Value For Money

[BuddieinEK]

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.[emoji4]

"What majority" or a variant thereof will be the inevitable response!

[proudtobeabuddy]

7 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

14 minutes ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

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.

"What majority" or a variant thereof will be the inevitable response!

I know and the evidence on here and at St Mirren park points to him being wrong, it's up to him to prove it's not the majority because he's one of very few who think that.

[antrin]

Not to go too far off thread... off topic, but it’d bet that bazil knows several Buddies who have sometimes eaten chips and not consumed the salt until a month or two later and that they didn’t mind it.  So it’s a perfectly acceptable practice.

And he will always respond and berate anyone who dares to suggest chips could be consumed any other way.

 

 

[BuddieinEK]

Not to go too far off thread... off topic, but it’d bet that bazil knows several Buddies who have sometimes eaten chips and not consumed the salt until a month or two later and that they didn’t mind it.  So it’s a perfectly acceptable practice.
And he will always respond and berate anyone who dares to suggest chips could be consumed any other way.
 
 

Hopefully, they were slugs!

I had a great second line but can't, under the terms of the armistice! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji12]

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

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.

Majority on here doesn't mean a majority of supporters though. Let's also remember the people that don't agree are making a negative assertion based on no evidence. Standard for a few posters regarding SMISA topics.  

[proudtobeabuddy]

Majority on here doesn't mean a majority of supporters though. Let's also remember the people that don't agree are making a negative assertion based on no evidence. Standard for a few posters regarding SMISA topics.  

Again it your opinion that’s it’s negative in my opinion some people are taking a stand against something they believe is morally wrong. I’m usually positive about most things St Mirren including the BOD but in this case I’m not being negative I’m being realistic the BOD are valuing bigot money more than their own supporters. It’s also not helping us on the pitch shooting into away fans at both ends. People feel strongly about it for a reason or it wouldn’t be an ongoing topic.

[bazil85]

40 minutes ago, proudtobeabuddy said:

Again it your opinion that’s it’s negative in my opinion some people are taking a stand against something they believe is morally wrong. I’m usually positive about most things St Mirren including the BOD but in this case I’m not being negative I’m being realistic the BOD are valuing bigot money more than their own supporters. It’s also not helping us on the pitch shooting into away fans at both ends. People feel strongly about it for a reason or it wouldn’t be an ongoing topic.

I think the key word in all this is ‘again’ it’s done, done to death actually. It won’t change anytime soon & no one for or against it knows if they speak for a majority. 

We should move on and leave it until crowds dictate otherwise 

[Wendy Saintss]

I think the key word in all this is ‘again’ it’s done, done to death actually. It won’t change anytime soon & no one for or against it knows if they speak for a majority. 
We should move on and leave it until crowds dictate otherwise 

“We”?

You can move on if you want to. Personally I will continue to make my point until change happens.

Change won’t happen if fans, as you want them to do, do nothing.

Change can only come from the fans themselves.

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

“We”?

You can move on if you want to. Personally I will continue to make my point until change happens.

Change won’t happen if fans, as you want them to do, do nothing.

Change can only come from the fans themselves.

 

I know a number of people will and it will continue not to have an impact. Again as I have said, there’s no evidence you’re speaking for a majority.

There will always be things about football people don’t like. Control the controllables and pick your battles I’d say. 

[Kombibuddie]

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

I know a number of people will and it will continue not to have an impact. Again as I have said, there’s no evidence you’re speaking for a majority.

There will always be things about football people don’t like. Control the controllables and pick your battles I’d say. 

what happens when you don't like or don't agree with something, do you give up so easily?

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

what happens when you don't like or don't agree with something, do you give up so easily?

So easily? The same arguments been going on for about 16 month. It’s done, people have made their points. it isn’t going to change until our crowds rise significantly or potentially after the fan buyout. 

[Kombibuddie]

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

So easily? The same arguments been going on for about 16 month. It’s done, people have made their points. it isn’t going to change until our crowds rise significantly or potentially after the fan buyout. 

yep, so easily. You don't effect change accepting the 1st or any knockback. You bang your drum in the belief/hope that it will make a difference. Shutting up will change nothing.

The club AGM could get a bit fruity if shareholders bring the subject up. That'll be interesting

[bazil85]

13 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

yep, so easily. You don't effect change accepting the 1st or any knockback. You bang your drum in the belief/hope that it will make a difference. Shutting up will change nothing.

The club AGM could get a bit fruity if shareholders bring the subject up. That'll be interesting

And again back to my point, you or others don’t know if they speak for a majority of supporters. 

[Kombibuddie]

And again back to my point, you or others don’t know if they speak for a majority of supporters. 

Can't speak for anyone else but I have never claimed to speak for anyone else, never mind this "majority" you keep banging on about.

Which brings me back to my original question that you have sidestepped twice by responding with waffle.

Do you give up so easily when you don't agree/like something?

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

Can't speak for anyone else but I have never claimed to speak for anyone else, never mind this "majority" you keep banging on about.

Which brings me back to my original question that you have sidestepped twice by responding with waffle.

