Jump to content

If we stay up... Give us the family stand back.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Basically a shit decision taken by an out of touch board who went back on their promise to consult the support.

our board want the smisa money to buy hand dryers and matchballs. killie's board consulted with their fans and used their fans funds to develop the stadium to benefit.... guess who?

The support that turns up for every game, and investing in the next generation. Meanwhile our board are investing in racist, sectarian, explosive tossing bigots!

Summed up perfectly. 

Next Season, for at least 3 matches, those in the Home and West Stands will be able to enjoy.... 

ABSOLUTE SCUM SINGING MORONIC SECTARIAN SONGS IN FECKING STEREO. 

Our Club welcome them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Basically a shit decision taken by an out of touch board who went back on their promise to consult the support.


TBH, even if the BOD had engaged with fans and the outcome was the same you’d still be on here boring us shitless with the same argument because you don’t agree with it.

Instead of wasting your time on here why not give Gordon a call and share your ideas to increase the home fans in the family stand. I reckon another 300-400 would give him pause which is surely do-able for someone with your keyboard skills?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2019 at 10:59 AM, DumboBud said:

The target to get W7 kept for home fans only wasn’t to sell out the West Bank with season tickets, if I recall correctly it was if we sell x amount of ST’s by a certain date then W7 will be saints fans exclusively. 

No such incentive or variation of this was given to try and keep the family stand for families for the season so there is absolutely no chance of the decision being reversed this season. No clutching at straws required here. 

If for example the position had been if there are say 500 Adult ST’s sold by a certain date then we won’t hand the stand to the opposition at all next season, then that might have been an incentive to maximise sales. But it simply didn’t happen and each season that goes by with the current arrangement makes it less and less likely that it will be reversed. 

Those saying that if we sell out the other two stands then the decision will be reversed are the ones being disingenuous with their argument and to be fair to the board, even they haven’t put this forward as a solution. 

But then again the board haven’t engaged constructively in this in anyway or proposed anything concrete as a solution. 

Unless of course certain posters on here do actually speak for the board rather than having an unofficial apologist status. 

From memory it was to sell 1,000 tickets to make W saints only. GLS has made it clear that the two stand arrangement will remain until our fan base justifies not having it. Like I say to do that it would be a monumental & unachievable number this season (common sense tells us)

I’m not claiming the decision will/ would change this  season but it’s for the above reason not because of any backtracking. 

They could have done as you say with the X number of tickets but even if achieved it would still have been at the expense of the financial difference in giving them two stands & we still wouldn’t have sold enough to fill even two stands. That’s the decision & it won’t change until we get the bums on seats. That should be the target over the next few years. We sold a record number of season tickets at new ground last season with the arrangement in place so there’s no clear evidence the arrangement is hindering fans buying these tickets   

GLS update in April strongly suggests when our fan numbers increase to that level the decision will be reversed. It’s a lot more suggestive that’ll happen than the one single sentence people are clinging onto that says he’s ‘changed his mind’ 

I assure you as I have done several people in the past I don’t speak for the board and I’m in no way associated with them or SMISA (beyond being a paying member) which has been insinuated in the past. 

I have no doubt this subject won’t die anytime soon but It is short term. We’ll be fan owned in the not too distant future. Anyone with a continued gripe on this that isn’t signed up to BTB know how they can speed this up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2019 at 12:37 PM, buddiekev said:

I rarely get involved in discussions on here, it seems pointless trying to debate with with people that I don't know who, in some cases, are quite clearly never going to change their opinion.  However, as you have said that you are open to accurate calculations I will make an exception.

There is a caveat here that I have had to make certain assumptions (some of which we can be fairly sure won't be correct) so the calculations can't be totally accurate as exact numbers are not know.  These assumption are:

When the Old Firm they sell out the South Stand (1654 seats according to Google) with full price adult tickets.

Every extra season ticket sold is an adult ticket, purchased for the South Stand at the early bird price (with no increase to allow for an extra three games being included)

We finish in the bottom six (sorry Tony) and Rangers and Celtic both finish in the top six, so there are three affected games.

