Leaderboard

Poorly thought out that there was no link to the voting process within the society App or on the web site. At least that I could find? As wellfan says it appears the only way to vote was by accessing a link contained in just one of numerous communications. So easy for dinosaurs like me to misplace or delete. In all the reminder EMails I wonder why no-one thought to include the link? In truth I just gave up. I suspect others did as well. No surprise that the motion passed given the low turnout and the effort that was put in to pushing the 'yes' agenda. I do hope Society funds don't disappear into the new training ground facility or some vanity project that brings little or no tangible return to the Club. As a sceptical Society Member I tend to agree with Spiderpig. I remain to be convinced that the whole change of approach was not driven by the Club Board as a means of accessing cheap finance. Essential that all funds redirected are secured by being added to the existing Loan amount and do not disappear by way of Donation. The Society's silence on issues that have affected fans this season as well as costing the Club thousands does little to convince me of their Independence.

Absolutely, all comments are valid, member or not. I'm well aware that not everyone has guzzled down the Society Kool Aid, although I'd hope more can eventually be persuaded. For full disclosure, I'm a member, and I voted for the proposal. And I agree with what @Dee says above, and believe the Society is very much on the right track and showing continuous improvement, although nobody is resting on their laurels just yet, I'm sure.

Well put. As for the low turn out , it says it all now about Clubs,Societys and associations. When the time comes to make members voices heard at votes and meetings . Most members have great excuses for not turning up or voting , but are quick to turn on the phone and post their opinion on forums, social meja and notice boards. Kudos to those that took the time to take an intrest and voted. It's the nature of the beast nowadays tho too many talking, not enough volunteering and doing.

Some personal thoughts on the turnout and result. As others have highlighted, there was a lot of communication around the vote; multiple emails, drop in sessions both online and in-person, a specific podcast episode dedicated to the proposal and several social media posts. Personally I was a bit disappointed with the 9% turnout and there's no doubt lessons to be learned about how we can make the voting process clearer and easier for members. We need to be doing more to strengthen democracy, empower members to make their voice heard and ultimately create a culture of engagement where members feel that their input matters - because it really does! It's probably worth highlighting that we're not alone in low turnouts (not that it makes it better) when it comes to membership organisation internal votes. Trade Unions and Charities are a good example of this; the recent Unite the Union General Secretary election returned Sharon Graham with 10% of members voting, the Unison General Secretary vote in 2025 had a 7% turnout and the British Medical Association's council elections this year had a turnout of 5.3%. Recent by-elections in North Lanarkshire turnout has been 15-17%. Again, not an excuse and we should be striving for improvement and higher engagement, but worth highlighting it's not unusual. Previous board elections had a turnout of 15% and the Barmack / Wildsheep vote the turnout was 56%. I believe a big issue we have at the moment, as it's always been for the Society given the way it was set-up, is with data and that's a huge undertaking that colleagues have been working extremely hard on over the last couple of years. There's members who paid at first but have never paid since, members who may be deceased but we've never been notified, Junior Steels who have moved to adults but not fully converted therefore are not able to vote, duplicate records etc. I'm grateful to the many hours that colleagues have spent on this and with the proposed membership changes coming in to play for January 2027 following last years vote, we'll have a much clearer picture of the overall position which should in turn increase participation and revenue. There's been a significant change in pace in recent years from the Society from my experience on the board and I'm confident we're moving in the right direction. I don't agree with the above post that suggests that the active investment approach was driven by the Club Board as a means of accessing cheap finance. Since 2019 we have steadily built a reserve fund that allows the club the platform and opportunity to grow, our board now want to further fuel that growth by investing money in the club in the form of long‑term loans on specific projects. Projects that will be voted on, and suggest by, our members. If the membership don't vote for said project, it won't happen. I also completely agree that it is essential that all funds redirected are secured by being added to the existing loan amount and do not disappear by way of donation. I believe that this approach will bring more members to the Society when they see exactly where their money is going and how it is helping grow revenue for the football club - a win win for both parties.

I was merely commenting on the post as presented, and the preceived optics of the result and turnout figures posted. As you say for any non members the WS business or votes etc, has feck all to do with them, but we are entitled to express our opinions on how we see the WS as an organisation, and more often than not those views i see tend to re-enforce my descision not to be a member.

Not being funny, but any member should have known it was happening thanks to the above-mentioned email barrage (even if they couldn't then track down the one with the voting link in it ) and anyone who wasn't a member didn't really need to know it was happening because it was nothing to do with them.