All Activity

Do we have any numbers that can be shared regarding non-contributing members whose status will be changed?

I think Macron sells the same sizing as they make for players whereas, historically, kit manufacturers had "non-athletic" sizing for regular punters. It's also a fashion thing. When Pony's were originally made, the baggy was the trend on and off the pitch.

As the old saying goes "buy cheap buy twice". Or 3 times in the case of goalkeepers.

I get your point but would say on the evidence of last seasons expense on frankly some garbage and crocks then budget is not a problem

Replica football kits were never sized for real people, having to buy a 4 or 5XL to fit an XL or 2XL frame is a nonsense.

I too am in the position of @Electric Blues and have no issues with the "legacy" members. What I do have issues with is a person paying say £5 to join some months/years ago then cancelling the DD and continues to have voting rights. May I remind all that at last years abortive takeover some 4/5000 persons had voting right but around 1500 only contributed financially. i do not need to remind people that it was a critical vote and would have been influenced either way by those who I perceive to have no further interest in the WS. I will throw in two further comments. Yes times are hard especially for some but is £5 pm to continue membership an unreasonable request. Lifetime membership ( at a higher rate than the £300 in 2015) is a suggestion but would it encourage members to stop their contributions. There is no doubt in my mind that WS and therefore MFC need subs to continue for both to be successful.

Mark Ferrie training with Morton, decent move for him if he gets a contract given he has struggled at Bonnyrigg and the matches he played in Claret & Amber but good luck to him!

I agree this has been a worthwhile discussion, with valid points made on both sides. At least, prior to voting, it has been highlighted what the implications are for folk like yourself who joined after 2015 and who for whatever reason might have to stop contributing in the future. When you quantify the amount you have contributed so far, it certainly justifies the debate.

Good points. I joined in 2016, so not a "legacy" member, but when I add it up I have paid the best part of £2.5k over the last 9 years and I'd hate to lose the right to vote. As @Brazilian says, you never know what's round the corner, finances wise. I think your "lifetime membership" idea has merit, although the initial qualifying amount might need to be higher to reflect the passage of time since 2015, and it would probably need a pre-agreed mechanism for periodic resetting to compensate for future inflation.

Here’s last seasons XL away on top of the Pony XL. More a comment on athletic physiques than anything, but I got the 2 retro shirts last month as birthday gifts, Pony XLs, which are very oversized on me. For the current Macron shirts though, the XL is a decent fit. Have the game’s “big men” really shrunk so much in 30 years?

I take your point re gym membership but I think that is a totally different scenario. With gym membership you get the use of the facilities, equipment and a personal trainer to guide you along. So it costs the gym for upkeep and to have you as a member, for which they should be reimbursed. No question. And the more members the greater the cost. And with a gym etc, folks pay a subscription where effectively with the WS supporters are making a donation with no expectation of any tangible return. With the Society, how much does it cost them each week to retain a Member who has paid in a sizeable some over the years, but can no longer afford to contribute? The Society do have running costs but not tied directly to Member numbers as a gym, sports club etc. I do agree being an active Member should be reflected in some way though, in comparison to a non active Member.

The above has been a really useful debate. I hadnt fully considered the implications of stopping my direct debit as I was one of the original legacy members, so I would continue to have voting rights. I think a balance has to be struck somewhere between fairness to members who have contributed significantly and protecting the Society from any skullduggery. How about, all new members who contribute monthly will attain lifetime membership and voting rights once they reach the £300 legacy membership fee? That way, we move forward but are seen to do so in a fair and equitable manner.......

I can see the reasoning behind the proposed amendments, and Philip’s responses have helped clarify the membership status issue. Ultimately, a line does need to be drawn somewhere, and this seems like a fair and reasonable approach. We’ve got a great opportunity to move forward now and further add to the coffers.

I'm not a WS member and never will be but I fail to see what the issue is here, if you sign up for something you need to make the required financial contributions at whatever level you agree to maintain membership and benefits etc. If you don't you lose said membership and any benefits. If you take out a health club membership and then stop paying you can't really expect the club to say , don't worry just keep using our facilities etc, the WS is no different.

