Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:

So if it might boost the budget by 20% why not give the old bigots all four stands, or at least the main stand as well and the great and good there can sit in the front row of the west stand?

thats another £250k at least according to Scott.

Ridiculous and bitter

2 hours ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

I'll say it again , we're consistently told that we're the best supporters in the world, 12th man and all that... a credit till the club. Until we're play Rangers or Celtic then ye can get tae! all for a few extra quid...

That 'best support' can all get a seat if they want one for these games. Onus is on us to increase our crowds so we can't give them two stands. The 'few quid' also could be the difference between top flight and second tier football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, DumboBud said:

Baz, this is really tiresome. 

Competence and integrity are entirely different things, you wouldn’t call someone that is incompetent a liar. 

Well maybe you would as it is your go to word these days. 

And for the record I don’t accept your hypothesis that it either incompetence or lack of integrity, you do have a love or trying to label things in the most pejorative way possible and attempt to turn things into black or white.  

I suppose your statement that I’m nit picking over a few thousand pounds will be as close as I get to you conceding that it isn’t a six figure sum. I wonder how you did your calculations!

As for a figure for VAT I think 20% is a nice round figure but maybe it is different in your world. 

You have also misquoted me again about the question ‘ do you really believe that’ to misquote me once is careless, to do it a second time after it was pointed out to you makes me think that you have an agenda that the facts can’t get in the way of.

Apparently you have no issue with fans being opposed to the decision - this and other threads, and the way you suggest that any examination of the facts means that the competence or honesty of the board / club is brought into question definitely tells a different story. 

You still haven’t shown anything that points to me calling GLS a liar at any time, yet still persist in trying to connect me to using that label and that I believe is indefensible. 

At one point I thought a reasonable discussion on the merits of this could take place, but your tactics have won, let’s close down discussion and all be happy clappers. 

I fully believe it would be a six figure sum based on all the information available to us including a statement from a person with full access to our accounts and the likely figure 10% of the player budget equates to. Is there a 100% chance I am right on that, course not but my point is you seem to struggle to let go for what in anyone's books is a considerable amount of money.

I haven't miss-quoted you, here's your post below. feel free to correct me regarding what you meant by 'Do you really believe that?' when it's in direct response to a post from me on the 10%. I make no mention of the six figure sum but you still go on to talk about 'inflated' or' hopelessly optimistic figures' for a statement released after the three games had taken place and the annual player budget was known.  

As for posts from you that hint at GLS being a liar, we know you have stopped short of saying it but how about just a simple question. Was GLS being truthful when he told us that the arrangement had allowed for a 10% increase in our player budget? Feel free to say you don't know, it's of course just saying you think he could be a liar... Bad enough IMO. Also still waiting for proof that the figures have been "shown many times to be overstated"

image.thumb.png.61a0bba83632214aa5f25bdf6046c075.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

If you read his posts, and I have until recently when I popped him onto ignore, he has  habit of using the same words/phrases throughput many of his posts.

Shows, IMO, a lack of ability to comprehend other posts and, like a record that is stuck, repeat. 

Probably a good thing this poster has put me on ignore given he has shown a complete lack of capacity to understand simple points. Like me fully able to comprehend the benefits of VAR (on another post) & people wanting to have it in place, just not sharing that opinion (also doesn't understand that's allowed). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Ridiculous and bitter

That 'best support' can all get a seat if they want one for these games. Onus is on us to increase our crowds so we can't give them two stands. The 'few quid' also could be the difference between top flight and second tier football.

Not going to happen soon. To pricey for some for what's on show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully believe it would be a six figure sum based on all the information available to us including a statement from a person with full access to our accounts and the likely figure 10% of the player budget equates to. Is there a 100% chance I am right on that, course not but my point is you seem to struggle to let go for what in anyone's books is a considerable amount of money.
I haven't miss-quoted you, here's your post below. feel free to correct me regarding what you meant by 'Do you really believe that?' when it's in direct response to a post from me on the 10%. I make no mention of the six figure sum but you still go on to talk about 'inflated' or' hopelessly optimistic figures' for a statement released after the three games had taken place and the annual player budget was known.  
As for posts from you that hint at GLS being a liar, we know you have stopped short of saying it but how about just a simple question. Was GLS being truthful when he told us that the arrangement had allowed for a 10% increase in our player budget? Feel free to say you don't know, it's of course just saying you think he could be a liar... Bad enough IMO. Also still waiting for proof that the figures have been "shown many times to be overstated"
image.thumb.png.61a0bba83632214aa5f25bdf6046c075.png
So you now admit he didn't call GLS a liar yet you accused him of it.

