Lord Pityme Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 Interesting read there on the Dundee situation. Most of which i knew through research previously. The problem Smisa has is that it does not operate independently from SMFC. Scot runs Smisa! when the shit hits the fan, (which with a relatively vulnerable club like ours comes around every few years) then Smisa will be stuffed, as its members will want it to demostrate its independence and act to hold those responsible for the problem to account. but since its Scott's poodle it wont be able to hold a wet paper bag to account! Indeed the absolute scandal of a Family Friendly, Award Winning Club kicking families out of their seats when the chairman said he would consult smisa members before any such decision shows you Smisa is not independent! Did any of you smisa members get an email, get asked to vote, or were called to a medting to discuss the family stand being closed to st mirren supporting families??? No! You didnt, Smisa fell at the first hurdle, then rendered themselves incapable by giving the club funds that they guaranteed its members were ringfenced solely to buy the controlling share in the company they gave the money to. just play that again... they gave money ringfenced to buy the controlling shares in a company, to that company, enabling that company to defer the time at which smisa could have taken control. you can read Bazil wittering on and on if you wish, but the facts, actions and outcome of the above have not gone away, and will inevitably be the subject of a legal process. It always comes hime to bite those complict in the arse! considering Dundee have an owner who actually Puts Money into The club, as opposed to our club, I think they are in a better place for the future. As i said the next set of club accounts will send shockwaves through the support, and will lead to cries of "why didnt smisa di something, or tell us what was happening"? and the silence will be deafening.... every Smisa member will be responsible for just letting Scott do what he wanted with their funds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 33 minutes ago, oaksoft said: When you post deliberate misrepresentations of what I have said like this, I know exactly what type of person you are. I purposely said 'you' as in the person I was responding to, so I did no such thing, with the part highlighted not related to you. The disrespectful part was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 32 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: He's saying you just make shit up, and because you say it, you label it as fact, strangely enough just like Bazil...? I have pointed out literally dozens of examples over the years of things you’ve made up, I have never posted something I’ve made up on here. I haven’t read your next story but it wouldn’t surprise me if there will be yet more fabrication in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 2 hours ago, bazil85 said: And how would we do that? The only way that would be possible is to have access to the minutes or to have been there in person. I clearly stated he plays mind games and dances around what was said at these meetings, anyone on this chat can see that. What I did do is provide undeniable evidence of multiple lies on here that anyone can go back and check. That isn't a personal attack, it is fact. But you like Oak before you has made a disrespectful and unfounded claim about the kind of person I am. You seem to think having only the most negative of people involved in running our club will do. Again I have no interest in being near our boardroom but you have zero basis for how I or practically anyone else on here would perform. So no evidence thanks for admitting your response was all about personal enmity and not at all about the truth as for your last point you seem pretty keen on using posts on general issues as evidence of lying so by your own standard I have all the evidence I need don’t I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Interesting read there on the Dundee situation. Most of which i knew through research previously. The problem Smisa has is that it does not operate independently from SMFC. Scot runs Smisa! when the shit hits the fan, (which with a relatively vulnerable club like ours comes around every few years) then Smisa will be stuffed, as its members will want it to demostrate its independence and act to hold those responsible for the problem to account. but since its Scott's poodle it wont be able to hold a wet paper bag to account! Indeed the absolute scandal of a Family Friendly, Award Winning Club kicking families out of their seats when the chairman said he would consult smisa members before any such decision shows you Smisa is not independent! Did any of you smisa members get an email, get asked to vote, or were called to a medting to discuss the family stand being closed to st mirren supporting families??? No! You didnt, Smisa fell at the first hurdle, then rendered themselves incapable by giving the club funds that they guaranteed its members were ringfenced solely to buy the controlling share in the company they gave the money to. just play that again... they gave money ringfenced