dennyc

In truth, although I much prefer grass, I am not 100% against artificial if it is good quality and maintained properly. In Falkirk’s defence they have just about the best non grass surface I have seen and it plays true. The real crime has been the authorities ignoring sub standard surfaces which are a danger to players and also ruin games. Killie, Livi and Accies as prime examples. If Livi have been told to upgrade then it’s not before time. Hopefully the criteria change will be enforced. Time will tell. Anyway, back to former employees, I still hope SK crashes and burns no matter what surface his new charges end up playing on. His bring in as many new players, including crocks, policy appears to be in full flow. I give him until Christmas.

We’re pleased to confirm that we’ll have a new artificial playing surface installed here at the Home of the Set Fare Arena ahead of the 2025/26 season. The club has been working hard behind the scenes over the last few weeks and months to put the planning in place and source the funds to make this possible. The new surface itself is the latest generation of MX Elite – a high-tech woven system offering the very best performance characteristics for professional football, the same currently used by a number of other sides at all levels of the SPFL. We’re hopeful that this will be completed and ready ahead of the Premier Sports Cup group stage matches starting in mid-July but should that change, we’ll update you all accordingly with any change of venue for those opening home ties. Our thanks to Sportex and for their assistance in getting to this stage and we look forward to starting the new season with a new surface in place. Seems a lot of expense to ditch it after one season. This cost will be part of the masterplan to cancel the requirement. And remember that Killie were meant to go grass this season, but opted out. And since season end there have already been meetings with the powers that be involving several 'plastic' clubs. Will the PL stand firm? Don't hold your breath.

Just checked. They will have a new ARTIFICIAL surface in place for season 25/26. So a switch to grass the following season seems even more unlikely given that news.

Oh I hope so. But then tarmac would be an upgrade. Maybe they are looking for a surface that suits their new silky football approach. Apparently we are about to be treated to a new LIvi.

I fully expect the Authorities to renege on the agreement to have only grass pitches in the top division after this season. Pressured by Killie, Livi and Falkirk. And supported by a number of lower league teams with hopes of eventually reaching the top level. Would they actually have the balls to throw those three out if they refused to change? I'm far from convinced. In fairness Falkirk look after their pitch and it is as decent a mostly grass pitch as I have seen. Theirs and Kelty. Livingstone and Kilmarnock should be ashamed at what they offer as acceptable. As for SK, he will already be preparing his ' it's not my fault' excuses and I'm sure the surfaces at Kilmarnock will be high on his list. Oh I so hope he makes an arse of it and the fans express their displeasure.................. But like grizzlyg I am over it and not bitter.

Minutes towards the end of the second half in a match at Fir Park. Had a few decent touches but immediately got injured. Never featured again. My recollection anyway.

Maybe. I can’t remember what I did yesterday, never mind in 2013. Thanks

I wonder how I got to £400 then as that is not one of the levels covered? And Sally confirmed I was sitting at £400. I certainly paid a lump sum and not monthly subscriptions. And from what you suggest, it was the top up benefits that folk paid an annual fee for and not a membership renewal? So initially a member for life with benefits being a yearly option? Whatever they were. I do recall that what was on offerseemed to be very changeable depending who chaired the presentations. Very much adapting on the hoof early doors. Anyway, clear as mud all these years on.

Cheers. So I must have been Claret or Amber then. There was also a junior membership I think and even one aimed at Businesses. I think that kicked in at a few thousand? and involved picking POTM, entertaining clients on match day and use of FP for meetings. All a bit hazy though. Securing those business members was seen as the ultimate but I think we struck out on that front. Even more difficult nowadays.

Apparently I paid £400 up front so I don't suppose you have details of what that level was or meant? I have not kept any paperwork. Probably lost during various house moves.

I think those are valid issues you raise. Firstly, I don't believe you can now just join up for life with a one off payment. That is purely a historical situation. A Board member can perhaps confirm that? I suppose those who signed up earlier are reducing in number in any event, as time takes it's toll? I wonder how many we are actually talking about? Less than folk imagine perhaps? Secondly, as for signing up purelyto vote on a specific issue, I recall that for the Barmack situation, the signing up purely to vote was addressed and avoided. But yes, maybe you should be a member for a certain length of time to qualify for a vote. And if that requires a NEW member to contribute for, say, 12 months before qualifying then so be it. Again perhaps the Board need to clarify that. Maybe they already have. I know for a fact that this discussion has been noted by the Board and will be on their agenda.

I was not referring to you when I commented that some might be upset. If you took it that than way, then apologies. I was really trying to just explain the logic at the time. Red or white?

I can only tell you what I was told at the initial meetings I attended and what I understood to be the case when I made my payment. Same as other folk who attended their presentations. Hopefully their are official records/minutes from those meetings although given the time that has passed that might be a stretch. Also, let's be honest, the WS record keeping was not the best. The current Board appear to believe that such a deal was made, otherwise why ratify it now? But if you have documents that prove life membership was not the intention, then by all means make them public.

