bazil85 Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 minute ago, oaksoft said: How? He doesn't control SMISA so how can he GIVE them anything? Word twisting, the lowest of the low in an argument. He went with a proposal and after consulting with SMISA, it was put to a fan vote. Without GLS there’s no proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said: I've never called you a liar that I recall and i'm certainly not hurting but thanks for your concern. Conflicting information?? It's mostly shite what you post. I am an optimist though, i hope one day, you post something of value to a discussion. Won't hold my breath but will remain hopeful. Keep trying sweet cheeks, one day, it'll happen for you I have posted no conflicting information. I support the great work smisa & GLS are doing for the club. You don’t seem to think fans should get a vote for things you don’t agree on. That’s fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, oaksoft said: He can't GIVE them an option because he doesn't own or control SMISA. He can SUGGEST an option only. See above, no GLS no option. Doesn’t mean he “controls SMISA money as others claim. Word twisting, what ever level you want to go to. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, bazil85 said: See above, no GLS no option. Doesn’t mean he “controls SMISA money as others claim. Word twisting, what ever level you want to go to. 🤣 More shite No GLS no request to utilise SMISA's ringfenced funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Kombibuddie said: More shite No GLS no request to utilise SMISA's ringfenced funds. You said ‘more shite’ then posted the same point in a negative manner 🤣 again I know you’re bitter than the majority of voting members were in favour of this arrangement that improves the training facilities of the club we’re buying but you’ll just have to live with it. It’s done, you can’t change, influence or mitigate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 You said ‘more shite’ then posted the same point in a negative manner [emoji1787] again I know you’re bitter than the majority of voting members were in favour of this arrangement that improves the training facilities of the club we’re buying but you’ll just have to live with it. It’s done, you can’t change, influence or mitigate it. Tell yourself that a thousand times and it's still utter shite.Next [emoji33] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said: More shite No GLS no request to utilise SMISA's ringfenced funds. Let’s also not forget, no GLS no fan buyout, no fan ownership & the risk of no more St Mirren if we made one of those bad ownership decisions that have plagued other clubs. Amazing what he has done for our club & not for a penny personal gain. Some of our fans that call him a liar & a criminal should be embarrassed at their behaviour. I can see him being the first non football player/ manager in our hall of fame. Legend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said: Tell yourself that a thousand times and it's still utter shite. Next It is true though let’s be honest, all of it. Another one of your comments with zero impact on the current SMISA arrangement. Next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted September 17, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 More shite No GLS no request to utilise SMISA's ringfenced funds.There was never a vote on it specifically anyway... It was a consequence of a vote on another matter. Would have been interesting to see the voting had it been a stand alone direct issue and not, as usual, a done deal! No wonder people in the thread refer to it as an "era in judgement"... The feckin same discussion and pitiful discussions have been going on for an era now![emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji41] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 It is true though let’s be honest, all of it. Another one of your comments with zero impact on the current SMISA arrangement. Next Honesty is not your strong point if your post above is anything to go by. Hey ho, i'm not calling SMISA out, that's another one of your fairy stories.It's you that's getting called out for posting utter shite.I hope tomorrow is a better day for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 28 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said: Honesty is not your strong point if your post above is anything to go by. Hey ho, i'm not calling SMISA out, that's another one of your fairy stories. It's you that's getting called out for posting utter shite. I hope tomorrow is a better day for you. It seems really true from what I’ve read. You clearly seem bitter & you posted that the event wouldn’t have happened without GLS, which was my point. Today was a good day. It’s another day where I’m happy to be a St mirren fan & support the decisions & direction of both SMFC/ SMISA (who I don’t really see the point in separating by the way) happy days shame for those that don’t... