Honorary Member

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, melmac said:

Here's the document which says nothing about honorary members.

Complete Amendment to Rules.pdf 1.33 MB · 3 downloads

Nothing in there that prevents it either and an honorary membership does not go against any of the regulations that govern BTB. Some of our fans are beyond help 🤣

[mattman]

 

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Again let’s remember people are being negative over a feckin honorary membership. 

it’s a wee bit different to him putting the club in danger. 

You can be negative all you want that’s fine. I’m positive because we’re miles ahead of schedule in an arrangement that’ll put SMFC in the hands of the people that care most, the fans. The st Moan crowd can be upset about that, not my bag. 

Mate I’m anything but negative, Just cos I have an opinion how certain parts of the club are managed doesn’t make me negative. In my honest opinion certain members of staff are pretty negative. If they had the tiniest bit of positivity about them maybe the stadium wouldn’t sit empty majority of the time, maybe the ticket office would be open at more suitable times, maybe the club would actually make money from the shop instead of it going into other peoples pockets or am I not allowed to say that? 

 

Reality check needed baz.

Edited August 7, 2019 by mattman

[alanb]

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Nothing in there that prevents it either and an honorary membership does not go against any of the regulations that govern BTB. Some of our fans are beyond help 🤣

Get it added in there then … End of Problem

As suggested earlier, properly used can create good PR for SMISA and the club.

Good PR is and has been severely lacking since promotion

 

[mattman]

3 minutes ago, mattman said:

 

Mate I’m anything but negative, Just cos I have an opinion how certain parts of the club are managed doesn’t make me negative. In my honest opinion certain members of staff are pretty negative. If they had the tiniest bit of positivity about them maybe the stadium wouldn’t sit empty majority of the time, maybe the ticket office would be open at more suitable times, maybe the club would actually make money from the shop instead of it going into other peoples pockets or am I not allowed to say that? 

 

Reality check needed baz.

And to add, instead of saying the ticket site needs fixed, actually sort it !! Have a dome outside that’s ment to be a source of income but can’t be put up in adverse weather conditions!! In fecking SCOTLAND 😂😂

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, mattman said:

 

Mate I’m anything but negative, Just cos I have an opinion how certain parts of the club are managed doesn’t make me negative. In my honest opinion certain members of staff are pretty negative. If they had the tiniest bit of positivity about them maybe the stadium wouldn’t sit empty majority of the time, maybe the ticket office would be open at more suitable times, maybe the club would actually make money from the shop instead of it going into other peoples pockets or am I not allowed to say that? 

 

Reality check needed baz.

A lot of that stuff is systemic, no one is arguing our club is perfect but a lot of what’s wrong was inherited by the new board & has been long standing. 

We are in a stage of transition over the BTB period yet some people are expecting wholesale changes. GLS money has allowed us to move the handling of these kind of issues to fan decision makers & he’s doing it for not one penny. What we are seeing is:

- record season ticket sales 

- record home attendances (both points at new stadium) 

- continued positive season ticket sales this season 

- three years of profit 

- promotion & survival in the top flight. 

Really what else to people want in three seasons? Maybe a cure for the common cold. 

[alanb]

5 minutes ago, mattman said:

 

Mate I’m anything but negative, Just cos I have an opinion how certain parts of the club are managed doesn’t make me negative. In my honest opinion certain members of staff are pretty negative. If they had the tiniest bit of positivity about them maybe the stadium wouldn’t sit empty majority of the time, maybe the ticket office would be open at more suitable times, maybe the club would actually make money from the shop instead of it going into other peoples pockets or am I not allowed to say that? 

 

Reality check needed baz.

Pretty sure the club get a rental fee from the shop owners and don't want the hassle or risk of buying stock which may or may not sell.

Costs a lot of money to set up, staff and keep stock up to date/relevant

Long time since we had our own club shop (Piazza).

[mattman]

3 minutes ago, Yflab said:

Is the shop not an independent business? I would assume that they pay rent and there must be some license agreement over selling the strips and using the club badge and name.