On this basis the extra revenue brought in by handing the Old Firm both stands behind the goals is £133974 (1654 x £27 x 3)

The number of extra season tickets required to match this amount of money is 558.25 (£133974 / £240). 

Given the feel good factor surrounding the club at the end of the season I wouldn't consider selling an extra 560 season tickets an unrealistic target (not saying it would definitely happen - simply it might).  Of course, if we were to consider other factors that number would reduce.  For example, if the south stand season tickets were the same price as  the rest of the stadium (as they would now include the same number of matches) the number of extra season tickets required would be would be 442.16 (133974 / 303). 

Admittedly these calculations do not allow for the fact that some of the people buying the extra season tickets may attend some matches anyway.  An alternative way of looking at it could be saying we need to increase our average home support by 320 adults.  (£133974 / £22 / 19 games).  I don't know what our average home support is but I'd guess this would be approximately 10%.  This is another target that I don't think is unrealistic, although obviously we wouldn't know whether it was achieved before the season started and these decisions need to be made.

Finally none of the figures above take into account any savings that the club may make by having less opposition in the stadium or indeed any extra income that they may get by having extra St. Mirren fans in the stadium every match as opposed to extra Old Firm fans for 3 matches. (Approximately 400 x 19 (7600) compared to 1654 x 3 (4962)). 

A very sensible & well thought out post. My response is probably just a simplistic one. On a yearly basis we should be looking to increase our ticket sales anyway we can and if we did hit that target brilliant (still not likely I would argue but great)... it still wouldn’t fill two stands with st Mirren season ticket.

In that situation I would still want to give them two stands & I’d wager a silent but considerable number of fans would still agree. (Across all media I think I’d struggle to name 20/ 30 individual outspoken fans on this subject although I do accept there will be silent ones that don’t like it). Can you imagine the increase in budget if we did both? plus any st Mirren fan wanting to attend these games still could. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2019 at 6:06 PM, oaksoft said:

You appear to have made the same mistake as Baz. The figure for the extra fans the OF bring needs to take into account those who used to be put in W7. That drastically reduces the apparent financial benefits of giving them the whole Family Stand.

It’s not a mistake it was a conscious choice. A comparison of what we do for 9 teams against what we do for the other 2 is completely justifiable and likely what our chairman did with the 10% budget comments. 

You can compare to an arrangement that has never been in place under this board it’s equally justifiable but it doesn’t mean your view is right and others wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2019 at 6:06 PM, oaksoft said:

You appear to have made the same mistake as Baz. The figure for the extra fans the OF bring needs to take into account those who used to be put in W7. That drastically reduces the apparent financial benefits of giving them the whole Family Stand.

And the extra strewarding

 

On 6/15/2019 at 6:06 PM, oaksoft said:

You appear to have made the same mistake as Baz. The figure for the extra fans the OF bring needs to take into account those who used to be put in W7. That drastically reduces the apparent financial benefits of giving them the whole Family Stand.

and police costs need to be deducted  from any extra income

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DLBud said:

 


TBH, even if the BOD had engaged with fans and the outcome was the same you’d still be on here boring us shitless with the same argument because you don’t agree with it.

Instead of wasting your time on here why not give Gordon a call and share your ideas to increase the home fans in the family stand. I reckon another 300-400 would give him pause which is surely do-able for someone with your keyboard skills?

 

Exactly let’s not forget LPM recently started crying and cancelling direct debits because less than 1% of SMISA members agreed with him on a members arrangement. 

Broken record, hypocrite, liar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DLBud said:

 


TBH, even if the BOD had engaged with fans and the outcome was the same you’d still be on here boring us shitless with the same argument because you don’t agree with it.

Instead of wasting your time on here why not give Gordon a call and share your ideas to increase the home fans in the family stand. I reckon another 300-400 would give him pause which is surely do-able for someone with your keyboard skills?

