Onthefringes

Another on the Luke Watt tip I see... The best fullback (who doesn't feature at fullback much in his development) we have never had!

Unfair to judge? Correct. Game time? Mr McGhoo alluded to being injury free and just needing to get his 'head right' so I'm not expecting we'll be able to judge anytime soon if at all.

Different sub structure, deeper pile on top enables rugby to be played on that type of surface... almost identical to what's available at Dalziel Park. Expecting no excuses.

A bid of circa £500,000 will interest the powers that be. Bookmark it.

How so? Don't think it is as simplistic as that. Suspect it would be described as the fated "undisclosed". Any monies received may well be to offset any contractual issue involving the player so the club unlikely to profit in the short term. Or are some just expecting the player to move on without settling the contract? Your second point is on the money, McGhoo doesn't do one-dimensional so would expect transfer dealings.

Quelle surprise. He's chief sports reporter at the rag who claimed amongst other recent tall tales that Jacob Blyth had stated "Rangers were League One in England material" when the player himself corrected them.

No. To avoid a ticket scramble

Not right for the club in its present form? Pray tell us what is because it's widely acknowledged that the Society is the only show on the road. Despite having plenty to say, you offer no alternative... You may well be correct on the share issue point, but, why did the former owner shy away from that very ideal in order he recoup some of his outlay? Obviously there would have to have been sufficient safeguards? We do, it's called the 'Well Society. As for becoming a club shareholder - I'm sure the club have been approachable in the past for ordinary supporters to do just that and a few from this very board are now shareholders & can enjoy any benefits whatever they may be. Disagree on 'What we have now are WS members contributing significant cash year on year to eventually buy a controlling interest and provide a financial reserve to help the club out when times get tough' - The majority are contributing now to establish their membership in the first instance surely? 'If the club was living within its means then this extra income would not be required so no need for fans to continually contribute year on year' Now you previously mentioned 'proper plans in place to increase revenues, keep costs down, expand and develop playing staff and facilites etc' we'll just gloss over your contradiction - I'd expect any Society contributions are only one of many revenue streams to achieve this no?

You've not quite grasped the Society ideal... we get that. Your rhetoric has become tiresome - if you don't wish to obtain membership, that's your choice, those who are members, would-be members & other naysayers don't need reminding of a perceived 'bowling club' existence. If you feel that strongly, join up - the vehicle is there to attempt change from the inside if you think your efforts would be better served. By your own admission, the business 'needs to be run like one ie proper plans in place to increase revenues, keep costs down, expand and develop playing staff and facilites etc' - this will still be the case even if (I'll use this term loosely) the Society take over ownership of the club. There are individuals appointed like those in their current position to make these decisions on the Society's behalf. To expect the current Society Board to be the main driver on your claim would be folly as this isn't their forte, if it was, they would already be employed at the club in that capacity. Whilst they will seek to advise, not every decision will be made by the Society. The impracticalities of this are further compounded by the groundswell that our support rarely agree on the shade shite should be. For the record, I'm an existing member & not the only one who remains to be convinced to commit further funds, but, that's for another debate.

I'm well aware of that, doesn't make it guaranteed though. Creativity with the budget may well mean we wouldn't have to no?

Almost guaranteed? How so? Decent market to trade in if it meets the clubs' ambitions, but, hardly a guarantee.

28th June. Ideally, yes, but, the transfer window hasn't even opened by then.

The move isn't happening - from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Well, it's not. That's from the lad himself...

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/grimsby-town-rumours-toto-nsiala-and-richard-tait-to-reject-new-deals/story-29408445-detail/story.html

Anti-Motherwell feeling can hardly be used to describe a stint on a youth-development loan...

White man speak with forked tongue...

I wouldn't be Quite possibly our best player on his day, but, we are talking about a soon to be 34 year old who is injury prone. Let that sink in...

At £8,000 maximum per season they've been signed up, similarly, we'll be recruiting from other clubs' youth programmes.

Hardly. It'll be one for the development squad.

I concur.

It's in that far flung place - Hamewilldaeme. It'll be Dalziel Park for thrills.

Not for long...

You do by being the only one available as others have withdrawn from the squad. Starting to think our projected for 10th place budget is poles apart from the similar outlook of St Johnstone's 10th place ideal.