Time for your unreserved apology to the man now! [emoji14]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

So you now admit he didn't call GLS a liar yet you accused him of it.

Time for your unreserved apology to the man now! emoji14.png

I fully believe someone using the expression "do you really believe that" and then going on to say that the clubs quoted incomes aren't possible is calling out GLS & anyone else involved in these statements dishonest. Hence why I have called him out on it, not too difficult to understand I thought. 

DB seems unwilling to take the plunge and give a straight view on it which is why I have asked the very clear question. He thinks it isn't black and white but tbh it really is. 10% increase in player budget can be calculated as a tangible figure., its either a yeh or nay to thinking GLS comment is truthful.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if it might boost the budget by 20% why not give the old bigots all four stands, or at least the main stand as well and the great and good there can sit in the front row of the west stand?
thats another £250k at least according to Scott.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[emoji36]seething
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully believe someone using the expression "do you really believe that" and then going on to say that the clubs quoted incomes aren't possible is calling out GLS & anyone else involved in these statements dishonest. Hence why I have called him out on it, not too difficult to understand I thought. 
DB seems unwilling to take the plunge and give a straight view on it which is why I have asked the very clear question. He thinks it isn't black and white but tbh it really is. 10% increase in player budget can be calculated as a tangible figure., its either a yeh or nay to thinking GLS comment is truthful.  
I've been following the "discussion".
You owe him an apology but instead are resorting to your default misdirection and spin!

Just say sorry.
He deserves it.
You owe it to him.
You might even feel better for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I fully believe it would be a six figure sum based on all the information available to us including a statement from a person with full access to our accounts and the likely figure 10% of the player budget equates to. Is there a 100% chance I am right on that, course not but my point is you seem to struggle to let go for what in anyone's books is a considerable amount of money.

I haven't miss-quoted you, here's your post below. feel free to correct me regarding what you meant by 'Do you really believe that?' when it's in direct response to a post from me on the 10%. I make no mention of the six figure sum but you still go on to talk about 'inflated' or' hopelessly optimistic figures' for a statement released after the three games had taken place and the annual player budget was known.  

As for posts from you that hint at GLS being a liar, we know you have stopped short of saying it but how about just a simple question. Was GLS being truthful when he told us that the arrangement had allowed for a 10% increase in our player budget? Feel free to say you don't know, it's of course just saying you think he could be a liar... Bad enough IMO. Also still waiting for proof that the figures have been "shown many times to be overstated"

image.thumb.png.61a0bba83632214aa5f25bdf6046c075.png

Baz, that is now the third time you have mid-quoted me, I am now beginning to think it is deliberate. 

If you folllow the quote above back you will clearly see that it is in response to my assertion that the six figure sum was nonsense and has been debunked many times.  

It is also rather strange you think that if I don’t know if the player budget has gone up 10% then I’m accusing someone of lying. 

What makes up the player budget? Is it salaries only? Bonuses? National Insurance? Pension Contributions? Have you ever stood back to think about this and critically analyse what your being told to allow yourself to form an opinion.

All of these could be said to be reasonable to include or exclude in a budget for players. They are all costs associated with employment and are other than bonuses a direct factor of the weekly wage. 

Now forgive me if I find difficulty in deciding whether a sub six figure sum would amount to 10% of this or part of this or not. If it is 10% then our player budget would have been under £1m prior to the decision to not have a family stand for OF games.  

If you consider that that is me calling someone a liar then it is a strange world you inhabit. 

But nevertheless thanks for conceding in a backhanded way that I haven’t at any point called him a liar.  

The real debate here is about whether it is worth having a family stand for the OF games. 

The current ST holders could be accommodated in either of the two stands for any game and the club could decide to close the family stand completely, but they didn’t, this suggests that there is an intrinsic value in having this that the club believe is worth losing for the amount of income generated by 3 lots of OF fans in it. 

I and others think the loss of that intrinsic value is not worth it, particularly over the longer term where the message being sent out is families not welcome 3x per season. 

That is a reasonable debate and discussion to have, particularly surrounding the lack of any initiative to get the stand full this year other than sticking STs on sale. 

What isn’t a reasonable and constructive discussion is what you dragged me into about your warped sense of what accusing someone of lying is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

I've been following the "discussion".
You owe him an apology but instead are resorting to your default misdirection and spin! No I don't and no I haven't 

Just say sorry. Nope
He deserves it. No he doesn't see me literally quoting what he said
You owe it to him. No I don't
You might even feel better for it. Cute 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DumboBud said:

Baz, that is now the third time you have mid-quoted me, I am now beginning to think it is deliberate. 