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 17, 2019 Report Share Posted September 17, 2019 4 hours ago, bazil85 said: Word twisting, the lowest of the low in an argument. He went with a proposal and after consulting with SMISA, it was put to a fan vote. Without GLS there’s no proposal. I was pretty much quoting you verbatim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 It seems really true from what I’ve read. You clearly seem bitter & you posted that the event wouldn’t have happened without GLS, which was my point. Today was a good day. It’s another day where I’m happy to be a St mirren fan & support the decisions & direction of both SMFC/ SMISA (who I don’t really see the point in separating by the way) happy days shame for those that don’t... Oh dear, you don't/can't demonstrate understanding of the discussions you get into.This forum has a word for that i think Whoooooooosh [emoji33] Called out & you, without fail resort to Anti SMISAAnti GLSAnti BoDAnti St Mirren Another demonstration that you clearly are clueless and spouting pish. Todays a new day, good luck with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 12 hours ago, bazil85 said: It seems really true from what I’ve read. You clearly seem bitter & you posted that the event wouldn’t have happened without GLS, which was my point. Today was a good day. It’s another day where I’m happy to be a St mirren fan & support the decisions & direction of both SMFC/ SMISA (who I don’t really see the point in separating by the way) happy days shame for those that don’t... And that really is the crux of your confusion, obfuscation, deflection, repetition and just being plain wrong and tedious. one of the above is a Private Company which is supposed to be self sustainable, with limited accountability to its shareholders! the other is a Community Benefit Society which has to serve the broader interests of the community, in contrast to co-operative societies that serve the interests of members. The 2014 Act requires a community benefit society to “carry on a business, industry or trade” that is “being, or intended to be, conducted for the benefit of the community”. Purpose: The FCA says that “the conduct of a community benefit society’s business must be entirely for the benefit of the community.” There can be no alternative or secondary purposes, including any that may preferentially benefit the members. Membership: In common with all societies, community benefit societies normally have members who hold shares and are accorded democratic rights on the basis on one-member-one-vote. The FCA says “it is not usually appropriate for a community benefit society to give any particular group of members greater rights or benefits, because the society must be conducting its business for the benefit of the community. So, for example, we would expect to see community benefit societies run democratically on the basis of one-member-one-vote.“ Application of profits: Any profit made by a community benefit society must be used for the benefit of the community. Unlike a co-operative society, profits cannot be distributed to members of a community benefit society. Interest on share capital is an operating expense and should be subject to a declared maximum rate (see Section 6 for more details). Use of assets: Community benefit societies must only use their assets for the benefit of the community. If a community benefit society is sold, converted, or amalgamated with another legal entity, its assets must continue to be used for the benefit of the community and must not be distributed to members. This lock on the assets of a community benefit society can be reinforced by adopting the prescribed wording for a statutory asset lock (see Section 2.4). The FCA registration guidance acknowledges that a community benefit society might define the community it serves, but this should not inhibit the benefit to the community at large, in other words, community benefit should not be restricted to members only. The FCA does not provide guidance on who can be a member of a community benefit society. In the context of community shares, it is assumed that membership is open to any person who supports the purpose of the society, without the distinction found in co-operative societies between user and non-user members. Normally, the FCA would expect members to be granted democratic control, based on one-member-one-vote, but it may be prepared to register societies where control has been ceded to a parent body, if that parent body can show that it can run the society for the benefit of the community. the highlighted sections above show clearly where Smisa fails to adhere, or indeed completely ignores the FCA rules on a Community Benefit Society! giving money to a private company (SMFC) by buying tickets, fixing USH, resurfacing plastic pitches, making a £50k cashflow available to, or buying match balls are not community benefits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: And that really is the crux of your confusion, obfuscation, deflection, repetition and just being plain wrong and tedious. one of the above is a Private Company which is supposed to be self sustainable, with limited accountability to its shareholders! the other is a Community Benefit Society which has to serve the broader interests of the community, in contrast to co-operative societies that serve the interests of members. The 2014 Act requires a community benefit society to “carry on a business, industry or trade” that is “being, or intended to be, conducted for the benefit of the community”. Purpose: The FCA says that “the conduct of a community benefit society’s business must be entirely for the benefit of the community.” There can be no alternative or secondary purposes, including any that may preferentially benefit the members. Membership: In common with all societies, community benefit societies normally have members who hold shares and are accorded democratic rights on the basis on one-member-one-vote. The FCA says “it is not usually appropriate for a community benefit society to give any particular group of members greater rights or benefits, because the society must be conducting its business for the benefit of the community. So, for example, we would expect to see community benefit societies run democratically on the basis of one-member-one-vote.