Do you give up so easily when you don't agree/like something?

Depends what it is.

In a situation where I didn’t like the decision of a company chairman that ultimately didn’t really impact any of their stakeholders bar some having a slightly different view of 3-4 football games, yeah I would have given up. 

Edit: should probably make it clear, I don’t like the decision but I understand it & think the benefits far outweigh any negatives. 

Edited September 1, 2019 by bazil85

[Kombibuddie]

57 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Depends what it is.

In a situation where I didn’t like the decision of a company chairman that ultimately didn’t really impact any of their stakeholders bar some having a slightly different view of 3-4 football games, yeah I would have given up. 

Edit: should probably make it clear, I don’t like the decision but I understand it & think the benefits far outweigh any negatives. 

& that is your prerogative.

However, there's quite a few (not claiming a majority) who aren't quite so happy with the decision, especially as it did have an impact on stakeholders (unless ST holders of the South Stand are not considered stakeholders) who are not for giving up.

Edit: I too should probably make it clear, I don't like the decision and never will like the decision and I understand the explanation for it but I don't think the benefits are worth 1 bigot pound.

[bazil85]

25 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

& that is your prerogative.

However, there's quite a few (not claiming a majority) who aren't quite so happy with the decision, especially as it did have an impact on stakeholders (unless ST holders of the South Stand are not considered stakeholders) who are not for giving up.

Edit: I too should probably make it clear, I don't like the decision and never will like the decision and I understand the explanation for it but I don't think the benefits are worth 1 bigot pound.

Didn’t Really impact, they can still attend these games. 

I know & my point is all these arguments have been done to death both ways & it’s clear it won’t change. It’s pointless to continue with.

We’re already seeing the exact same pattern as previous games. A big flurry, no change, quieten down. 

[Kombibuddie]

Didn’t Really impact,

Aye, right.

How many attended?
How many did not attend?

The club will have the figures, more than happy to be proved wrong that I think your "didn't really impact" is a load of bollocks.

[bazil85]

11 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

 

 

Aye, right.

How many attended?
How many did not attend?

The club will have the figures, more than happy to be proved wrong that I think your "didn't really impact" is a load of bollocks.
 

 

All done to death like I have said. It doesn’t impact the fans in being able to come to games  

- we know naturally a number of fans don’t go to these games 

- even with the above last season we had more home fans at a Celtic home game than we did at a Killie one less than two weeks apart. This proves other factors at play  

- It doesn't impact them, if they choose not to attend the games it’s their choice, they could if they wanted to.

- still allowed for a six figure, 10% increase to player budget last season. imagine we’ll be similar this season   

[Kombibuddie]

All done to death like I have said. It doesn’t impact the fans in being able to come to games  
- we know naturally a number of fans don’t go to these games 
- even with the above last season we had more home fans at a Celtic home game than we did at a Killie one less than two weeks apart. This proves other factors at play  
- It doesn't impact them, if they choose not to attend the games it’s their choice, they could if they wanted to.
- still allowed for a six figure, 10% increase to player budget last season. imagine we’ll be similar this season   

You changed your tune.

"No impact" to "doesn't impact anyone coming to games"

Instead of declaring 'utter bollox', i'll strip it back a wee bit further,

The impact is not choice on games someone can attend but choice on which part of the ground they view the game.

Most likely for personal reasons, many folk have a preferred viewing point

Behind the goal
Down the touchline
In the main stand
Disabled platform
Family stand

your ignorance knows no bounds on this with your attitude of it not impacting on supporters coming to matches.

There's folk on here have declared they won't attend these 3 games purely because they've been turfed out their seats & their stand.

You not liking the arrangement but backing it vehemently further demonstrates a lack of empathy too (after all, they can still come to games).

Your suggestion of it not impacting anyone is completely false.

Will be interesting if the club releases the figures of how many ST holders from the family stand relocate for the rangers & celtic games and how many did not.

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

You changed your tune.

"No impact" to "doesn't impact anyone coming to games"

Instead of declaring 'utter bollox', i'll strip it back a wee bit further,

The impact is not choice on games someone can attend but choice on which part of the ground they view the game.

Most likely for personal reasons, many folk have a preferred viewing point

Behind the goal
Down the touchline
In the main stand
Disabled platform
Family stand

your ignorance knows no bounds on this with your attitude of it not impacting on supporters coming to matches.

There's folk on here have declared they won't attend these 3 games purely because they've been turfed out their seats & their stand.

You not liking the arrangement but backing it vehemently further demonstrates a lack of empathy too (after all, they can still come to games).

Your suggestion of it not impacting anyone is completely false.

Will be interesting if the club releases the figures of how many ST holders from the family stand relocate for the rangers & celtic games and how many did not.

I didn't, when I mentioned no impact I was talking about this having no impact on individual fans. As in if fans want to attend games they can, doesn't stop them. I also already mentioned the only slight exception to this is a different view for the games. So yeah you're right, different part of the ground, my opinion on that is it's trivial & there's no real impact. 