If you folllow the quote above back you will clearly see that it is in response to my assertion that the six figure sum was nonsense and has been debunked many times.  

It is also rather strange you think that if I don’t know if the player budget has gone up 10% then I’m accusing someone of lying. 

What makes up the player budget? Is it salaries only? Bonuses? National Insurance? Pension Contributions? Have you ever stood back to think about this and critically analyse what your being told to allow yourself to form an opinion.

All of these could be said to be reasonable to include or exclude in a budget for players. They are all costs associated with employment and are other than bonuses a direct factor of the weekly wage. 

Now forgive me if I find difficulty in deciding whether a sub six figure sum would amount to 10% of this or part of this or not. If it is 10% then our player budget would have been under £1m prior to the decision to not have a family stand for OF games.  

If you consider that that is me calling someone a liar then it is a strange world you inhabit. 

But nevertheless thanks for conceding in a backhanded way that I haven’t at any point called him a liar.  

The real debate here is about whether it is worth having a family stand for the OF games. 

The current ST holders could be accommodated in either of the two stands for any game and the club could decide to close the family stand completely, but they didn’t, this suggests that there is an intrinsic value in having this that the club believe is worth losing for the amount of income generated by 3 lots of OF fans in it. 

I and others think the loss of that intrinsic value is not worth it, particularly over the longer term where the message being sent out is families not welcome 3x per season. 

That is a reasonable debate and discussion to have, particularly surrounding the lack of any initiative to get the stand full this year other than sticking STs on sale. 

What isn’t a reasonable and constructive discussion is what you dragged me into about your warped sense of what accusing someone of lying is. 

Seems clear to me that even when I quote the actual post of mine you were responding to, you won't back down or show where it refers to the six figure sum, unusual to respond to a direct mention of the 10% with a question, then say you were actually talking about previous posts...

As for going back through the previous responses yep "The amount of claimed income has been SHOWN many times to be overstated" You can deny or try and spin your way around this, that's fine but it is a categorically false statement. You've been very careful in not directly answering questions on dishonesty, very political approach IMO but I'm afraid it is what it boils down to for me. 

GLS with full access to the accounts has made the claim in black and white. I'll rephrase, do you think by the parameters he has used (whatever they might be) to define the player budget, this decision allowed for that figure to be increased by 10%? 

Still saying you think it is sub six figures with no additional knowledge is still calling into question the integrity or competency of the person making the announcement last year IMO or do you feel you can say that's wrong and it be for other reasons? 

I haven't conceded anything, IMO you're eluding to it but not willing to say it. Your dance around straight questions shows it for me. 

As for your reasonable debate stuff, I agree but it has been completely done to death and the decision won't change just because people regurgitate the same points instead of accepting the decision and focusing on the only way it'll change (increase to saints bums on seats). I have many times put my arguments down to why I support the decision and why I don't think it impacts St Mirren fans as much as some claim, there's no benefit in starting it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems clear to me that even when I quote the actual post of mine you were responding to, you won't back down or show where it refers to the six figure sum, unusual to respond to a direct mention of the 10% with a question, then say you were actually talking about previous posts...
As for going back through the previous responses yep "The amount of claimed income has been SHOWN many times to be overstated" You can deny or try and spin your way around this, that's fine but it is a categorically false statement. You've been very careful in not directly answering questions on dishonesty, very political approach IMO but I'm afraid it is what it boils down to for me. 
GLS with full access to the accounts has made the claim in black and white. I'll rephrase, do you think by the parameters he has used (whatever they might be) to define the player budget, this decision allowed for that figure to be increased by 10%? 
Still saying you think it is sub six figures with no additional knowledge is still calling into question the integrity or competency of the person making the announcement last year IMO or do you feel you can say that's wrong and it be for other reasons? 
I haven't conceded anything, IMO you're eluding to it but not willing to say it. Your dance around straight questions shows it for me. 
As for your reasonable debate stuff, I agree but it has been completely done to death and the decision won't change just because people regurgitate the same points instead of accepting the decision and focusing on the only way it'll change (increase to saints bums on seats). I have many times put my arguments down to why I support the decision and why I don't think it impacts St Mirren fans as much as some claim, there's no benefit in starting it again.
I wish you would stand in front of the mirror and read that accusation out to yourself Baz...
for what you described is exactly what you are guilty of time and time again!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

I wish you would stand in front of the mirror and read that accusation out to yourself Baz...
for what you described is exactly what you are guilty of time and time again!