to buy the controlling shares in a company, to that company, enabling that company to defer the time at which smisa could have taken control. you can read Bazil wittering on and on if you wish, but the facts, actions and outcome of the above have not gone away, and will inevitably be the subject of a legal process. It always comes hime to bite those complict in the arse! considering Dundee have an owner who actually Puts Money into The club, as opposed to our club, I think they are in a better place for the future. As i said the next set of club accounts will send shockwaves through the support, and will lead to cries of "why didnt smisa di something, or tell us what was happening"? and the silence will be deafening.... every Smisa member will be responsible for just letting Scott do what he wanted with their funds! Well you didn’t disappoint. The same regurgitated nonsense that you seem desperately to want to be true but lack foundation. It’s going to be a really tough time for you when BTB canters on ahead of schedule & delivers fan ownership. What must be even more worrying is the number of examples in world sport where fan ownership has succeeded, can imagine you and BOK devastation if that happens at SMFC Edited April 25, 2019 by bazil85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said: The 2nd paragraph has always been a concern of mine. Those who bought into BtB/smisa will eventually have approx a 1200 or 1300th share in 67% of the club. Like you I think a fair number in the 1200 odd think they will have a major voice in running the club. As for GLS, I've disagreed with some of his decisions as chairman but it's his money and risk. Not sure he'll be so keen on the hassle once it's 'democratic' rather than 'autocratic'. Fan ownership is great in theory, but not really in practice. In Germany I think it 51% fan ownership which might be a more workable model? And there lies the real issue! He hasnt put any money into SMFC, he bought the selling consortiums shares with smisa. That money went to the sellers, NOT the club. He is guaranteed to get HIS money back, Smisa members wont get theirs back, but in the end they will have put up the most money (if it survives. If it doesn't then he gets to keep smfc, or sell it to who ever he chooses) in Germany the 50+1% rule means the club is run by an elected board with fan representation, it still allows investors to put money into the ckub in exchange for involvement/influence in the club. There is no option for that in BtB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: So no evidence thanks for admitting your response was all about personal enmity and not at all about the truth as for your last point you seem pretty keen on using posts on general issues as evidence of lying so by your own standard I have all the evidence I need don’t I? So as I eluded to and consistent to my first message on this, it wouldn’t be possible without minutes, his admittance or a witness. Surely you agree without them you’re asking an impossibility? What a pointless post from you (as usual) One of the oldest and least affective online debating techniques ‘thanks for admitting’ something a person hasn’t admitted LPM was lying about illegal activity, the FCA confirmed this to Dicko when he tried to blow the whistle and was told it was a member dispute not a breach of regulation or legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, bazil85 said: So as I eluded to and consistent to my first message on this, it wouldn’t be possible without minutes, his admittance or a witness. Surely you agree without them you’re asking an impossibility? What a pointless post from you (as usual) One of the oldest and least affective online debating techniques ‘thanks for admitting’ something a person hasn’t admitted LPM was lying about illegal activity, the FCA confirmed this to Dicko when he tried to blow the whistle and was told it was a member dispute not a breach of regulation or legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: And there lies the real issue! He hasnt put any money into SMFC, he bought the selling consortiums shares with smisa. That money went to the sellers, NOT the club. He is guaranteed to get HIS money back, Smisa members wont get theirs back, but in the end they will have put up the most money (if it survives. If it doesn't then he gets to keep smfc, or sell it to who ever he chooses) in Germany the 50+1% rule means the club is run by an elected board with fan representation, it still allows investors to put money into the ckub in exchange for involvement/influence in the club. There is no option for that in BtB. Translation - St Mirren fan puts his own money at risk and dedicates up to 10 years of his life for not a penny profit to move the team he loves to fan ownership. Aye what a d*ck he is, imagine him daring to make decisions in a company he is the chairman of. 10 years of your life vs £12/£25 a month. Ffs, Jesus again wept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 2 things it’s Alluded and you obviously don’t know the meaning of corroborated see the posts by buddiecat and others on the committee who all resigned at or around the same time you say I can’t prove anything without