The first line is a real laugh!

[jaybee]

13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

5 hours ago, jaybee said:

It's about time you shut up about things you quite obviously know very little about. I spent 6 years working for a charity during which my role was to help various groups (some of them similar to SMISA) to set up Charities, CIC's which are community interest companies as well as ordinary limited companies  and variations thereof. And whilst it is true certain companies/charities do indeed have asset locks; that does not mean money cannot be spent, or indeed items cannot be sold, because  you can buy things and sell things, what you cannot do is sell the company Rolls to your brother, uncle, mate for £50 when it clearly has a value of let's just say £50.000. Assets can be sold at their actual value as long as there is a justification for doing so, likewise assets can be purchased using the same rationale. What could not and would not be allowed might be the sale of the stadium (if your business was a football club) unless a replacement was lined up.   An asset lock is primarily about keeping the value of what the company owns within the company and it not being sold for peanuts, as explained it does not mean assets cannot be sold / bought and in the case of SMISA which clearly was formed to ultimately take  over the club,  where is there any misuse of funds, if those funds are spent on what SMISA will one day own/ control.

The one flaw in your long winded response is that Smisa's only asset at present is its members contributions and funds. It doesnt own smfc yet, so can't sell it or any part of it. The first line is a real laugh!

Enlighten me clever dick why the first line is such a laugh? If it's because I suggested you shut up, well that is amusing; as there are very very many people on this forum that would love you to do just that.  As to the subject of discussion; it's as clear as day to me that you know very little about company formation and or asset locks and you may consider my reply long-winded (probably because you have the attention span of a gnat), perhaps because I offer an explanation as to why I claim certain professed knowledges, unlike yourself who spouts all sort of supposed knowledge without ever offering proof.  As regards SMISA assets, my understanding is that they own shares which amounts to a percentage of the club, surely this is an asset and if you check my highlights above you can clearly see that I never intimated that they did own the club yet,  BIG clue check ultimately in the dictionary.  Once again rather than admit you are wrong you choose to berate someone else to save you from looking like the arsehole you are. 😎

[Lord Pityme]

22 hours ago, jaybee said:

Enlighten me clever dick why the first line is such a laugh? If it's because I suggested you shut up, well that is amusing; as there are very very many people on this forum that would love you to do just that.  As to the subject of discussion; it's as clear as day to me that you know very little about company formation and or asset locks and you may consider my reply long-winded (probably because you have the attention span of a gnat), perhaps because I offer an explanation as to why I claim certain professed knowledges, unlike yourself who spouts all sort of supposed knowledge without ever offering proof.  As regards SMISA assets, my understanding is that they own shares which amounts to a percentage of the club, surely this is an asset and if you check my highlights above you can clearly see that I never intimated that they did own the club yet,  BIG clue check ultimately in the dictionary.  Once again rather than admit you are wrong you choose to berate someone else to save you from looking like the arsehole you are. 😎

Well done Bazil/Sweeper or whatever you are going by in this thread, well done!

[bazil85]

10 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Well done Bazil/Sweeper or whatever you are going by in this thread, well done!

Miserable deflection tactic.

No aliases here, just more people calling out your continued ridiculous claims (lies) 

[jaybee]

25 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Well done Bazil/Sweeper or whatever you are going by in this thread, well done!

My name is Jaybee as you well know you inconsequential piece of snot.  Have a nice day.  😎

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

I recently stopped my contribution to SMISA.  When I first took it out it was simply for the love of the club and never gave it much thought and I very rarely read the posts on this topic.  So, let me state clearly that I will accept any criticism going as I put my hand up not knowing all the technicalities involved.

I just felt that the input of the fans is so limited.  When an affluent businessman/fan buys a club, he has put his money where his mouth is and usually invests more money to bring greater success or save it from administration.  GS has spent a great deal of time and energy on the club of that I've no doubt but at the end of the day when he has been repaid all the money, he will be controlling the club the way he wants it - for nothing.  As I said, the input from the fans is limited to tokenism.  I often fantasize that one day maybe the fans would be invited to pick the manager.  Given the failure over recent years of the various boards in picking a successful manager, I'm confident the fans could do no worse.

What is lacking is fan INPUT. 

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, Desperately Seeking Susans said:

I recently stopped my contribution to SMISA.  When I first took it out it was simply for the love of the club and never gave it much thought and I very rarely read the posts on this topic.  So, let me state clearly that I will accept any criticism going as I put my hand up not knowing all the technicalities involved.

I just felt that the input of the fans is so limited.  When an affluent businessman/fan buys a club, he has put his money where his mouth is and usually invests more money to bring greater success or save it from administration.  GS has spent a great deal of time and energy on the club of that I've no doubt but at the end of the day when he has been repaid all the money, he will be controlling the club the way he wants it - for nothing.  As I said, the input from the fans is limited to tokenism.  I often fantasize that one day maybe the fans would be invited to pick the manager.  Given the failure over recent years of the various boards in picking a successful manager, I'm confident the fans could do no worse.

What is lacking is fan INPUT. 

Expect baz to appear to point out the error of your ways.................and again, and again, and again. 

[Desperately Seeking Susans]

25 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Expect baz to appear to point out the error of your ways.................and again, and again, and again. 

Fine.