It’s a curious notion that so many people see defending the clubs BoD as a bad thing. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bazil85 said:

All over old ground, it won’t change anything here. I know people are hurting but they just have to accept the arrangement. 

We don't have to accept the spin over the finances it generates, if I believed it was 10% of our playing budget for last season as GLS claimed in April I wouldn't have entered the debate but his statement was vague and left plenty of wriggle room - only someone naïve or servile would suggest otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

We don't have to accept the spin over the finances it generates, if I believed it was 10% of our playing budget for last season as GLS claimed in April I wouldn't have entered the debate but his statement was vague and left plenty of wriggle room - only someone naïve or servile would suggest otherwise.

We cant fill the west and main stands when playing the old firm never mind filling three with home supporters. Do I like to see old firm fans fill the away end and family stand. Of course not. Until we do I have no problem maximizing income. GLS is a St Mirren supporter running the club if anyone knows what should be done to maximize income for old firm games its GLS not you or me. Fill the stadiums three stands this discussion would not exist 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

We don't have to accept the spin over the finances it generates, if I believed it was 10% of our playing budget for last season as GLS claimed in April I wouldn't have entered the debate but his statement was vague and left plenty of wriggle room - only someone naïve or servile would suggest otherwise.

It's difficult to respect someone like baz, who just regurgitates what other people say without showing any sign of critical thinking.

It's OK to be wrong over something.

It's not OK to be servile.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We cant fill the west and main stands when playing the old firm never mind filling three with home supporters. Do I like to see old firm fans fill the away end and family stand. Of course not. Until we do I have no problem maximizing income. GLS is a St Mirren supporter running the club if anyone knows what should be done to maximize income for old firm games its GLS not you or me. Fill the stadiums three stands this discussion would not exist 

I agree, the old scum don’t have the same attraction anymore for our supporters to come along & watch them, specially with the baggage they bring with them. If my children were still kids they would be the last teams I’d take them to watch. Even players don’t see them like they used to, they don’t attract big time players now either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ged62 said:


I agree, the old scum don’t have the same attraction anymore for our supporters to come along & watch them, specially with the baggage they bring with them. If my children were still kids they would be the last teams I’d take them to watch. Even players don’t see them like they used to, they don’t attract big time players now either.

FORFUXSAKE  :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

We don't have to accept the spin over the finances it generates, if I believed it was 10% of our playing budget for last season as GLS claimed in April I wouldn't have entered the debate but his statement was vague and left plenty of wriggle room - only someone naïve or servile would suggest otherwise.

How is it spin where’s your evidence? 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

It's difficult to respect someone like baz, who just regurgitates what other people say without showing any sign of critical thinking.

It's OK to be wrong over something.

It's not OK to be servile.

 

Regarding this specifically, my critical thinking originates form the statement coming from someone with full access to SMFC accounts and finances. Where does yours come from? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

We cant fill the west and main stands when playing the old firm never mind filling three with home supporters. Do I like to see old firm fans fill the away end and family stand. Of course not. Until we do I have no problem maximizing income. GLS is a St Mirren supporter running the club if anyone knows what should be done to maximize income for old firm games its GLS not you or me. Fill the stadiums three stands this discussion would not exist 

I don't have a problem with maximising income from the OF matches it's the the income generated I've questioned and specifically in Baz's case the aggressive & hysterical nature of his posting.

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Regarding this specifically, my critical thinking originates form the statement coming from someone with full access to SMFC accounts and finances. Where does yours come from? 

In other words you are just regurgitating what you are being told without adding any critique of your own.

When you do that, your opinion becomes redundant. We already know what Scott said. We're more interested in having a discussion about what people think of that.

You haven't provided a single original thought that I can think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

In other words you are just regurgitating what you are being told without adding any critique of your own.

When you do that, your opinion becomes redundant. We already know what Scott said. We're more interested in having a discussion about what people think of that.

You haven't provided a single original thought that I can think of.

Your critique like others only works by assuming GLS is a liar. I have given a basis for why I think the 10% is right, it is more than anyone’s basis for thinking it’s wrong. 

By your own logic everyone’s opinion is ‘redundant’ because there is no released physical financial evidence.

A complete nonsense perspective in what is honestly a very black in white debate. Is GLS a liar or not? 

I personally just think a number of people are a bit bitter that a club statement backed up my opinion the money was considerable & not there’s that it wasn’t. A lot of straw clutching since then. 

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...