Jump to content

SMISA meeting 6/9/21


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Why can't people be vetted, interviewed etc to be confirmed they are a suitable candidate?

You're unbelievable. :lol:

Seems to me exactly what’s happening. The people that we entrust to make key decisions on the club go through the process, confirm the preferable candidate & that gets ratified by SMISA members. What’s the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


8 minutes ago, Hendo said:

A democratic vote would mean more than one candidate being put forward, not a preferred candidate to be ratified. There should be criteria for eligibility, such as not having a dodgy criminal history, but otherwise anyone who is a member should be able to stand. Its called democracy.

 

3 minutes ago, alanb said:

Are you then happy for a non-SMiSA member to be successful ?

To be a SMiSA representative on the board, surely one must already be a SMiSA member. It cannot be right that anyone who has not contributed to be considered for the position and is stupid to allow their application for the role.

We have representatives from SMISA on the board & as our chairman. There should be trust from supporters & SMISA members in them making the best decisions for the club regarding the right person for the role through interviews & assessments. 
 

Why shouldn’t we as fans trust them to present the best candidate for confirmation? Their decision will surely be far more informed than through a member canvassing approach. How much information could the thousand+ SMISA members reasonably get to make a decision compared to formal interview & assessment, my guess is nowhere near as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 

We have representatives from SMISA on the board & as our chairman. There should be trust from supporters & SMISA members in them making the best decisions for the club regarding the right person for the role through interviews & assessments. 
 

Why shouldn’t we as fans trust them to present the best candidate for confirmation? Their decision will surely be far more informed than through a member canvassing approach. How much information could the thousand+ SMISA members reasonably get to make a decision compared to formal interview & assessment, my guess is nowhere near as much.

They clearly don’t trust us as paying members to make the right choice. But yet we’ve to trust them, the same board that’s had an absolute nightmare past 3/4 months. Ok.

Edited by mattman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

 

We have representatives from SMISA on the board & as our chairman. There should be trust from supporters & SMISA members in them making the best decisions for the club regarding the right person for the role through interviews & assessments. 
 

Why shouldn’t we as fans trust them to present the best candidate for confirmation? Their decision will surely be far more informed than through a member canvassing approach. How much information could the thousand+ SMISA members reasonably get to make a decision compared to formal interview & assessment, my guess is nowhere near as much.

That failed to answer my question/concern re non SMiSA member applicants no matter how gifted they are, being acceptable 

Members only please need apply 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Seems to me exactly what’s happening. The people that we entrust to make key decisions on the club go through the process, confirm the preferable candidate & that gets ratified by SMISA members. What’s the issue?

Its actually scary that not only have you typed that, you dont see anything wrong with it.

Democracy in Britain may not be great, but at least at elections we have a few eejits to choose from, not just one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, alanb said:

Are you then happy for a non-SMiSA member to be successful ?

To be a SMiSA representative on the board, surely one must already be a SMiSA member. It cannot be right that anyone who has not contributed to be considered for the position and is stupid to allow their application for the role.

Maybe there is some Kibble employee who isnt a SMISA member interested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mattman said:

They clearly don’t trust us as paying members to make the right choice. But yet we’ve to trust them, the same board that’s had an absolute nightmare past 3/4 months. Ok.

They do though, we have right not to approve the person they pick after an informed vetting process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, alanb said:

That failed to answer my question/concern re non SMiSA member applicants no matter how gifted they are, being acceptable 

Members only please need apply 

I wouldn’t be adverse to a currently non-SMISA member if they seem the best for the job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Its actually scary that not only have you typed that, you dont see anything wrong with it.

Democracy in Britain may not be great, but at least at elections we have a few eejits to choose from, not just one.

It’s more scary to me that you don’t seem to have a shred of trust in the SMISA representatives making the right choice in picking who’s best for the role through an interview process & you actually think we’d collectively be better placed to make that call with FAR less information on applicants. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

I wouldn’t be adverse to a currently non-SMISA member if they seem the best for the job. 

Then you are easily pleased 

No point in membership and subscription if anyone can turn up and apply when it suits and be a SMiSA rep

Really doubt it would happen though but should not be considered. Any candidate should be a SMiSA member to qualify and ideally prove their worth on the SMiSA board first 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It’s more scary to me that you don’t seem to have a shred of trust in the SMISA representatives making the right choice in picking who’s best for the role through an interview process & you actually think we’d collectively be better placed to make that call with FAR less information on applicants. 

SMFC board members once thought Reg was ideal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, alanb said:

Then you are easily pleased 

No point in membership and subscription if anyone can turn up and apply when it suits and be a SMiSA rep

Really doubt it would happen though but should not be considered. Any candidate should be a SMiSA member to qualify and ideally prove their worth on the SMiSA board first 

 

 

No point? You mean besides delivering fan ownership, ongoing funding to the club, fan group & community and a say in the running of the club through democratic voting? 
 

For me it’s a balancing act between experience/ capability & SMISA values, I feel it would be a bit cut off nose to spite face to flatly reject someone that wasn’t a SMISA member but matter of opinion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alanb said:

SMFC board members once thought Reg was ideal 

Do you really think a more sensible approach would be just for applicants to be presented to members & decision made? Surely there is merit in the directors saying ‘based on a stringent recruitment process, this person is best placed’ 

See no issue with that at all but that’s a matter of trust in the people at the club. Maybe we should do the same for managerial recruitment… 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

It’s more scary to me that you don’t seem to have a shred of trust in the SMISA representatives making the right choice in picking who’s best for the role through an interview process & you actually think we’d collectively be better placed to make that call with FAR less information on applicants. 

Trust is earned. The last few months have been a monumental shambles, compounded by a lack of transparency. So trust in the board, and SMISA, is pretty low now. A lack of democracy in appointments leaves more than a whiff of a stitch up, with the likely appointment not being someone who will challenge the way things are being done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

No point? You mean besides delivering fan ownership, ongoing funding to the club, fan group & community and a say in the running of the club through democratic voting? 
 

For me it’s a balancing act between experience/ capability & SMISA values, I feel it would be a bit cut off nose to spite face to flatly reject someone that wasn’t a SMISA member but matter of opinion.  

Just prefer someone who has invested in the project so far and not some opportunistic individual

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Trust is earned. The last few months have been a monumental shambles, compounded by a lack of transparency. So trust in the board, and SMISA, is pretty low now. A lack of democracy in appointments leaves more than a whiff of a stitch up, with the likely appointment not being someone who will challenge the way things are being done. 

For me it is very unrealistic to think the transition to fan ownership and new ways of working would be all sunshine & rainbows with no bumps on the way. To think some points of frustration which are mainly short-term or legacy issues has eroded five years + of trust in the fan buyout is OTT for me and I think we should be fully trusting these people, give them months/ years to make the club better not shoot them down in days/ weeks as some fans have done. But it's of course opinion. 

The lack of transparency is quite contentious as well, we've had several statements, updates from various parties, a feedback session, another on the way and opportunity for fans to give their concerns in writing. It's really now at the point for me, what more can they possibly do to satisfy these fans? 

If you think a better approach is just giving applicants and letting members decide, fine. I think it is reasonable to trust the people appointed to take our club forward. They will ultimately live or die at SMFC based on their performance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

That would mean travelling to Paisley, we all know that's not going to happen. emoji14.png

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
 

Been to Paisley lots of times, just don't attend, no qualms about that, why pay to have the match ruined by wallopers? 

In fact I had a wee reminder of my last game 9 years ago, 5-4 great game but not great enough for the boo boys. 

Edited by faraway saint
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...