“ Application of profits: Any profit made by a community benefit society must be used for the benefit of the community. Unlike a co-operative society, profits cannot be distributed to members of a community benefit society. Interest on share capital is an operating expense and should be subject to a declared maximum rate (see Section 6 for more details). Use of assets: Community benefit societies must only use their assets for the benefit of the community. If a community benefit society is sold, converted, or amalgamated with another legal entity, its assets must continue to be used for the benefit of the community and must not be distributed to members. This lock on the assets of a community benefit society can be reinforced by adopting the prescribed wording for a statutory asset lock (see Section 2.4). The FCA registration guidance acknowledges that a community benefit society might define the community it serves, but this should not inhibit the benefit to the community at large, in other words, community benefit should not be restricted to members only. The FCA does not provide guidance on who can be a member of a community benefit society. In the context of community shares, it is assumed that membership is open to any person who supports the purpose of the society, without the distinction found in co-operative societies between user and non-user members. Normally, the FCA would expect members to be granted democratic control, based on one-member-one-vote, but it may be prepared to register societies where control has been ceded to a parent body, if that parent body can show that it can run the society for the benefit of the community. the highlighted sections above show clearly where Smisa fails to adhere, or indeed completely ignores the FCA rules on a Community Benefit Society! giving money to a private company (SMFC) by buying tickets, fixing USH, resurfacing plastic pitches, making a £50k cashflow available to, or buying match balls are not community benefits! P.s. When i wòrked with the Smisa committee i did tell them they should consider converting to a co-operative, as that woukd enable them to work solely for the benefit of their members. And they could also benefit the community through their actions. alas, like on most other fundamental issues the 'cabal' said no. Edit: when the shit eventually hits the fan Gordon will be real pissed with them for not getting it! Edited September 18, 2019 by Lord Pityme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 12 hours ago, oaksoft said: I was pretty much quoting you verbatim. You weren't and I responded to show you were word twisting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Kombibuddie said: Oh dear, you don't/can't demonstrate understanding of the discussions you get into. This forum has a word for that i think Whoooooooosh Called out & you, without fail resort to Anti SMISA Anti GLS Anti BoD Anti St Mirren Another demonstration that you clearly are clueless and spouting pish. Todays a new day, good luck with it. It was very easy to demonstrate, I just had to read your messages... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 17 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: And that really is the crux of your confusion, obfuscation, deflection, repetition and just being plain wrong and tedious. one of the above is a Private Company which is supposed to be self sustainable, with limited accountability to its shareholders! the other is a Community Benefit Society which has to serve the broader interests of the community, in contrast to co-operative societies that serve the interests of members. The 2014 Act requires a community benefit society to “carry on a business, industry or trade” that is “being, or intended to be, conducted for the benefit of the community”. Purpose: The FCA says that “the conduct of a community benefit society’s business must be entirely for the benefit of the community.” There can be no alternative or secondary purposes, including any that may preferentially benefit the members. Membership: In common with all societies, community benefit societies normally have members who hold shares and are accorded democratic rights on the basis on one-member-one-vote. The FCA says “it is not usually appropriate for a community benefit society to give any particular group of members greater rights or benefits, because the society must be conducting its business for the benefit of the community. So, for example, we would expect to see community benefit societies run democratically on the basis of one-member-one-vote.