All Activity

I'm a bit worried about this game, simply because Aberdeen are absolutely shite and by all measures we should take care of them. A win keeps confidence building, another defeat and our good start takes a knock. I can see us dropping a point / points in this one.

Watched the Celtic - St Johnstone game last night and our former youth player Reece McAleer was absolutely brilliant. Wouldn't mind him being brought back at some point as he definitely has the physicality we lack in midfield

Fair enough. I hate Stadiums like St Mirrens and St Johnstones. How much more expensive would it have been to fill in the corners. Even Livingstons 10,000 seater is better than those two.

I dont think anyone would advocate for a smaller stadium than we currently have...I was more meaning the general design of the Paisley effort

Eric Deloumeaux and Yassin Moutaouakil(sp) have got to be up there too. Likewise the Austrian duo of Franz Resch and Mario Dorner who McLeish spent the entire summer chasing only for them to both leave by the end of September of that season.

If everyone is fit I’d say first six names in any starting line up are Paulsen, Johnny K, Moorman, Longelo, Fadinger and Lowry the remaining five I could probably change my mind every time I think about it. Tough task (good problem) for AJ on team selection/formation.

Oh Elivas Shivute is right up there with biggest waste of space as was Bob Malcolm but at least we didn't pay any cash for them.

And a Stadium like St Mirrens would severely restrict our capacity for income. We have a capacity for 4800 away fans every game, St Mirren have capacity for 1400 that's why their average crowds were so far behind us last season (8620 v 6835) we had room for more home fans and alot of away fans. If we were to build a new stadium it cannot be with a capacity any less than 12,000.

Personally I think our best XI when everyone is fit is: Paulsen SOD McGinn Moormann Longelo Priestman Fadinger Maswanhise Lowry Said Palmer-Houlden

Yes unless its a government project. Before I left Scotland I had only two project go over budget (both involved existing properties which were far worse than thought), usually it due to client change during construction (Politicians are by far the worst). I'm not 100% sure but ptretty sure Saint Mirren, Parkhead and McDiarmid Park were all in budget.

I think that is the basic plan for across all 4 leagues, yes. And you're right - frankly its buttons. The prize money deduction thing is additional for the premiership only, as far as i'm aware. Yeah i think it needs voted in by the clubs but not 100% sure. Disclaimer to eveything i'm saying is that I have only read a couple articles on this 😂