You brought up a bunch of other stuff so I addressed the points. 

I have no ignorance, I fully understand some fans make a song and dance & take this subject in a number of personal ways, their choice to do so. I don't need to change my own personal opinion that it's trivial though, it's allowed. 

That's their personal choice, for me it's very cut your nose off to spite your face as all that'll do is impact the club they support. All for a different view? Trivial IMO. 

Why must I show empathy to a group of fans that have to go in a different gate three times a season? I don't like the fact these seats aren't filled with SMFC fans & I don't like the bigot brothers getting two stands. that's different issues IMO. I know why we do it & if it was up to me I would make the same call. But I'm allowed not to like something without being empathetic to what I view as a trivial point. If I was getting moved I wouldn't want any empathy or sympathy, I'd think it needless. 

I've shown the meaning behind it not impacting fans and I stand by it, sounds like you've just miss-interpreted what I was meaning.

Would be interesting to an extent, I doubt they would because I don't think they did last season. It would only give us a snapshot though as I have said, historically families and children attend these games less than others, even under previous arrangements. This is a bit like those fans that are looking forward to the accounts because they think it might somehow support their side. It's highly unlikely we'll get a breakdown & even if they did, unless GLS & DN are liars, the breakdown will show a six figure sum that's allowed for a 10% increase in player budget.

Again all done to death, I see what you're doing in trying to keep it alive but once again the subject is dying & will pick up again for the next fixture. In fact I see the irony, if not for me it would probably have died sooner. lol 

Also remember this is a SMISA thread regarding an IT system. Not sure how we got onto the bigot firm debate from people moaning about the new SMISA platform. 

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Kombibuddie said:

You changed your tune.

"No impact" to "doesn't impact anyone coming to games"

Instead of declaring 'utter bollox', i'll strip it back a wee bit further,

The impact is not choice on games someone can attend but choice on which part of the ground they view the game.

Most likely for personal reasons, many folk have a preferred viewing point

Behind the goal
Down the touchline
In the main stand
Disabled platform
Family stand

your ignorance knows no bounds on this with your attitude of it not impacting on supporters coming to matches.

There's folk on here have declared they won't attend these 3 games purely because they've been turfed out their seats & their stand.

You not liking the arrangement but backing it vehemently further demonstrates a lack of empathy too (after all, they can still come to games).

Your suggestion of it not impacting anyone is completely false.

Will be interesting if the club releases the figures of how many ST holders from the family stand relocate for the rangers & celtic games and how many did not.

Kombie. You are wasting your time here bud.

Last week he posted saying that if it was his choice he wouldn't have any OF fans in the Family stand and in this response above he says if it was his choice he'd give them two stands. He either doesn't know his arse from his elbow or he's trolling for responses. Neither of these is a good thing.

[Kombibuddie]

Kombie. You are wasting your time here bud.
Last week he posted saying that if it was his choice he wouldn't have any OF fans in the Family stand and in this response above he says if it was his choice he'd give them two stands. He either doesn't know his arse from his elbow or he's trolling for responses. Neither of these is a good thing.

I know. I started reading the last response & thought
"Get the f**k out of here' Axel Foley style in Beverly Hills Cop.

He is more all over the place than a dizzy thing in a dizzy D. I. S. C. O.

As for the stock answer/claim of "they can go to the game if they want to" is utter bollox too.

"Doesn't impact anyone" [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]
Should add denial to the list

I stopped reading and i am assuming the rest of the post is the same as the start. Pure gibberish.

[bazil85]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Kombie. You are wasting your time here bud.

Last week he posted saying that if it was his choice he wouldn't have any OF fans in the Family stand and in this response above he says if it was his choice he'd give them two stands. He either doesn't know his arse from his elbow or he's trolling for responses. Neither of these is a good thing.

Oak I’m struggling with you here. For a long time I assumed it was just clear trolling from you but if you genuinely have a capacity issue to understand the most simplistic of different points, let me know. It’s the only explanation bar trolling I can think for you comparing two separate scenarios  

I’ll try make it a bit clearer if I am indeed dealing with someone of limited capacity (no offence) 

1. If it was up to me I would have them leaving Scottish football instantly. Them not being here would mean they get no stands. Scottish football I feel would adapt and thrive without them. 

2. In our current situation where they aren’t leaving, I agree with them getting two stands. 

Try your hardest to understand please. If not at least we know you’ve tried. 

[bazil85]

2 hours ago, Kombibuddie said:

I know. I started reading the last response & thought
"Get the f**k out of here' Axel Foley style in Beverly Hills Cop.

He is more all over the place than a dizzy thing in a dizzy D. I. S. C. O.

As for the stock answer/claim of "they can go to the game if they want to" is utter bollox too.

"Doesn't impact anyone"
Should add denial to the list

I stopped reading and i am assuming the rest of the post is the same as the start. Pure gibberish.

Komb I’m not saying the above can relate to you but please feel free to show absolutely anywhere where I’ve been ‘all over the place’

full posts mind, none of this half a sentence picking, Oak spin. 

Edited September 2, 2019 by bazil85