Jump to content

BuddieinEK

Value For Money

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lord Pityme said:

Dont be surprised when its announced, or leaked that "Hey Presto... guess what? We've realised The Club can utilise this system much more than we can, so were letting them use most of it for Nowt..!"

just as you smisa members suckers keep footing the bill, and allowing us committee bids to soend what we want!

Like Kemp I would be happy for the club to use this, given that SMISA/BTB will be the eventual owners of the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kevo_smfc said:

SMiSA are in the process of taking over a football club in the next few years. Would you rather they worked off a spreadsheet or alternatively a two bob system done on the cheap to run a professional organisation going forward?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kevo_smfc said:

SMiSA are in the process of taking over a football club in the next few years. Would you rather they worked off a spreadsheet or alternatively a two bob system done on the cheap to run a professional organisation going forward? You can't fully depend on an individual or a group of individuals especially on a voluntarily basis to be always available and to respond to everything required for members. If this system takes the weight off of the volunteer committee members and actually benefits SMISA as a whole too, then it is a worthwhile purchase. You can't have a manual process forever. 

 

It really depends  on an individuals knowledge know how of technology, to actually appreciate how it works and the value behind cost. That is not a dig, it is purely fact. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The argument now seems to be morphing somewhat within the last few posts of the thread with people now debating the merits of such a system for the football club. That goes way beyond the scope of managing the BTB membership via the proposed system.

If a professional, modern day football club in the Scottish Premiership requires such a system then one should be efficiently and competitively sourced. That’s a different argument from what was put forward at the start of this though.

It’s the seemingly intentional (but possibly accidental) blurring of the lines between BtB and SMFC thats not helped by some of the communications and decisions. 

If I’m not mistaken, we’re talking about investing 2% of recurring BTB income every month.  That’s not insignificant. 

My question is what are BtB members getting in return? 

- It arguably slows the takeover

- It could be argued that it secures the process to some extent by making the organisation more efficient 

- or is it that it’s needed for long-term functioning of the football club? 

 

I don’t have any vendetta against BtB or anyone at the club. I’d just love to understand the objectives crystal clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably someone in SMISA has risk assessed this software as well.

In 7 years time the current software could well be obsolete so talk of buying this system now when we won't use the full suite of functionality is a bit worrying because it sounds like someone maybe doesn't understand how software changes overnight.

What guarantees has this supplier made about upgrades and future-proofing?

Are SMISA absolutely certain that they won't simply be spunking this sort of money on another new system in 7 years time?

Risk Assessment. Cue Baz.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kevo_smfc said:

SMiSA are in the process of taking over a football club in the next few years. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well this the point, they aren't. It is still over half a decade away, and all SMISA need to be at present is collecting our 12 pounds per month and putting that towards the purchase of the club.

If there are other plans that this will help with, then tell us!

Otherwise use a cheaper option for admin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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 ? 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 7:46 PM, smcc said:

Like Kemp I would be happy for the club to use this, given that SMISA/BTB will be the eventual owners of the club.

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Scott runs Smisa!

ffs is this news to you?

More utter rubbish from you. One day soon you’ll have to face the reality that your little fantasy where SMISA fails & SMFC end up in the hands of asset strip companies has not came true. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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...