I don't disagree that specificity was an improvement it was needed from the outset of the WS in the 2010's. Before the policy there was uncertainty about what would trigger a vote, and having defined criteria is obviously better than having none. My point isn't that the specificity is a weakness. It's that we shouldn't confuse having specific triggers with those triggers being exhaustive in every circumstance. The discretion clause is where I think we differ. I don't read it as creating an obligation to put every significant decision to a vote either. I read it as giving the Board a mechanism to deal with significant decisions that don't neatly fall within the specified criteria but which could nevertheless have a material impact on the club's finances, structure, governance or identity. And I think a multi-million-pound investment in a major club facility is precisely the sort of situation where at least asking that question would be reasonable. But this investment isn't a standard, buy some land, level and irrigate four football pitches and build a facility. It's build a facility with no clarity on the land/rent/arrangement etc. The £8m or so rumoured for Kilmarnock's new ground is very much an asset and why Bowie has retained ownership of the site. We are looking at funding at least £3m for phase one and safe to say there's a phase two in the works. If that's a further £2m then we're £5m into Dalziel Park and limited asset value. It's not too much to ask for justification. I also think there is something missing from looking at the policy purely through the literal wording of the bullet points. Yes, it doesn't specifically say “funding” or “capital investment”. But neither does it make much sense to interpret the document without considering the spirit in which it was produced and the renewed relationship it was intended to establish between the Society and the club and extolled in every correspondence for the past two years. The whole point of the exercise was to provide clarity around what fan ownership actually means when the club is faced with major strategic decisions. If we reduce that to does the exact transaction appear verbatim in one of the bullets?, we risk defeating some of the purpose of having the policy in the first place. The Society is now the majority shareholder and therefore the owner. The club board is effectively operating on behalf of those owners. That doesn't mean the Society should be running the club or approving day-to-day expenditure. Far from it. But it does mean there should be a meaningful distinction between operational autonomy and major strategic decisions. On the sale/development distinction, I accept that the wording currently says disposal rather than investment. But that's also why I think it's fair to question the logic of it rather than simply point to “that's what it says”. The policy identifies the training ground as a major facility. Surely the financial and strategic significance of committing several million pounds to developing that facility doesn't suddenly become irrelevant because we're spending money on it rather than receiving money from selling it. I also don't think changing the policy next summer really answers the question of whether the existing discretion could have been used in this case. If the Board genuinely considered the project and concluded that it didn't warrant a membership vote, I'd be interested in knowing that. What I struggle with is the suggestion that because “training ground investment” isn't one of the words in the list, the discussion ends there. And just on the financing point, I agree entirely that having the cash available rather than needing to borrow is a positive. But having the money available doesn't make the decision any less significant to the owners. I think your last sentence slightly caricatures the argument I'm making. I'm not saying let's take out a £30 to 40m mortgage and hope for the best. I'm saying that financing isn't automatically synonymous with bad debt. I'm also advocating that due to duplication a lot of what is proposed at Dalziel Park could be rolled into a new stadium development along with the £3-5m we're about to commit to. We already have examples of very favourable financing arrangements. The Scottish Government loan is one, and the loan from the Well Society to the club is another. There have also been occasions where money was provided to the club and ultimately written off rather than simply being added to the debt. So I don't think any need to borrow money is, in itself, an argument against doing something. The terms, cost, repayment profile, security, affordability and downside risk are what matter. If a stadium project required borrowing on terms that left the club dangerously exposed, I'd be opposed to it. If, on the other hand, there was a sensible financing structure, a sustainable repayment plan and sufficient headroom to withstand a few lean years, I'd at least want that option properly assessed and shared ... you know like how it's meant to be. That's why I'm reluctant to start from the assumption that the only acceptable way to build it is to have the entire cost sitting in the bank. We should be looking at what is financially prudent and sustainable, rather than treating debt itself as the red line. If we have reached a position where the club can contemplate spending several million pounds of its accumulated resources on major infrastructure without borrowing, that's exactly the sort of major strategic decision where I'd expect fan ownership to mean something.

Can I ask if there is any large project like building a new stadium, hospital , school, football ground in Scotland that has ever came in or under budget in the last 40 years. Feasibility studys usual find in favour of the general veiws of who is paying for it in the first place and can be very subjective.

To use your analogy, they also dont move house if the roof needs fixed or the electrics rewired or the wallpaper replaced, they repair and improve as required. Fir park is no different, get a fully costed and planned refurbishment plan within the clubs budget in place and fix the issues over a set period of time that will cause the least disruption to games, and supporters etc. Do this and we will have a stadium fit for purpose, meets all the required standards and makes best use of the facilities we have, simples.

Just to stirr the pot, if we are sticking with house/motgage analogy, plenty people can and do buy a lesser quality property in an area they want to be - may have schools, amenities, community, rather than a modern, larger, probably more energy efficient new build somewhere else........

Yup, really strong squad now. Strongest i have seen in ages

I totally get that Hodge will likely be the preferred starter given what we paid for him and the fact we will want to develop him into a future profit. Hiwever, the question was what do YOU think is our strongest 11. I think Oscar gives us more mobility and athleticism in the middle of the park, whilst not being a significant downgrade technically on Hodge. What a debate to be having though? Good player or other good player!

But of course if Hodge not playing well then yes would be on bench. I really like him though, been a good signing

If 18,000 and 8,000 OF fans where would they be seated? Behind both goals i assume? Your points are great and you have went to great depth explaining them but the less OF fans at games the better. We don't need their money as much these days ( unlike st j who gave sellik 3 stands last night) Plus 18,000 too big. We cant sell out our stadium just now. But off park and on it so much improvement in past 18 months

We paid £500k for Hodge, he ain't going to be sitting on bench. Priestman is great also. Injuries abd suspensions will always be there.