Some paid more than £300. Some folk also bought more than one Membership....for kids and partners etc. The WS Board were looking to gather in funds quickly to get things started. Others opted to pay monthly as that was more affordable for them. I know I paid more than £300 as I checked with Sally. From memory there were various levels but records are held to confirm who paid what. But yes you are correct in that Life Membership was the agreement. Might upset some newer Members but that was the deal back then. Different if someone joins now under revised terms. fair enough, they know what they are signing up to. Hope that explains things a wee bit. You might need some of that Isle of Wight wine to help though.

No doubt how many feel. And I get that. But way back then those folk purchased a life membership for whatever lump sum they were asked to pay. You may not like it but that is the deal the Society willingly entered into. And it provided a much needed boost to the funds ingathered on day one. I suspect that is why the route you suggest has not been tried. And also why, when these new proposals were first looked at. so called Legacy Members were protected. To the annoyance of some it appears. But if you seriously want to cancel the contract that was legally agreed, then how do you feel about refunding them the sum paid? Not a serious suggestion by the way but appropriate. After all, it is not as if those Members really get anything tangible from being a Member..... other than the feeling of helping their football Club. Any monies paid are effectively donations. Perhaps the real challenge should be to try and encourage those Legacy Members to start up a regular payment. Rather than threatening them that is. Some already do contribute monthly and I know a good few...myself included....who are considering doing so given the progress we have seen of late Board wise and operationally. Also, setting aside the Society, if you entered into an agreement to purchase something outright, be it a pair of football boots or a house...... or a Membership, would you react positively to being asked to pay again several years later? For something you already own. I think not. If the Society adopt a rule from now on that future contributors must make regular monthly payments or pay an annual fee then that is a different matter as those signing up accept those terms when joining. But it is an issue that deserves discussion. If only to clear the air.

I agree and there is still hope. A good few teams around the globe ...and top teams at that....often line up 4-3-3. I think it just comes down to whether you have a Manager who wants to win more than he wants to avoid losing. And it appears our new man is fairly attack minded given the right blend of players. The opposite of Kettlewell in other words. I guess Killie will switch from 4-3-3 to 3-5-1-1 or 4-5-1 this season. Their fans will love it. Hearts on the other hand might be looking at 4-3-3.

Even if he was out of contract and no negotiation agreed, I think Uefa brought in a rule following Bosman that might help us. Up until the season of a player's 23rd Birthday (in the absence of a negotiated agreement) every club that trained a player from ages 12-23 is due a proportionate share of 5% of any future transfer fee. But only if it is a cross country transfer, such as Austria to Italy. That is over and above any compensation due when he first signed for Sturm Graz. MJ is 23 in December 1926 so I think we are covered. It's a heavy read, but Uefa have a full section on Training and also Solidarity compensation (2 different schemes} which confirms the parent Club is compensated right up to age 23 in the absence of any agreement at the outset. I think. Fingers crossed.

I think that is a decent suggestion. Subject to them having contributed funds in line with others moved to the 1886....or whatever level is seen as sufficient. There hase to be safeguards but there are options. Just needs to be a willing. At least it is being discussed now and the Board are aware of concerns....from either viewpoint.

I would add that for years the WS records were a shambles with incorrect or no EMail or home addresses on file. A fact admitted by the new Board early doors and highlighted by the folk that stated they received no correspondence regards Barmack. And not everybody reads SOL or P&B for info. So how many of the Members on file in 2015 missed out on info re the changed contribution structure. I for one received no correspondence either on line or written. And my details were up to date. As recently as last week we were told some records are still incomplete despite strenuous efforts by Admin. Basically, not everyone was made aware of the change to Monthly Subscriptions. The current Board have done a heap of work and are righting many wrongs. But they inherited a minefield and any change and the implications need to be understood. But things are certainly better than they were.

Again a valid view regards £5 contributors opting out early doors. I would have thought safeguards could easily be put in place to ensure no abuse of the system…..retained Membership after 4 or 5 years continuous contributions or when an agreed total level of funds paid in is reached….£400/£500? It just feels wrong that someone like Electric Blues could donate so much…all after 2015…and then possibly hit circumstances that end his Membership. I am not talking about someone who has chipped in £50 and then bailed out. But he is not alone as an example. When the WS was established much talk took place about how it might deter folk from donating if they knew their Membership would be cancelled if contributions stopped, for whatever reason. So the lump sum contribution, life time Membership was a compromise. No one seems to have an issue with those Legacy Members. It’s just strange that someone who has contributed thousands over the years by way of post 2015 contributions could be binned without a thought, unlike me who paid a lump sum pre 2015. Surely there has to be some sort of middle ground? And having some sort of Lifetime target might actually encourage newbies to sign up. And boost funds at a faster rate. Interesting discussion though.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.