 

The board should be out there trying to selling more season tickets ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

I believe it was a supporter that asked for hand driers to be included on the ballot.

Wouldn't want you to be accused again and again at lying. emoji23.png

Any option to spend on smfc put to the membership comes from the club, regardless who may have thought of it. Oh dear another fail for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DLBud said:

 


TBH, even if the BOD had engaged with fans and the outcome was the same you’d still be on here boring us shitless with the same argument because you don’t agree with it.

Instead of wasting your time on here why not give Gordon a call and share your ideas to increase the home fans in the family stand. I reckon another 300-400 would give him pause which is surely do-able for someone with your keyboard skills?

 

If Scott had actually been as good as his word and consulted with the support maybe the outcome would have been the same?

but then it would be a decision backed by the support, arrived at by doing what he said he would and involving the support!

smisa members may want to cast their minds back three years to the BtB campaign which promised that as 30% shareholders they would have genuine involvement in what direction the club goes in.

Now other than being asked what cockamamie scheme to give money to the club for, can anyone quote one... just one decision the membership have been consulted/involved with..? Just one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

 likely what our chairman did with the 10% budget comments. 

I don't buy the 10% increase in budgets. 

Last set of accounts showed wage spend of just shy of 2 million. That was for a season in the championship so will be lower than this year. That includes non playing staff, but for the 10% being close to accurate we'd need to be spending as much or more on the non playing staff as we are on the playing staff. With the average salary of a player being over 45k (in an article I read on BBC sport I'm sure) that can't be the case.

 

I think it's safe to say when the accounts come out it'll show the 10% increase to be nonsense. I imagine it's hoped that the 10% increase statement will be forgotten about by then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

I don't buy the 10% increase in budgets. 

Last set of accounts showed wage spend of just shy of 2 million. That was for a season in the championship so will be lower than this year. That includes non playing staff, but for the 10% being close to accurate we'd need to be spending as much or more on the non playing staff as we are on the playing staff. With the average salary of a player being over 45k (in an article I read on BBC sport I'm sure) that can't be the case.

 

I think it's safe to say when the accounts come out it'll show the 10% increase to be nonsense. I imagine it's hoped that the 10% increase statement will be forgotten about by then. 

People don’t need to buy it but what that ultimately boils down to is calling our chairman, who has full access to our financial situation & doesn’t make a penny from the club or lying about the arrangement a liar.

As you’ve said about it coming out in the accounts, it also would mean him willing to run this risk which will almost certainly crystallise. Some might be comfortable with that & think that Is likely, that’s fine. 

I’ve yet to hear where the benefit in GLS lying to us comes from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

People don’t need to buy it but what that ultimately boils down to is calling our chairman, who has full access to our financial situation & doesn’t make a penny from the club or lying about the arrangement a liar.

As you’ve said about it coming out in the accounts, it also would mean him willing to run this risk which will almost certainly crystallise. Some might be comfortable with that & think that Is likely, that’s fine. 

I’ve yet to hear where the benefit in GLS lying to us comes from. 

The benefit is to take away some of the negativity over the current arrangement. A quick fix to get people off his back. There is a figure above of 130k max if every seat is sold at full price. This doesn't factor any costs or deductions. Do you really believe our playing budget is 1.3 million or less? 

Edited by slapsalmon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

If Scott had actually been as good as his word and consulted with the support maybe the outcome would have been the same?

but then it would be a decision backed by the support, arrived at by doing what he said he would and involving the support!

smisa members may want to cast their minds back three years to the BtB campaign which promised that as 30% shareholders they would have genuine involvement in what direction the club goes in.

Now other than being asked what cockamamie scheme to give money to the club for, can anyone quote one... just one decision the membership have been consulted/involved with..? Just one!