The club shop has 2 counters one for strips (which the club make money) the other for the rest. I’d only ever buy a strip out there as in only interested in lining st mirren pockets. Club could make so much more money actually being in charge of their own shop but they rent it out, lazy if you ask me.

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, alanb said:

Get it added in there then … End of Problem

As suggested earlier, properly used can create good PR for SMISA and the club.

Good PR is and has been severely lacking since promotion

 

Is it really necessary to change that document to incorporate a goodwill gesture to our new management team? Would that have a positive impact on all our lives... or any whatsoever   

Dont let anyone be mislead here, I am 100% sure the 5 or 6 negative posters on here over this subject are part of a tiny minority (some the usual suspects). This will likely be seen as good PR for most. 

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, mattman said:

And to add, instead of saying the ticket site needs fixed, actually sort it !! Have a dome outside that’s ment to be a source of income but can’t be put up in adverse weather conditions!! In fecking SCOTLAND 😂😂

Was that not the previous boards call to put up an air dome? I believe it does still make money though (open to clarity on that)

[mattman]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

A lot of that stuff is systemic, no one is arguing our club is perfect but a lot of what’s wrong was inherited by the new board & has been long standing. 

We are in a stage of transition over the BTB period yet some people are expecting wholesale changes. GLS money has allowed us to move the handling of these kind of issues to fan decision makers & he’s doing it for not one penny. What we are seeing is:

- record season ticket sales 

- record home attendances (both points at new stadium) 

- continued positive season ticket sales this season 

- three years of profit 

- promotion & survival in the top flight. 

Really what else to people want in three seasons? Maybe a cure for the common cold. 

I’m sorry if I’m not toeing the club line like your good old self, but it’s just an opinion whether you like it or not. 

Im not once saying that it’s been all bad under GS, Not at all, but there’s sooooo much more things that can be done that could raise more cash, it doesn’t take years to work that out Baz. 

 

[mattman]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Was that not the previous boards call to put up an air dome? I believe it does still make money though (open to clarity on that)

I’m giving examples of things, the ticket office and club shop where there when the old board where there, no wonder buddieinek gets so frustrated with you!!

[Lord Pityme]

26 minutes ago, melmac said:

Here's the document which says nothing about honorary members.

Complete Amendment to Rules.pdf 1.33 MB · 4 downloads

I wonder who drafted that amendment?

[alanb]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Is it really necessary to change that document to incorporate a goodwill gesture to our new management team? Would that have a positive impact on all our lives... or any whatsoever   

Dont let anyone be mislead here, I am 100% sure the 5 or 6 negative posters on here over this subject are part of a tiny minority (some the usual suspects). This will likely be seen as good PR for most. 

Why not, easy to do and your sorted for the future.

I don't see the negative in people queries, just possibly looking for a due process to facilitate these kind of things.

Positive Action

[mattman]

11 minutes ago, alanb said:

Pretty sure the club get a rental fee from the shop owners and don't want the hassle or risk of buying stock which may or may not sell.

Costs a lot of money to set up, staff and keep stock up to date/relevant

Long time since we had our own club shop (Piazza).

Hassle or just laziness bud? Shop has potential if it had the right st mirren minded people in charge. 

 

The northbank boys sell a lot of good merch, that is actually buyable, and they raise a lot of funds through it too for displays etc, decent money. Club shop just looks tacky IMHO. Maybe they should take a leaf oot their book 🤷‍♂️

 

[alanb]

24 minutes ago, mattman said:

Hassle or just laziness bud? Shop has potential if it had the right st mirren minded people in charge. 

 

The northbank boys sell a lot of good merch, that is actually buyable, and they raise a lot of funds through it too for displays etc, decent money. Club shop just looks tacky IMHO. Maybe they should take a leaf oot their book 🤷‍♂️

 

As I said, Risky business running a shop and as we don't know the agreement between club and shop owner (SMFC minded I believe), then the risk is managed to the club's satisfaction.

Northbank merch probably made to order and guaranteed to sell (probably).

