Kmcalpin

Not a particularly exciting signing, about whom I know very little, but that means nothing. We do need a core of solid citizens in the squad though, something we lacked last season. I wonder if he is a target we've tracked for some time i.e. mainly not of JBA's doing.

It would depend if we managed to achieve a negotiation. Hopefully we did. On the other hand, it could also be that Max Johnston and Sturm Graz told us that they'd sealed a deal and statutory compensation would be paid. They're a big club so would have little to lose by swerving a negotiation and Max Johnston might not have given us a second thought.

Just looking through the proposals for adult membership again. I'm not 100% sure that the issue of ad hoc top ups has been fully addressed. For example, a legacy member who paid in a considerable lump sum prior to to 2015 and who then tops up by say £50 per annum (less than the £60 threshold). I get that the number of members in this situation may be very small but... Matters will be easier once the app is released. I do think tough that there are ways to simplify this issue as shown by Weeyin's suggestion for example. Whatever your views though, take your chance to vote by tomorrow's deadline. The Society Board has invested a lot of effort and time into working up these proposals and deserves a good response.

Just to add my tuppence worth on a specific, perhaps academic, point. Reference is made in the consultation document to a changeover date of 21 May 2105; specifically the date when the Society moved to a monthly subscription model. That isn't quite my recollection, which to be fair, is a little hazy. I do recall that monthly subscriptions were introduced around this time, but for a considerable period lasting several years, it was never made clear to legacy members like myself, that we would be encouraged to then pay monthly as well. There wasn't a clear transition point clearly communicated to members for quite some time. I wrote to the Society on several occasions to ask that this be made clear without much success. So there was considerable confusion amongst many legacy members about the changeover. In short and irrespective of precise dates, there was long period of confusion.

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

Have we enough friendlies arranged before the League Cup kicks off? We shouldn't panic but we could start the group stage with a threadbare squad, especially up front and on the left. Maybe some trialists in the Netherlands?

He's signed for them.

Brian Caldwell will know him from their time together at Shrewsbury.

He was probably asked about it by a journo.

Agreed. You need a good mix of strikers. From the little I've seen Stuparevic seems quite nippy but not particularly physical or tricky. A poor man's Jack Vale?? That said we haven't seen much of him to really assess his style.

Pretty much agree with that although I'm not sure what kind of player Stuparevic is as I haven't seen him play much. Didn't have him down as a winger though.

I think the difference is that Wimmer had no opportunity to bring in his own type of player, whereas JBA will be allowed to bring in a few of his own fairly soon. That should make it easier for him to introduce his own style. .

Careful now Grizzly. Would that constitute abuse?

This 100%. If he is going to play then he needs a big physical guy to feed from. Of course, the formation we ultimately decide to play will also be a significant influence on that too. My concern is that Robinson and Stuparevic, both out long term, aren't that kind of player either. As it stands, he is our only out and out senior striker on our books. If he gets injured... No doubt JBA will aready have picked up on that.

Declan Gallagher signs for Ross County and Euan Murray signs for Queens Park.

What's the situation with Sam Nicholson? Is he now training or is he expected to be out for a few more months?

The chances are that an arranged "handover period" came to an end with the arrival of JBA. Sorry to see him leave as he seems to have made a good impression. Still our new man can now choose his own deputy.

And so it begins 😊

Yes very light on the left and up front Allan. On paper we're almost ok for strikers with the exception of a physical target man. However 3 of them are injured long term and have question marks over them in any event. Herr Wimmer had identified our striking department as being in need of an overhaul. Another big central defender is also a must.

If I recall rightly, he was on the bench for the St Johnstone cup game in Perth, but he went back to East Kilbride.

I'm a bit puzzled by the "still negotiating" and recently released players. Of the original 5, I would have thought the most likely to leave would be Moses and Matty Connelly. In the latter's case he is now 22 and we already have a back up keeper in Callum Ward. Jack McConnell is our development squad goalie, aged 17. Connelly has never played for the first team and obviously wasn't trusted when we had a keeper crisis last January. What is his future? Dom Thompson I expected to leave. Of the 5 the only one I would have retained was Steve Seddon and he's moving on. Still this does clear the decks a bit for our new man coming in.

Apologies to the forum. I shouldn't have posted my response to David in public. It should have been in private. I don't want to influence anyone else's answers to the consultation.

Yes. Overall, I found it cumbersome and confusing to have to constantly switch between 1) comments received in the initial consultation 2) proposed changes in light of that consultation and 3) the comprehensive detailed proposals and D) the the actual voting form when casting my vote. The information provided in 1), 2) and 3) was useful however; it was just the way in which it was presented. Specific examples? A) I agreed with the proposal to simplify adult membership tiers but wasn't clear about the status of legacy members who had paid in considerable sums in some cases; sometimes in a single lump sum. Why should they be allocated en masse to the 1886 tier and not to a higher tier? B) Code of conduct: I agree one should be introduced but don't agree with specific wording about "perceived" bullying, harassment and discrimination etc. Either its bullying / harassment / discrimination or its not. For the record, bullying / harassment / discrimination etc is totally unacceptable. Someone's perception can be wrong. I get though that this is a wider societal issue. Suggested text seems to say that it doesn't matter what someone does or says rather its whether another party is offended by it that matters. C) Major votes policy. I agree with its introduction but think that 75% is too high. I would have thought that 55/60/65% was more appropriate. That still represents a clear majority. Also, the triggers for a major vote are too loose and ambiguous. For example, what is the meant by a "large scale" financial decision? Is the defintion £1m or £2m or maybe £5m? Lines have to be drawn somewhere though. From memory, I may not have recalled everything 100% but thats the gist of my concerns. To put this in context though, well done to the those on the Society Board who drafted these documents. I know from bitter experience just how difficult and time consuming it is and the ramifications of defining a term loosely that only becomes apparent a later date, when some party takes issue with it.

Yes, a comment box to explain our thinking would have been very helpful.

A lot of work has been invested in this exercise so well done to those behind it. Constructive criticism is absolutely fine but it will be soul destroying if only a handful of folk bother to participate.