You’ve proven that you would still moan if any decision doesn’t fall within your requirements, as soon as you cancelled your membership because only 11 members agreed with you on a resolution that was confirmed. Let’s also not forget continued crying about matchballs and Ralston despite membership desire to fund these  

As for what we’ve been consulted on, GLS is our chairman and will be for up to 10 years. He has provided the majority of capital, taking the overwhelming majority of the risk & is doing so for no financial gain, he can make decisions in line with any other chairman in his position.

Your inability to let go of throw away interviews from three years ago & unrealistic expectations of perfection throughout this process are irrelevant. Continue to moan all you want, it won’t make a difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

The benefit is to take away some of the negativity over the current arrangement. A quick fix to get people off his back. There is a figure above of 130k max if every seat is sold at full price. This doesn't factor any costs or deductions. Do you really believe our playing budget is 1.3 million or less? 

Let’s be honest the negativity is minimum here, you have a very small number of vocal fans on the subject.

To suggest someone has openly lied knowing they’ll get found out in the short term because they want to stop heat now & get it much worse later is not realistic in the slightest. 

Average wage of a player at St Mirren is about £46k (apparently) squad of say 22/ 24 £1 million - £1.1 million so I’d say so yeah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Let’s be honest the negativity is minimum here, you have a very small number of vocal fans on the subject.

To suggest someone has openly lied knowing they’ll get found out in the short term because they want to stop heat now & get it much worse later is not realistic in the slightest. 

Average wage of a player at St Mirren is about £46k (apparently) squad of say 22/ 24 £1 million - £1.1 million so I’d say so yeah. 

Our wages to turnover was 60% at the last pwc report. 

Our last accounts showed total wages not including directors of 1.9 million. 

I'm not trying to change what you believe, but those figures from the last accounts were for a season in the championship so likely lower than this year, but even using those figures would mean the non playing staff cost between 800 and 900k to a playing staff budget of 1-1.1m.

 

Im confident the 10% increase will be shown to be nonsense in the next set of accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

Our wages to turnover was 60% at the last pwc report. 

Our last accounts showed total wages not including directors of 1.9 million. 

I'm not trying to change what you believe, but those figures from the last accounts were for a season in the championship so likely lower than this year, but even using those figures would mean the non playing staff cost between 800 and 900k to a playing staff budget of 1-1.1m.

 

Im confident the 10% increase will be shown to be nonsense in the next set of accounts.

£800k a £900k on non player staff? Absolutely and easily. Look at who’s potentially included in there. 

Manager, assistant & coach staff

sports scientist & medical staff

Including Club doctor & physios

several admin staff for tickets, shop, catering,

dozens if not 100s of stewards (throughout season) 

other security 

potentially legal teams & contractors  

how much do you think non player costs are for football clubs? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

£800k a £900k on non player staff? Absolutely and easily. Look at who’s potentially included in there. 

Manager, assistant & coach staff

sports scientist & medical staff

Including Club doctor & physios

several admin staff for tickets, shop, catering,

dozens if not 100s of stewards (throughout season) 

other security 

potentially legal teams & contractors  

how much do you think non player costs are for football clubs? 

 

God you're thick! Half of that list do not feature on the wage bill as they are not club employees. Including the doctor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

£800k a £900k on non player staff? Absolutely and easily. Look at who’s potentially included in there. 

Manager, assistant & coach staff

sports scientist & medical staff

Including Club doctor & physios

several admin staff for tickets, shop, catering,

dozens if not 100s of stewards (throughout season) 

other security 

potentially legal teams & contractors  

how much do you think non player costs are for football clubs? 

 

As lpm said above. Most of that list aren't St mirren staff. 

Edited by slapsalmon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

£800k a £900k on non player staff? Absolutely and easily. Look at who’s potentially included in there. 

Manager, assistant & coach staff

sports scientist & medical staff

Including Club doctor & physios

several admin staff for tickets, shop, catering,

dozens if not 100s of stewards (throughout season) 

other security 

potentially legal teams & contractors  

how much do you think non player costs are for football clubs? 

 

 

For info the £1.9m figure is for 43 players and 34 management and admin salaries.

 

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...