minutes and the attempt to impose your view without similar corroboration (look it up) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 1 minute ago, beyond our ken said: 2 things it’s Alluded and you obviously don’t know the meaning of corroborated see the posts by buddiecat and others on the committee who all resigned at or around the same time you say I can’t prove anything without minutes and the attempt to impose your view without similar corroboration (look it up) Alluded yes, hands up to that, on my way out of work when I messaged with multiple people speaking to me. What are you trying to prove exactly? Do you deny that LPM has lied multiple times on this chat? If he’s capable on here, why on earth would I doubt he could not have lied when on the committee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 10 minutes ago, bazil85 said: So as I eluded to and consistent to my first message on this, it wouldn’t be possible without minutes, his admittance or a witness. Surely you agree without them you’re asking an impossibility? What a pointless post from you (as usual) One of the oldest and least affective online debating techniques ‘thanks for admitting’ something a person hasn’t admitted LPM was lying about illegal activity, the FCA confirmed this to Dicko when he tried to blow the whistle and was told it was a member dispute not a breach of regulation or legislation. Oh Bazil how could you make such an ass of yourself? The bit in bold is the complete opposite of the truth! Dicko did not 'Whistleblow', he made an individual complaint regarding a commitee decision he disagreed with. The FCA made no judgement on his complaint, but simply directed him to follow the internal smisa complaint process. a whilstblower brings to the relevant authorities attention something that impacts all or a large number of an organisation's members, employees, shareholders etc. Now if he'd gone down that route regarding loaning the club members funds without consulting them, or breaching smisa's asset lock by giving ringfenced funds to the company that ringfenced money was set aside to buy the controlling interest in then.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Oh Bazil how could you make such an ass of yourself? The bit in bold is the complete opposite of the truth! Dicko did not 'Whistleblow', he made an individual complaint regarding a commitee decision he disagreed with. The FCA made no judgement on his complaint, but simply directed him to follow the internal smisa complaint process. a whilstblower brings to the relevant authorities attention something that impacts all or a large number of an organisation's members, employees, shareholders etc. Now if he'd gone down that route regarding loaning the club members funds without consulting them, or breaching smisa's asset lock by giving ringfenced funds to the company that ringfenced money was set aside to buy the controlling interest in then.....? Dicko has moved goalposts on this many times and we have had discussions on it. As someone that deals with the FCA on a very regular basis, they have a duty of care to take action on any breach of regulation. There was none and he did attempt to raise that there had been. Reg was actually shared on BAWA several times to show why the claim was ridiculous. Your summary of whistleblowing is also wrong, there is absolutely no requirement to impact ‘all or large number’ I for example could whistleblow on an single employee abusing alcohol that impacts his job or being racist, sexist or homophobic. The service is massively varied. As for your last paragraph, see above regulations relating to direct or indirect community benefit, this cover anything SMISA has done. We also know you can’t get your head round it but the use of funds for the pitch was passed by a majority, the loan for the USH also did not breach regulations. Edited April 25, 2019 by bazil85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, cockles1987 said: 58 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: And there lies the real issue! He hasnt put any money into SMFC, he bought the selling consortiums shares with smisa. That money went to the sellers, NOT the club. He is guaranteed to get HIS money back, Smisa members wont get theirs back, but in the end they will have put up the most money (if it survives. If it doesn't then he gets to keep smfc, or sell it to who ever he chooses) in Germany the 50+1% rule means the club is run by an elected board with fan representation, it still allows investors to put money into the ckub in exchange for involvement/influence in the club. There is no option for that in BtB. Is GLS a member of SMISA? There is a Gordon Scott on the big boards at the ground so possibly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 16 minutes ago, bazil85 said: There is a Gordon Scott on the big boards at the ground so possibly Do you worship there daily or just weekly?