Jump to content

Value For Money


BuddieinEK

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Can I assume that this is a done deal and that no dialogue with the membership will be entered into?

That is what the statement is telling Smisa members, its not asking them anything! And the fact one of the Smisa committee has responded to a poster on here suggesting that there is "no membership required expenditure approval level" should worry all members!

there has always been an expenditure level, above which the committee must consult the membership for approval. It is a basic co-operative principle, and smisa is a Community Benefit Society, fully signed up to all the rules that govern com bens.

what that committee member is saying is either

" no, we have never had a expenditure approval amount" (not true, contact SLO John White, smisa secretary at BtB)

or "mibbaes we have, but since we've gone ahead and commited to this spend without seeking the proper membership approval,( like the fiasco where we couldnt wait to throw £15k at the club to fix the USH, and had to admit we were wrong to do so... again without the proper membership approval) we are going to try and front it out with blatant lies!

or, perhaps most worringly the committee simply didnt think to check their own rules, or have the appointed person i.e. The secretary/ treasurer keep them compliant with expenditure proposals..! 

They have f**ked it up yet again, possibly intentionally.?

i get it a bit with some smisa members suggesting "well if the club end up being the ones who actually use this system thats ok by me." But that puts you as a member equally responsible for breaching the society's rules, and possibly imparing or preventing it reaching its aims!

the more money Scott pulls out of smisa, the longer it will take to amass the funds to buy him out! There is an agreement in place for smisa to make an offer for the majority shareholding when it has amassed that sum agreed, or at the ten year anniversary of the agreement. Whichever comes first.

"no problem" you might say, if we have to go to the ten year date then fine, we'll buy the shares then!

the problems with that aspiration, rather than a SMART objective are firstly....

1. Membership was over 1300, its now 1200 or less. The likelyhood as the calendar ticks over is that continues to drop as there is "apparently" no emergency, so need to keep BtB's.

2. A culmination of falling membership and poorly conceived expenditure means there isnt enough in the coffers to BtB at the ten year date. "So we just save a bit more up in the following year/years and buy it, meantime Scott can just carry on"

3. Without a SMART objective in place, and all members committed to it to buy on or before the ten year date means that Scott, (if smisa arent in a financial position to do the deal at the price agreed at the outset), can sell to whoever he wants, for whatever he wants!

that final point could see him suggest to smisa one day after the deadline to "just give me what you've got and I'll squeeze one more of you on the board for a bit" or sell at profit to the highest bidder!

and the people responsible for that scenario coming to pass will be YOU the Smisa Membership!

You will have let it drift...

you will have failed to exert any proper governance over the committee.

you will have allowed your membership to drop without any attempts to address that.

you will have abdicated the responsibilities you signed up for when you joined to safeguard the Asset Lock

you will have allowed a Private Company to siphon off your funds, in front of your eyes.

you get the picture? Its YOU that's responsible, now, today! Simply taking the "well i dont mind if thats where things end up approach" will see your club sleepwalk into oblivion, or ownership by whoever fancies it!

remember there is an American capital investment company sponsoring the club who just love to take over companies in turmoil, and turn them over for a profit. You think they haven't had a good look under the bonnet, and be ready to step in to seemingly "save the day".... how's that worked out for Dundee and their support?

its on your watch, not someone else's!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 hours ago, oaksoft said:

This is a really poor attitude. It's what keeps people buying things like Gaviscon for £3.50 when they can buy exactly the same thing active ingredient in tablet form for about 20p.

Nobody is suggesting any two bob system or that they continue to use spreadsheets.

Honestly do we not get enough of this ridiculous nonsense from Baz?

You're questioning their decision, I'm agreeing with it based on the information they provided. Good to know you find agreement on this subject 'ridiculous' though. No doubt the exact same stance you'll take on their next announcement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

That is what the statement is telling Smisa members, its not asking them anything! And the fact one of the Smisa committee has responded to a poster on here suggesting that there is "no membership required expenditure approval level" should worry all members!

there has always been an expenditure level, above which the committee must consult the membership for approval. It is a basic co-operative principle, and smisa is a Community Benefit Society, fully signed up to all the rules that govern com bens.

what that committee member is saying is either

" no, we have never had a expenditure approval amount" (not true, contact SLO John White, smisa secretary at BtB)

or "mibbaes we have, but since we've gone ahead and commited to this spend without seeking the proper membership approval,( like the fiasco where we couldnt wait to throw £15k at the club to fix the USH, and had to admit we were wrong to do so... again without the proper membership approval) we are going to try and front it out with blatant lies!

or, perhaps most worringly the committee simply didnt think to check their own rules, or have the appointed person i.e. The secretary/ treasurer keep them compliant with expenditure proposals..! 

