weeyin

I don't think he's carrying injuries right now, but with his history of ACL and knee injuries, he's at a high risk of more of the same unfortunately. Not saying he's not worth a short term punt if he comes cheap, but there is a reason he hasn't been snapped up yet.

Fitness is transient.

And yet, he is still without a club.

Yes. When he was younger and fitter he was capable of turning it on even at international level. Injuries and sitting on the bench for extended periods has seen some of that diminish.

I obviously haven't seen him in every game, but the times I have watched him play over the last 2 or 3 years, he hasn't come close to the form he showed for us. That's why he has been floating around looking for a club in recent times.

Now that ESPN have lost the EPL, they may be more willing to pick up the slack in the SPL. Not saying the money would be the same, but might be another option on the table.

Of course nobody thinks the WS will make that 900k. But don't blame the fans for that, blame the cheats who have been fiddling their taxes for the past few years. Selling a couple of players, bringing up a couple of youngsters instead of dabbling in the transfer market, getting past one round of European competition, the TV deal not being as bad as predicted etc. will all make an impact on the projected losses. The teams in the SFL generally seem to cope without Sky and OF revenues, and we managed it ourselves when we were dossing around the First Division for a few years. July 4th. Independence from the Union Jack wavers. No SPL representation without taxation

Likewise. He was up here last year when he was on crutches, working out at the Fir Park facilities, so it's not unusual for him to be training with the team. Be surprised to see him play a competitive match, but if he's willing to sign a pay-per-play deal it would certainly get a few more bums on seats.

The guy at the back post defintely looks like a tint-job.

Seriously. Do you think a business can provide for itself without customers? Self-sufficient means being able to live within our means and not rely on debt to finance our activities. Now that a slice of our income has been removed, and we have no bank debt facilities, there is a risk (and only a risk) that a combination of negative factors could put us into administration. It's pretty standard in business to identify and manage operational risks. It doesn't mean they will transpire, but you need to account for them.

I don't think you understand what 'self-sufficient' means. (Clue: it doesn't mean we can survive with zero income).

Because if we finished at the bottom end of the table we'd end up with an even bigger operating loss. This past financial year was problematic for a few reasons, including not selling our mandated player. That put a large dent in the budget which we could likely have managed better if it wasn't for the Rangers debacle. Now, if we were to be awarded 2nd place money due to the newco situation, we might have a bit more flexibilty, but no point in spending ourselves into a black hole this season.

He says he wants to finish his career at Fir Park - that is a few years away yet.

The article doesn't say he has heart troubles, it says his blood sugar was low (which would certainly explain passing out). Sounds like the cardiologist was just a precaution.

I'm not swayed by anything - quite the opposite. I just want to see the information presented. And, more importantly, see if we are being presented with a simple yes/no option.

I don't believe they should be a special case either, but they are the first case in the SPL to be starting a newco and seeing as the founders weren't smart enough to legislate for such an eventuality, we are in this mess.

Aye, what we are actually voting on. Nobody has said it's a straightforward yes/no option. If we vote No, does SPL 2 come into play? Does newco go to SFL 3? Will legal challenges screw up the SPL next season? Would that screw up Scottish entries in UEFA competitions? How many staff at Fir Park do we get rid of if our budget gets cut? Does No mean we lose our chance to change SPL voting procedures? And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there is plenty of horsetrading going on behind the scenes right now. I'd also like to see the cold hard figures (or best estimate of them), because I like to make informed decisions. If it does turn out to be a simple yes/no option, then fair enough, but I'll wait until I see what's on the table before committing. Remember, this is the future of our club and Scottish football we are influencing here - I think it's prudent to be fully informed.

I have to say I'm a little concerned with the number of "I'm voting No, now what's the question" responses on here. As 'Well Society members, we at least owe it to our club to let them lay out the details and explain the nature of the vote before we decide. With all the discussions going on, it might not be a simple Yes/No decision.

Unfortunately, regardless of where the line is drawn, there will always be regular attenders who feel left out. I can see the logic in this one, however, as the point of the Society is to let members have a more direct say in the direction the club is taking. If that is extended to season ticket holders or a supporters clubs or whatever, then it renders the Society membership valueless.

If voting No meant SPL 1 reverted to 10 teams, who would still be in favour? I doubt there is much too it, but I have seen a few rumours.

It wasn't me, but there is plenty to be unsure about seeing as we don't even know if it's a straight Yes/No vote or there are other issues to be taken into consideration at the same time.

Good move by the board 2 NO votes from this house

Voting "No" meaning liquidation would obviously be the worst case, but what about something the middle? "Cutting our cloth to suit" is a phrase bandied about quite regularly, but in reality that can mean things like making staff redundant. If the financials for "No" meant that we had to lay off half a dozen loyal Fir Park employees and close down 2 of the community projects, it might not be as clear cut. So, like I said earlier, let's see the details first.

If there is, maybe it should be after we receive all the details from the club.

Thompson, in The Herald I think, gave a long list of reasons for voting no, and then in the last sentence hinted that financials might sway him to vote yes.