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 And there you have it. If you want an example of exactly the sort of shite we want to avoid at all costs, just look at Baz and LPM on this thread. This is exactly what I was getting at. Can you imagine either of these two types of person on the board of our club. It would be absolute f**king carnage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 25 minutes ago, oaksoft said: And there you have it. If you want an example of exactly the sort of shite we want to avoid at all costs, just look at Baz and LPM on this thread. This is exactly what I was getting at. Can you imagine either of these two types of person on the board of our club. It would be absolute f**king carnage. It would be fine. Just get div to install an ignore function in the boardroom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 2 hours ago, bazil85 said: Dicko has moved goalposts on this many times and we have had discussions on it. As someone that deals with the FCA on a very regular basis, they have a duty of care to take action on any breach of regulation. There was none and he did attempt to raise that there had been. Reg was actually shared on BAWA several times to show why the claim was ridiculous. Your summary of whistleblowing is also wrong, there is absolutely no requirement to impact ‘all or large number’ I for example could whistleblow on an single employee abusing alcohol that impacts his job or being racist, sexist or homophobic. The service is massively varied. As for your last paragraph, see above regulations relating to direct or indirect community benefit, this cover anything SMISA has done. We also know you can’t get your head round it but the use of funds for the pitch was passed by a majority, the loan for the USH also did not breach regulations. Cringeworthy retort. You got all, yes all the facts wrong. Then you insist you know, in detail the nature of a complaint only the complainant, smisa committee and the FCA could know about. fwiw i now believe you are are/were not on the Smisa committee, or know anything about its processand proceedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 1 hour ago, oaksoft said: And there you have it. If you want an example of exactly the sort of shite we want to avoid at all costs, just look at Baz and LPM on this thread. This is exactly what I was getting at. Can you imagine either of these two types of person on the board of our club. It would be absolute f**king carnage. Thats not much of a start to your campaign for smisa club board rep. Good luck getting anyone interested. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: Thats not much of a start to your campaign for smisa club board rep. Good luck getting anyone interested. Lol You must be joking. Board members need to be team players and I am not a team player. It's very much "My way or the Highway" when or comes to running things. I don't crave power. I crave personal independence above everything. Edited April 25, 2019 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted April 25, 2019 Report Share Posted April 25, 2019 And there lies the real issue! He hasnt put any money into SMFC, he bought the selling consortiums shares with smisa. That money went to the sellers, NOT the club. He is guaranteed to get HIS money back, Smisa members wont get theirs back, but in the end they will have put up the most money (if it survives. If it doesn't then he gets to keep smfc, or sell it to who ever he chooses) in Germany the 50+1% rule means the club is run by an elected board with fan representation, it still allows investors to put money into the ckub in exchange for involvement/influence in the club. There is no option for that in BtB.He's still risking his money until he gets it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted April 26, 2019 Report Share Posted April 26, 2019 13 hours ago, Kombibuddie said: Other than that, the fella can crack on for as long as he likes. Couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doakes Posted April 26, 2019 Report Share Posted April 26, 2019 This thread seems a bit weird. Assuming we adopt the 51-49 model, the running of the club shouldn’t be that different to the way it is now. It just means that the fans will always have the ultimate say in the clubs direction. Fan ownership is a great thing, as long as we live within our means. And I’m sure we will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 26, 2019 Report Share Posted April 26, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, Lord Pityme said: He's saying you just make shit up, and because you say it, you label it as fact, strangely enough just like Bazil...? Nope. What he has done is jump in with two feet and made a mistake. It's up to him to decide whether to correct it or not. Unlike you, I am not overly interested in hounding him over it. Edited April 26, 2019 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 26, 2019 Report Share Posted April 26, 2019 11 minutes ago, Doakes said: This thread seems a bit weird. Assuming we adopt the 51-49 model, the running of the club shouldn’t be that different to the way it is now. It just means that the fans will always have the ultimate say in the clubs direction. Fan ownership is a great thing, as long as we live within our means. And I’m sure we will. Which fans though? A couple who have been voted onto the board? Or everyone who buys in? Who gets to decide what the fans want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.