“ Application of profits: Any profit made by a community benefit society must be used for the benefit of the community. Unlike a co-operative society, profits cannot be distributed to members of a community benefit society. Interest on share capital is an operating expense and should be subject to a declared maximum rate (see Section 6 for more details). Use of assets: Community benefit societies must only use their assets for the benefit of the community. If a community benefit society is sold, converted, or amalgamated with another legal entity, its assets must continue to be used for the benefit of the community and must not be distributed to members. This lock on the assets of a community benefit society can be reinforced by adopting the prescribed wording for a statutory asset lock (see Section 2.4). The FCA registration guidance acknowledges that a community benefit society might define the community it serves, but this should not inhibit the benefit to the community at large, in other words, community benefit should not be restricted to members only. The FCA does not provide guidance on who can be a member of a community benefit society. In the context of community shares, it is assumed that membership is open to any person who supports the purpose of the society, without the distinction found in co-operative societies between user and non-user members. Normally, the FCA would expect members to be granted democratic control, based on one-member-one-vote, but it may be prepared to register societies where control has been ceded to a parent body, if that parent body can show that it can run the society for the benefit of the community. the highlighted sections above show clearly where Smisa fails to adhere, or indeed completely ignores the FCA rules on a Community Benefit Society! giving money to a private company (SMFC) by buying tickets, fixing USH, resurfacing plastic pitches, making a £50k cashflow available to, or buying match balls are not community benefits! It absolutely does not, these points have not only been brought up on here and debunked before (direct/ indirect community benefit) they have been thrown out by at least one whistleblow attempt to the FCA. You and others have been proven wrong in all or any attempt to show a breach in regulatory requirement by SMISA. This is why there has been zero reprimand. It's okay that you can't accept this because the nature is you also can't influence or alter it. BTB is happening, GLS and SMISA will go down as fantastic servants to their club in delivering fan ownership. Enjoy the ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 17 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: P.s. When i wòrked with the Smisa committee i did tell them they should consider converting to a co-operative, as that woukd enable them to work solely for the benefit of their members. And they could also benefit the community through their actions. alas, like on most other fundamental issues the 'cabal' said no. Alas it made no difference did it? Zero reprimand, zero regulatory concerns and fan ownership miles ahead of target to be delivered. Well done all involved at SMISA that have worked to achieve this even with the negative drag of a very small minority of SMFC "fans" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, bazil85 said: It absolutely does not, these points have not only been brought up on here and debunked before (direct/ indirect community benefit) they have been thrown out by at least one whistleblow attempt to the FCA. You and others have been proven wrong in all or any attempt to show a breach in regulatory requirement by SMISA. This is why there has been zero reprimand. It's okay that you can't accept this because the nature is you also can't influence or alter it. BTB is happening, GLS and SMISA will go down as fantastic servants to their club in delivering fan ownership. Enjoy the ride. Oh dear... is Baz the BoJo of bawa? read the fca rules above. They use no such definition as "indirect community benefit" because it means absolutely nothing! you seem to be ITK Baz, as i am unaware of any 'Whistleblower' contacting the FCA in regards to Smisa. Unless you are yet again completely falsifying the individual complaint made by a smisa member, regarding a dispute with smisa, which said member was advised by fca to take up with smisa, and Supporters direct as adjudicator? Tut, tut Baz you really need to sort your shit out and get the correct terminology for things. i am just happy to put the information on here so smisa members/saints fans can draw their own informed conclusions as to how often, and how serious Smisa's failings are in connection with the FCA rules on Community Benefit Society's. here to help you Baz. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: Oh dear... is Baz the BoJo of bawa? read the fca rules above. They use no such definition as "indirect community benefit" because it means absolutely nothing! you seem to be ITK Baz, as i am unaware of any 'Whistleblower' contacting the FCA in regards to Smisa. Unless you are yet again completely falsifying the individual complaint made by a smisa member, regarding a dispute with smisa, which said member was advised by fca to take up with smisa, and Supporters direct as adjudicator? Tut, tut Baz you really need to sort your shit out and get the correct terminology for things. i am just happy to put the information on here so smisa members/saints fans can draw their own informed conclusions as to how often, and how serious Smisa's failings are in connection with the FCA rules on Community Benefit Society's. here to help you Baz. Lol I'm very aware of the FCA rules regarding this, I would wager more so than you. None of what you quoted has been breached. If you want evidence for this just look at the fact to regulatory