Not aimed at you but here my thoughts. I fully agree that something needs to be done to encourage people to invest regularly if they can afford it but I do have some issues with the proposals. Firstly rightly or wrongly the if you stop paying you lose the right to vote could be seen as a reprisal act on those who stopped paying last year after the (thankfully) rejected “investment” vote, which I hope it isn’t. Secondly as previously said some of the people losing their vote will have paid in more over the years than many of the initial one off payment people like myself who have since paid for season tickets (in my case for me and my daughter - £751 this year- and once she’s earning and can pay her own I will give to the society again as I do passionately believe in it). So as said above maybe a tapering of benefits is more appropriate ie loss of benefits over years 1&2 then loss of right to vote on board members in year 3 or 4 but leaving the right to vote on any major issues that effect the club if the total payments are in excess of £750 or membership has been 6 years or more. One potential way of getting people to pay regularly is by saying new members can get the benefits straight away but can only vote for board members after 1 full year’s membership and on major decisions effecting the club after a further 2 or 3 years. This final part would also hinder any potential future attempt to flood the society with new members to unduly influence a vote in some unforeseen circumstances.

I’ll certainly do that. Hardly needs much detail though. Decide on an amount and apply it. Fairly straightforward is it not? The Society maintains records of how much each member has contributed so it should be simple enough. As I said earlier. If you really want to distinguish between the two groups, simply remove from those that stop contributing some of the frills that attach to those that do contribute. Like training opportunities and hospitality draws. It really does come across like the Board are looking to punish those that stop contributing, even if for perfectly genuine financial reasons. Not a good look.

Please note the following from our consultation document, which is available in full here: How soon after stopping contributing will status be removed? If a member pauses or stops contributions, they will retain existing membership status for three months, giving them time to restart if needed. After that period, and if no contribution is resumed, membership status and associated voting rights will be removed except for legacy 1886-tier members, where applicable. I believe this to be fair and reasonable. If you are a Society member and believe there should be a change in policy to have a minimum amount to guarantee life membership then I'd be happy to look at a detailed proposal that could go to the membership in line with the process which we are going through currently. If you'd like to take forward do pop me across a DM.

Can you confirm the example I gave about Membership cancellation when contributions stop is accurate? And, if it is, that you consider that fair and reasonable. And you also avoided my suggestion of a minimum amount in total to guarantee life membership.

Being transferred is a bit different. I was talking more about the players that choose to move on rather than re-sign, like Hastie, McKinstry, McAlear etc.

Ah, OK - I just wasn't sure if I had missed something, as there was a lot to read. I was generally OK with the language in the harassment and bullying section, but I agree we don't want to be using that to avoid dissent. I also agree about members being stripped of membership. I don't see any reason that needs to happen.

@dennyc For those that joined on the original one-off payment system where members were advised that they would effectively be members for life on the basis of that payment. That is being honoured. This feels like the right thing to do and I believe in line with what was agreed all those years ago. For those that joined after the move to monthly contributions; we’re asking them to make a minimum contribution of £5 per month or £60 annually to maintain their membership of the Society. I would encourage you to vote ‘no’ if you do not agree with the proposed changes. I understand that the proposals will not be supported by all members. My hope would be that the Society and its members will continue to update and refine policies on a regular basis.

Welcome back Iain. Its been a long time but hope to see more of your posts as they're always worth reading.

Philip I think Brazilian has raised valid points. If my understanding is correct, someone who has contributed on a monthly basis will in time lose their Membership if personal circumstances change and they can no longer afford to continue payments. And please note the hardship many people are experiencing and which is likely to be made worse by the proposals currently before Parliament. As an example, will someone who has contributed £20 per month for 10 years (£2400 in total) be binned after 12 months non payment? But an original member who donated a much lesser lump sum (me) will retain Membership and all voting rights? Is that really what is being suggested as fair and reasonable? If that is what is being proposed then my vote will be 'No'. And every Member should follow suit as they could end up being the person dropped through no fault of their own. And regardless of how much they have contributed over the years. Who knows what is round the corner for any of us. By all means distinguish in some way between those contributing on an ongoing basis and those not, but removing Membership and voting rights is punitive. And it certainly is at odds with what agreed all those years ago. At the very least have a minimum level which when reached ( £300/£400?) guarantees Life Membership etc.

we've brought in McGhee and Fadinger who are both very decent quality players. If we continue to attract that calibre we'll be fine.

"I strongly disagree with the changes for adult members". Perfectly fine. "I strongly disagree with the changes for adult members, you bunch of twats". Probably not fine And... I've just deleted the paragraph I was typing about membership rights because Philip has just explained it so much better than I ever could.