I'll be honest. I haven't had much time to read all the details, but that approach does make more sense, at least for the smaller clubs. I hope that is only to start discussion, however, or as others have said, it could end up a bit of a damp squib. We need to find a path for the youngsters to get meaningful competitive game time appropriate for their level.

I think the specificity is the strength of the policy, not a weakness. Before adoption, there was no clarity on what would trigger a vote; deliberately naming the criteria is a positive step forward. Indeed this was one of seven key items which the Society consulted all adult members on last summer; including changes to membership tiers and benefits, introduction of Global memberships, updates to rules of association, introduction of a member's code of conduct and development of a funding policy. On discretion; I read that highlighted paragraph the other way round. It's discretion to call a vote by exception, not a standing obligation to weigh every significant decision against it. For me the purpose was to leave the door open for something genuinely outside the criteria but of equivalent weight; not to function as a catch-all that reopens the specific list every time. If it worked the way you're suggesting, the named criteria would barely matter, since almost anything sizeable could be routed through discretion instead. On the sale versus development point. I reckon that's fair, albeit I wouldn't go as far as absurd. I note the policy is due for review next summer. So if there a view that capital investment in major facilities should sit alongside disposal as a trigger, then that's the kind of change worth putting forward. And on financing; I'd suggest that it's a real positive of where the club has got to over the last couple of years: that there's finance available to progress projects like this without the need to take on debt.

I agree people will have their own thoughts on stama For me he tried and gave what he could when he put a jersey and did cause defences a headache when either the ball was put in with a cross or just being rounded about the area. my fav memory is the stenny announcer last year you hear saying apolos stamamatatelopus i think he gain about 20 vowels credit to the guy for trying but butchered it will and trully lol

I think your reply a reasonable interpretation of the literal wording penned by your fair hand Philip, but I'm not convinced it stands up when you consider what the policy is actually intended to achieve. The obvious difficulty is that you're treating the listed criteria as though they are the entirety of the policy, when the final paragraph specifically gives the Society Board discretion to call a ballot on matters beyond those criteria where there is a potential impact on the club's structure, financial stability, governance or identity. More importantly, I think there is a slightly artificial distinction being drawn between selling a major club asset and committing several million pounds to develop one. The policy specifically identifies the stadium and training ground as “major facilities”. The bullet point “selling club assets” cannot sensibly be read in isolation from decisions about substantial investment in those assets. Otherwise you end up with the rather absurd position that members must be consulted before selling the training ground, but not before committing several million pounds to substantially develop one. Perhaps a better alternative to "Selling club assets" would be "Major asset transactions" as that works better as a catchall, regardless of the syntax, the core point remains the same. I'm not suggesting that every expenditure on a club facility requires a membership ballot. Clearly it doesn't. Replacing a roof, installing new equipment or carrying out routine improvements would be entirely different. But once you're talking about a multi-million-pound capital project, with the potential to materially affect the club's finances and its future infrastructure, built as an effective island inside the Dalziel Memorial Trust site I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask why the Society Board didn't at least consider exercising the discretion explicitly given to it in the final paragraph. And that's really the point I'm making. I don't think the answer can simply be it doesn't meet the exact wording of one of the bullet points. If that were the intention, there would be little purpose in giving the Board discretion over matters which fall outside those defined criteria. If the Board considered it, decided it didn't warrant a vote and can explain why, that's one thing. But saying the policy wasn't triggered by the precise wording of the bullet points doesn't really answer whether the Board should have exercised the discretion that the policy expressly gives it.

From what I read the proposal was for an additional 1M put in by the SFA that was split between all clubs in the top 4 divisions hence the reason it won't be worth most clubs in the top flights time especially not Rangers, Celtic, Hearts etc as there isn't really any incentive. Where it would make a difference is from the championship downwards because even 30/40k each as incentive will encourage those teams to take on and play our younger players as it will be extra revenue and shouldn't really affect their performance