wellfan

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/theo-bair/nationalmannschaft/spieler/501709 He also discusses his national team allegiance on a YouTube Q&A alongside Paton. https://youtu.be/NHEjRryLStI?si=u8j3_st9WVEIEynW

Yes, the likes of Lundtram, Goldson and Souttar will still be having nightmares about being bodied so easily this weekend. I always said that his best game is when he's running onto the ball because it kept it simple and allowed his power to dominate, but it also looks like he's improving his technical hold-up play, which is another positive. It's also clear that he thrives with Vale and/or Spittal (or An Other) playing the attacking role alongside him.

This short highlight video demonstrates how much he's improved his technical game and learned to use his strength against tough defenders. He'll be getting called up again by Canada if he continues on this path. As a critic of him getting a 2-year deal, which I would say was justified criticism back then, I'm delighted to be proven wrong. With the odd blip here and there, he is continually improving, and it looks set to continue. We should extend and enhance his deal now to maximise any potential fee we may get for him and as a reward for all his hard work because I imagine he's probably one of the lowest earners at the club. 🐻

😴🤢🤕🤮 I imagine many of us are hanging out our arses today. I know I am.

Rodgers is an odious prick. Get it right up him.

20-year contract, with only 10 announced.

Mugabi. He contained Dessers relatively well today. Fair play.

Top 6 here we come!

Outstanding. I take it all back 🤣

Is Casey an Irish Catholic?

It's re-refereeing games. That's the problem. It should only be used to double-check goals, offsides, and cards. Eg. Hawkeye in Tennis. It doesn't re-umpire incidents and break down rallies. It only makes calls on line decisions.

Had Silva and Casey collided like that anywhere else on the park, it would've been waved play on. The amount of scrutiny they get from VAR in favour of every incident is beyond belief.

Officials desperate to give that, as usual.

The ref is going to be our downfall today. Couldn't have asked for a better first-half performance against this mob, though.

This is what I am hoping for. I don't want to lose the Society.

I think it's a go-for-broke type game, where we should focus on our attacking game by starting Bair and Vale to keep the ball up the park because we will likely badly lose if we try to concentrate on our poor defending game.

I'm not usually one to sound like I wear a tinfoil hat, but I'm a little worried for two main reasons. The longer the lack of a permanent CEO, failure to communicate appropriately, departing Chairman, and begging for investment fiasco go on at the MFC Board level, the more I question its motives, governance, decision-making, etc. I'm sure McMahon and Weir won't do anything to harm the Club deliberately to suit their interests, but mistakes and rushed deals can happen when individuals are compromised/scunnered/leaving/etc. The more information we find out about the Well Society's numbers etc, the more I question its ability to undertake its function appropriately. There are many unknowns and concerns about it, which is not what we need when deciding its future role in the Club. However, that may change with the new WS board members, but it could be too late. Can anyone alleviate my concerns with a better perspective, or do we need a complete reset with/without the Well Society? We know the MFC Board is being reset. For transparency, I voted against the WS losing its majority shareholding because I believe we need fan ownership as a controlling interest at the table. I am not against bringing others to that table, however, but would they want to invest for a minority stake and voice? Probably not. So, for me, it's either the WS or not now, but it doesn't look like the WS is a financially capable or well-structured enough entity at this stage to take the lead. As I said above, though, others may be able to ease those concerns with further commentary on the reality of the overall scenario.

McGinley has signed for Ayr United.

Yep. That's why a breakdown in membership figures and voting data would be helpful. Somebody who better understands these things might be able to look at the result alongside the membership demographic and make better sense of it all. I certainly can't.

Linking to what I've been saying elsewhere in this thread, I think it would be important to understand what percentage of the 3800 members are eligible/able to vote before the true turnout figure is understood/calculated following any future binding vote.

Consider this. I joined the RSPB a few years back when I was particularly enthused by ornithology. I’m not that bothered about it at the moment due to life being busy, which means I generally glass over the member emails and campaigns, but I am still a member and still pay my monthly direct debit. I occasionally go to their nature reserves at the weekend, but, if they put out a member poll asking to vote on the ownership of a nature reserve, I'd probably ignore or miss it. Returning to the WS, many of the 1600 non-paying monthly members likely became members by paying a lump sum at the beginning of the WS many years ago. Many of those members may now be, for example, deceased, emigrated, or disinterested. The latter is the most likely. A key aim of the WS Board should be figuring out a strategy to better enagage those in the 1600 category. It should focus on getting those (still alive) to activate a monthly direct debit. Something like that could increase our monthly paying adult member base to c.3000. Put simply, stating the membership is at 3800 doesn't tell the full story when 1600 are non-paying and 700 are kids.

As I said in my earlier post, there are 1600 members who don't financially contribute anymore. It seems reasonable to suggest that some of those members may not be as engaged with the WS, or bothered, as those on the forums and social media are. That's why I've referred to that category of members as ‘silent’.

Some probably don't, but this indicative vote may well awaken others and increase the turnout in the event of any binding vote.

I agree that the turnout is poor. I offered some context regarding the reality of the membership demographic to demonstrate one potential reason for the low turnout, of which there will be many.

I've just got the email and am surprised by both the poor turnout and the result. I thought more would be in favour of the ‘I would not’ option. Crude assessment: I suppose the poor turnout could be due to the membership having 1600 silent (non-paying monthly) and 700 junior members. The 1500 paying monthly is 39% of 3800 total, so the turnout figure doesn't seem too bad in that context. If the turnout is comprised mainly of the 1500 active monthly paying members, who we could assume are the most engaged with the WS and Club, it could mean that most of those members are indeed in favour of the ‘I would’ option. There will of course be a myriad of other ways to analyse the result.