They have f**ked it up yet again, possibly intentionally.?

i get it a bit with some smisa members suggesting "well if the club end up being the ones who actually use this system thats ok by me." But that puts you as a member equally responsible for breaching the society's rules, and possibly imparing or preventing it reaching its aims!

the more money Scott pulls out of smisa, the longer it will take to amass the funds to buy him out! There is an agreement in place for smisa to make an offer for the majority shareholding when it has amassed that sum agreed, or at the ten year anniversary of the agreement. Whichever comes first.

"no problem" you might say, if we have to go to the ten year date then fine, we'll buy the shares then!

the problems with that aspiration, rather than a SMART objective are firstly....

1. Membership was over 1300, its now 1200 or less. The likelyhood as the calendar ticks over is that continues to drop as there is "apparently" no emergency, so need to keep BtB's.

Always budgeted for a drop off, every month that passes we are at least adding an extra 20% of monthly requirements to the deal. It ain't going to drop-off to anything like a level where there will be an 'emergency'

2. A culmination of falling membership and poorly conceived expenditure means there isnt enough in the coffers to BtB at the ten year date. "So we just save a bit more up in the following year/years and buy it, meantime Scott can just carry on"

This won't happen, the coffers get further ahead of target every month to the extent the deal being completed gets potentially shorter & shorter. Poorly conceived expenditures is subjective, it isn't fact. Many will likely disagree with you. 

3. Without a SMART objective in place, and all members committed to it to buy on or before the ten year date means that Scott, (if smisa arent in a financial position to do the deal at the price agreed at the outset), can sell to whoever he wants, for whatever he wants!

Again it wont happen are you completely oblivious to how far ahead of target the arrangement is? Some would also argue smart objectives would link to financially benefiting the club we are buying & having a suitable IT system... 

that final point could see him suggest to smisa one day after the deadline to "just give me what you've got and I'll squeeze one more of you on the board for a bit" or sell at profit to the highest bidder!

and the people responsible for that scenario coming to pass will be YOU the Smisa Membership!

You will have let it drift...

you will have failed to exert any proper governance over the committee.

you will have allowed your membership to drop without any attempts to address that.

you will have abdicated the responsibilities you signed up for when you joined to safeguard the Asset Lock

you will have allowed a Private Company to siphon off your funds, in front of your eyes.

you get the picture? Its YOU that's responsible, now, today! Simply taking the "well i dont mind if thats where things end up approach" will see your club sleepwalk into oblivion, or ownership by whoever fancies it!

remember there is an American capital investment company sponsoring the club who just love to take over companies in turmoil, and turn them over for a profit. You think they haven't had a good look under the bonnet, and be ready to step in to seemingly "save the day".... how's that worked out for Dundee and their support?

Dear oh dear. 

its on your watch, not someone else's!

Been a wee while since we've seen one of your desperate long posts that stinks of a desire for SMISA to fail. Something that one day you'll have to accept hasn't happened or do your usual ignore & spin when pointed out where you've been wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2019 at 11:16 PM, BuddieinEK said:

Agreed.

I must have missed the call for support from within.

Maybe I'm being naive but I thought when fan ownership was being promoted, we would tap into the talents and abilities of the fanbase first and foremost.

Is there honestly not one of our 1,200 members with the skill and ability to save us a recurring expenditure of £300 per month.

Capital outlay for the sake of progress I support. Increased recurring expenditure is a dangerous thing and has to be avoidable for me to support it.

Not certain that's the case here.

Am probably a bit late with this but my son having worked with a multi national technology and cybersecurity company [no names or i will have to shoot you] is now a senior software developer with one of the biggest banks in the world, still lives in paisley is a St Mirren season ticket holder and a smisa member too,  I know nothing about software and computer's etc, am thinking this would be up his street, not sure if he would be interested but i know money wouldn't be a issue, is this the sort of talent you mean ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am probably a bit late with this but my son having worked with a multi national technology and cybersecurity company [no names or i will have to shoot you] is now a senior software developer with one of the biggest banks in the world, still lives in paisley is a St Mirren season ticket holder and a smisa member too,  I know nothing about software and computer's etc, am thinking this would be up his street, not sure if he would be interested but i know money wouldn't be a issue, is this the sort of talent you mean ? 
Exactly the type.

We have a myriad of skills that if allowed, I believe would love to give their services to the club.

As a kid, I painted the red paint on the bogging Love Street toilets and considered it a privilege to be allowed to do so.

We should be tapping into our natural resources a lot more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, garzo said:

smisa and the club will always be separate entities and that shouldn't be confused

I agree they should have stayed that way, but Scott took control of smisa when BtB went through. You cant get smisa to even ask the club a question on why they went back on their word whilst trying to get us all to sign up to BtB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

I agree they should have stayed that way, but Scott took control of smisa when BtB went through. You cant get smisa to even ask the club a question on why they went back on their word whilst trying to get us all to sign up to BtB.

what do you mean by this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, garzo said:

Seriously, I'm not aware and it would be good to know about this.

