weeyin

Like every club, there is a soft period in the winter where we need to borrow money based on projected income later in the year. We have trouble getting short term bank loans for this, so the Society provides a loan on favourable terms. That seems like a sensible business model to me for a club that doesn't have benefactors to turn to instead. Apart from this season, where it has remained flat, our budget has been cut year on year for the last 4 or 5 years. That seems like a reasonable approach to me compared to making one huge cut and putting us in the relegation zone.

It's not what I think that it matters, it's what history shows. If you put a bunch of youngsters in a struggling team and they get hammered a few times and the crowd starts giving them pelters, it can hinder their development. I'm not against giving our youngsters an appearance every now and then, but you only have to look at our U20s results (losing to Dundee most recently) to see the inconsistency you can expect.

If it wasn't for the Society and their loans to the club, we could have been in administration by now. For that reason alone I'm glad I put my money in. That doesn't mean I'm happy with the current situation, but I totally understand why no details can be given to a broader audience. It's more the content, nature and style of the communications that concern me as they sound very unprofessional and, initially at least, were more about scaremongering than information. If we had something like the following, a lot of this could have been avoided - "there are discussions ongoing with potential investors, and until such time as informing members meets the relevant financial regulations, we will be unable to provide more information. Rest assured that in the event the Society meets its target and is in a position to safeguard the club, all decisions will be put to the membership for a vote"

Doesn't change the fact that there was zero expectation and zero pressure on them, which makes a huge difference to young players. Would be a different story at Fir Park where we cannot afford to be relegated.

Different scenario, though, First of all, the youngsters were the only players Hearts had left on their books. Secondly, everyone expected them to be relegated after their points deduction (and player cutbacks) - so zero pressure on the kids.

They've found some serious investors - that's why the Well Society are in panic mode.

After members vet the proposals and vote on the offer, surely?* *Not holding my breath on that one.

I never understood the ridicule or hate for Hughes - he has a pretty decent track record as a manager. Presumably it's based on the way he comes over in interviews.

I'm not saying that's wrong, but it seems bit strange that the Trustees could be dismissed without as resolution and a vote from the Trust Members.

You think Clarky would have 7 in 7 playing for our mob? It's service we are lacking (plus defenders). Erwin and Moore would do just fine if we could keep them fit and pass them the ball.

As were the club who aren't moving forward with a new gaffer until ownership is settled.

Even if there was something in it, it's generally a legal requirement to keep any details secret. And even in the rare cases where it's not a legal requirement, potential bidders will always have a confidentiality clause in their offers.

MFC twitter says he needed surgery.

They're still pissed off our U20s gubbed them.

No idea about this one, so will go for a win purely based on our recent record up there - and despite the fact it will have no bearing on this match.

The same people that bang on about people's right to be racist, homophobic, sexist and anti-Semitic are usually the same petals that start greeting when opposition players flick them the Vs.

I think it's a matter of degree. However, it's one thing to be a racist, homophobic anti-semite in private. It's a different thing to broadcast those views on a company phone.

Whatever we pay, we do know that we can't compete with teams like Dundee Utd who, as McCall pointed out, could afford the salary of Bilate who was "way outside our range". I seem to remember a few years ago our top end was around the 2k/week mark, so the figures bandied around here seem reasonable.

No, the Society has been pretty clear that they expect the Board to making decisions like that. God help us if they ever went down the Ebbsfleet path. I took part in that and it was a disaster - mostly because a lot of the key information was withheld.

Aye, too much baggage of the undesirable kind.

I'm sure if an SPFL defence gave us as much room as Ireland gave Brown, we might pull it off (not that I'm complaining).

Exactly, there are probably a hundred times more wannabe managers out there than there are jobs. And if someone did take over and get replaced a few weeks later, they would get a nice contractual pay-off.

I don't think it's as much a money raising exercise as it is another way to engage the fans with the club.

I think the last time the media and bookies got a sniff of our next gaffer was when Tommy McLean took over.

Change in betting just means some punter stuck a small wad of cash on it. With 50 or so applicants, plus non-applicants the club wants to speak to, I don't see Adams being close to favourite.