Edited August 7, 2019 by alanb

[mattman]

13 minutes ago, alanb said:

As I said, Risky business running a shop and as we don't know the agreement between club and shop owner (SMFC minded I believe), then the risk is managed to the club's satisfaction.

Northbank merch probably made to order and guaranteed to sell (probably).

Exactly.

[Lord Pityme]

28 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

I believe its covered in section 105.

Sorry I can't copy and paste it on this device.

Not being funny, but membership, and how you attain membership is something the committee cannot make a call on. It is enshrined in the constitution.

[melmac]

11 minutes ago, alanb said:

Why not, easy to do and your sorted for the future.

I don't see the negative in people queries, just possibly looking for a due process to facilitate these kind of things.

Positive Action

Alanb

You will see that the Rules are not that easy to amend. 

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."

At the AGM 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'm pretty sure there will never have been more than 250 members at an AGM, so how the amendments could have been voted through, who knows. Also, at the back of the new Rules, there is a Statutory Declaration that the amendments are in the manner provided for in the Rules, which they are not. If the signatories to the updated Rules are happy to be consciously misleading about something rather trivial, where next?    

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, mattman said:

I’m sorry if I’m not toeing the club line like your good old self, but it’s just an opinion whether you like it or not. 

Im not once saying that it’s been all bad under GS, Not at all, but there’s sooooo much more things that can be done that could raise more cash, it doesn’t take years to work that out Baz. 

 

There’s a lot that can be done agreed but it’s idealistic to just think a bunch of stuff is a quick & easy fix. 

[bazil85]

1 hour ago, mattman said:

I’m giving examples of things, the ticket office and club shop where there when the old board where there, no wonder buddieinek gets so frustrated with you!!

Aye it’s all me and not him at all, sure. 

[alanb]

3 minutes ago, melmac said:

Alanb

You will see that the Rules are not that easy to amend. 

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."

At the AGM 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'm pretty sure there will never have been more than 250 members at an AGM, so how the amendments could have been voted through, who knows. Also, at the back of the new Rules, there is a Statutory Declaration that the amendments are in the manner provided for in the Rules, which they are not. If the signatories to the updated Rules are happy to be consciously misleading about something rather trivial, where next?    

SMISA voting rules can be quite fluid and change to suit the situation when it suits them

eg, Last year Xmas meal failed to get picked in 3 monthly, soon arranged an online vote to sanction a donation, which was passed.

A 3 monthly vote was considered good enough to sanction ring fenced fund to be breached (Debatable)

As posted earlier Section 105 may facilitate a new procedure or change but may or may not need ratified by members.

If SMISA wants SMISA gets.

[bazil85]

16 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Not being funny, but membership, and how you attain membership is something the committee cannot make a call on. It is enshrined in the constitution.

There is nothing in any aspect of the arrangement whether it be constitutional or regs that say they have done something wrong. Again usual suspects that are anti anything SMISA. 

[mattman]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

There’s a lot that can be done agreed but it’s idealistic to just think a bunch of stuff is a quick & easy fix. 

Yeah true but some of the stuff is pretty simple, you must agree there’s so much money potential that isint getting maximised though?

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, alanb said:

SMISA voting rules can be quite fluid and change to suit the situation when it suits them

eg, Last year Xmas meal failed to get picked in 3 monthly, soon arranged an online vote to sanction a donation, which was passed.

A 3 monthly vote was considered good enough to sanction ring fenced fund to be breached (Debatable)

As posted earlier Section 105 may facilitate a new procedure or change but may or may not need ratified by members.

If SMISA wants SMISA gets.

Ring fence & Christmas meal situation  both passed by a vote. It would be ridiculous overkill to put honorary memberships to a vote or any other kind of ratification. 

[mattman]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Aye it’s all me and not him at all, sure. 

To be fair mate, I try not get involved in the bickering but you can’t never accept when your wrong, or take anyone’s opinions on board that don’t suit you. 

 

Just my take on things, your hearts in the right place you just need to realise that your opinion may not always be right 🙃