reprimand has fallen on SMISA doorsteps. Nope you're again completely wrong and showing a lack of awareness of FCA process. Dicko reaching out to them, the person would be duty bound to investigate any breach of regs, they didn't see it as required, it was members dispute and he was told where to raise it. Do you realise as a former member of the SMISA committee you're actually bound to report perceived regulatory wrongdoing ? I wonder why you haven't... Either because deep down you know you're wrong or you don't have an awareness of your responsibility around this? Third option is of course you have reported it and also been told where to go. Here to help but not influence, impact or change BTB in anyway, nae luck lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 1 minute ago, bazil85 said: I'm very aware of the FCA rules regarding this, I would wager more so than you. None of what you quoted has been breached. If you want evidence for this just look at the fact to regulatory reprimand has fallen on SMISA doorsteps. Nope you're again completely wrong and showing a lack of awareness of FCA process. Dicko reaching out to them, the person would be duty bound to investigate any breach of regs, they didn't see it as required, it was members dispute and he was told where to raise it. Do you realise as a former member of the SMISA committee you're actually bound to report perceived regulatory wrongdoing ? I wonder why you haven't... Either because deep down you know you're wrong or you don't have an awareness of your responsibility around this? Third option is of course you have reported it and also been told where to go. Here to help but not influence, impact or change BTB in anyway, nae luck lol. Well at least you agreed in a roundabout way you got it completely wrong suggesting an individual member had raised a Whisleblowing issue. There was no FCA investigation, they simply pointed said member to smisa complaint proceedure. to help you out again, the defenition of a 'Whistleblowing' issue is one that affects all, or a large group of people within an orginisation. Are you asking me to contact the FCA, and report Smisa on the obvious failings above? Well you've changed your tune! But you are wrong again, issues that occured after leaving a com ben committee do not compel a former committee member to report them. And any issue before is subject to record in committee meeting minutes, and contemporaneous notes. I feel really good about that, its all there if ever required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombibuddie Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 No discussion needed It was very easy to demonstrate, I just had to read your messages... Bazil bollox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said: Well at least you agreed in a roundabout way you got it completely wrong suggesting an individual member had raised a Whisleblowing issue. There was no FCA investigation, they simply pointed said member to smisa complaint proceedure. to help you out again, the defenition of a 'Whistleblowing' issue is one that affects all, or a large group of people within an orginisation. Are you asking me to contact the FCA, and report Smisa on the obvious failings above? Well you've changed your tune! But you are wrong again, issues that occured after leaving a com ben committee do not compel a former committee member to report them. And any issue before is subject to record in committee meeting minutes, and contemporaneous notes. I feel really good about that, its all there if ever required. No we don't, he contacted FCA, it amounts to whistleblowing. Again showing your ignorance in not being aware of the many different paths you can take to 'whistleblow' There was no investigation because a person or persons that work for the regulator and who's job it would be to investigate didn't deem it needed. Yet you know better than them... Interesting. I would love for you to contact the FCA on your perception of that, perception is the key word. You trying to spin that I agree with you on your idea of a failing is why you're continually so easily beaten in debate. If you raised it you'd be told you were wrong. Are you saying if you become aware of a regulatory breach regarding an organisation you're involved in you are okay to keep it quiet? Your belief in that is why you haven't reported SMISA? Lol desperate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted September 18, 2019 Report Share Posted September 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, bazil85 said: No we don't, he contacted FCA, it amounts to whistleblowing. Again showing your ignorance in not being aware of the many different paths you can take to 'whistleblow' There was no investigation because a person or persons that work for the regulator and who's job it would be to investigate didn't deem it needed. Yet you know better than them... Interesting. I would love for you to contact the FCA on your perception of that, perception is the key word. You trying to spin that I agree with you on your idea of a failing is why you're continually so easily beaten in debate. If you raised it you'd be told you were wrong. Are you saying if you become aware of a regulatory breach regarding an organisation you're involved in you are okay to keep it quiet? Your belief in that is why you haven't reported SMISA? Lol desperate. 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.