Well schucks... if you need my help to understand? Try getting a vote on smisa's £2 spend for Glenvale Fc (a club that has provided free coaching to generations of youngsters) through without him PERSONALLY! Issuing a statement against this in a hissy fit!

i think if you look down at your hands you'll see your ass being handed to you. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Well schucks... if you need my help to understand? Try getting a vote on smisa's £2 spend for Glenvale Fc (a club that has provided free coaching to generations of youngsters) through without him PERSONALLY! Issuing a statement against this in a hissy fit!

i think if you look down at your hands you'll see your ass being handed to you. Lol

GLS doesn’t want something to happen, & makes a balanced comment on a conflict of interest. SMISA still do it. 

LPM - This backs up my point on GLS running SMISA. :blink:

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

GLS doesn’t want something to happen, & makes a balanced comment on a conflict of interest. SMISA still do it. 

LPM - This backs up my point on GLS running SMISA. :blink:

Wrong.... The Members decided to do it and incurred the wrath of Scott regarding how they chose, to spend their money!

whilst going back on his guarantee to smisa members he would consult over giving the family stand to bigots!

#controlfreak

Edited by Lord Pityme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Wrong.... The Members decided to do it and incurred the wrath of Scott regarding how they chose, to spend their money!

whilst going back on his guarantee to smisa members he would consult over giving the family stand to bigots!

#controlfreak

So in other words the members control SMISA, oh dear LPM, let's not get facts in way of your wee stories. 

Years ago, let it go. No one is perfect imagine you were held accountable to all your lies? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Baz i guess you're name will be one of the first down on any petition to give the North & West stands to the bigot boys?

as you often state the club needs those ticket sales to pay the wages, and if we arent filling the seats its a no-brainer!

just think the Panda club will be able to run on bigot days, we can have the pre match entertainment behind the Family stand too! What a great inclusive advert for our club! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

So Baz i guess you're name will be one of the first down on any petition to give the North & West stands to the bigot boys?

as you often state the club needs those ticket sales to pay the wages, and if we arent filling the seats its a no-brainer!

just think the Panda club will be able to run on bigot days, we can have the pre match entertainment behind the Family stand too! What a great inclusive advert for our club! 

Zzzz conversation has already been and I have given my view on it. This might amaze you but people don’t need to have the same views in different scenarios. 😁

Unlike you I am very positive (and would be happy not devastated) in the clubs plan to grow crowds & feel we can be in a position to outgrow that arrangement within a season or so. Therefore I wouldn’t support given them those stands. 

If your fantasy comes true & st Mirren fan numbers fall away in considerable numbers though, yep I would support it & would have no issue with moving seat for these games. 

I know it hurts you being powerless to stop this arrangement so I’m happy for this to be a coping mechanism. Along with false claims like I’ve or anyone else has said this money is in anyway needed  

Still not willing to admit you must have been wrong on your ticket sales comments? Wobble 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Zzzz conversation has already been and I have given my view on it. This might amaze you but people don’t need to have the same views in different scenarios. 😁

Unlike you I am very positive (and would be happy not devastated) in the clubs plan to grow crowds & feel we can be in a position to outgrow that arrangement within a season or so. Therefore I wouldn’t support given them those stands. 

If your fantasy comes true & st Mirren fan numbers fall away in considerable numbers though, yep I would support it & would have no issue with moving seat for these games. 

I know it hurts you being powerless to stop this arrangement so I’m happy for this to be a coping mechanism. Along with false claims like I’ve or anyone else has said this money is in anyway needed  

Still not willing to admit you must have been wrong on your ticket sales comments? Wobble 

But your VIEWS are contradictory!

if the club needs to sell more seats to the uefa sanctioned mob, then it makes perfect financial sense, allows the club to maintain its family inclusive credetials, run the panda club, and create an area that is for saints fans only. All away fans access from North stand area.

only an idiot could fail to see that, surely lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

But your VIEWS are contradictory!

if the club needs to sell more seats to the uefa sanctioned mob, then it makes perfect financial sense, allows the club to maintain its family inclusive credetials, run the panda club, and create an area that is for saints fans only. All away fans access from North stand area.

only an idiot could fail to see that, surely lol.

You can’t have contradictory views on two different scenarios. Good effort but you’re once again wrong. 

If I was looking at it from only a financial sense it would in our current scenario but I’m not. I am confident & positive enough minded that I think in the near future our crowds will be too big to accommodate this without turning away our own fans, something I don’t support. 

Are you incapable of understanding that? Is there someone with the required intelligence to explain it to you? School aged child should do  

Still no word on the season ticket sales error? Wobble 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2019 at 11:19 AM, bazil85 said:

Not for you or many others to somehow see the need to keep engaging with me on this and other subjects... 

or the need to keep this done to death subject alive.

Done to death because you support the current arrangement... whereas for the majority on here who don't agree with it think it is a very valid topic that won't be going away.:)

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...