Kmcalpin

I've been in contact with a couple of folk from the Society in the last day or two to mention the issue of the original members not been made aware that they should or could renew membership and/or pay a monthly contribution. Both told me that members have been emailed and that information has been on Twitter and on the website. Apparently, when mass emailing they do not send out individual emails but use a marketing programme to do it en bloc. I'm no techie expert but believe this allows them to check who has opened emails and who hasn't. Surprisingly, a few hundred emails are never opened (I don't know the exact figure). This could be down to emails ending up in spam folders or being sent to old email addresses, or being bounced back due to overflowing inboxes. So in short folks, if you are a member check your spam folders and also that the Society does have your up to date email address. Thats not to say of course that individual errors can't be made.

Agree that Moult was outstanding but not sure about Hammell. He had an ok game and as usual his suspect defending was masked by decent offensive work. Gave 100% as always. He got caught out of position a few times when we were under pressure and his tackling could have been better but overall by no means his worst game.

Overall agree with a lot of your post, but don't believe all you hear or read in the media. Yes, Aberdeen's defending wasn't great at our goals but we have to take some credit. It wasn't all down to keystone cops defending as Willie Miller and Richard Gordon would have us believe. I didn't hear either of them criticise our defending at their penalty (if indeed it was a penalty). For a long spell in the first half we gave them too much respect and didn't compete and that also happened in the latter stages of the game. He does deserve credit for guiding the team to a win. .

In general I agree that referees shouldn't be overly fussy and pernickety but when one doesn't blow up for a blatant foul, possibly deserving of a yellow card, which gives one side an important and unfair advantage you have to question his approach, especially if he then goes on to award a soft penalty (I've not seen it yet so can't comment either way). As Tam Cowan mentioned post match, the foul on Marvin Johnson took place a few feet away from the 4th official - ludicrous that he doesn't help the referee in such circumstances. Other than that he was conned a few times by Ash Taylor in awarding Aberdeen fouls. Overall though we've seen worse referees this season although he did make a few errors.

An important win for us today and a real team effort, given our injury and illness absentees. Ripley was my man of the match closely followed by Louis Moult. I thought that Kennedy, McManus and Johnson were also just above the rest. Both full backs struggled a bit at times especially in the early and late stages, as did our central midfield. Still we mustn't complain too much given that we were playing Scotland's second best side. Truth be told we could have finished them off earlier although it was a tight game. A real shame Cadden had to go off the worse for wear. I thought we sat too deep in the first half and in the dying stages but fortunately our central defenders were rock solid. The ref didn't give us much and let us down badly by not blowing up for a blatant foul on Johnson just before the penalty. I don't know what Robson was thinking about with his double assault on Gomis and MacDonald but he got what he deserved.

Met Louis Laing after the game today. He expects to be back for Inverness game. Anyone notice Louis Moult hold his groin when he came off today? Hopefully we'll have a few players back for this one.

Should Robson not have received 2 red cards? He's always had a suspect temperament and McInnes knew that.

What position does MacLean play? When I saw him at Grangemouth pre season it was as a winger.

You're being a bit pessimistic. Dundee for example have a worse stadium than ours - remind your mate of that. Even Celtic need to sell at least one player per year - ok the scale is somewhat different but they buy at say £1m or £2 and sell for £8m or thereabouts. I'm pretty sure all Scots clubs have to sell players to survive.

I'd be happy for us to resume donations again Andy and if this is agreed by members I'll make modest donation to Steelmen online kick things off. Even if we as a site were to contribute a fiver per month it would help.

I think its now dawning on many fans that whilst they are not 100% satisfied with the Society's performance to date, and have outstanding questions, there is no feasible alternative. Doing nothing is simply not an option.

You can't force players to sign long term deals if they don't want to. To do so you'd also have to offer them pretty high wages and X number of get out clauses in the legal fine print. Its also a gamble giving a young lad a long deal as many youngsters don't make it and the club would then be stuck with a Championship or second division player on high wages for 3/4 years. As far a Dundee United is concerned what percentage of their recent transfer fees will actually go to the club as opposed to their investors who supposedly cleared their debts and others?

Les Hutchison will have been in overall control and will have been involved from time to time in major decisions. However as Brazilian says he appointed his own directors to run the club on a week to week basis and do his bidding.

I understand its not for you Gaag; thats got to be your decision and yours alone. I also understand you have grave concerns about the deal, but I would say in response we don't know the details of it yet. As you have grave concerns, what alternative would you put forward? If the club and / or the Society were to share your serious concerns and decide not to proceed with this deal what should they or indeed can they do? Its a genuine question and for the life of me I just don't know what alternative solution is there.

Fielding a competitive team on a smaller budget can be done (see ICT and St Johnstone) but'll it mean playing less exciting football. More emphasis on fitness, experience and organisation. In terms of the club management, of course there'll be a transitional period, but the likes of Jim McMahon has been involved for a good few years and knows the scene inside out. Its critical though that other directors bring some kind of skill or business acumen to the table. As others are now beginning to appreciate, we may not all be deliriously happy with the concept of fan ownership but whats the alternative? If the worst comes to the worst, and I don't think it will, yes we could be courting administration in a year or two's time. If we deem that to be too great a risk then the alternative is probably administration now. thats a stark choice. Its a no brainer. All that said the Society has to get its act together and a good start would be answering members' questions now and improving communications.

Surely Aberdeen have to reject our proposal? If our injury/illness situation is as bad as being rumoured then it will boost their position if they beat us by a few goals as opposed to winning by a goal or perhaps 2? Thats the theory of it anyway but it doesn't always turn out that way.

Can I ask you if there are any circumstances whatsoever in which you would join the Society? I would also address this same question to Stipelisgod. Is it because the Society is not being well run or because you're both simply opposed to the principle of fan ownership? At the outset it was recognised that the Society was not for everyone and thats fine. The same situation has occurred at Hearts not surprisingly and there was recently talk there of setting up some kind of "Telephone Preference Scheme" type opt out. Those who are not interested, under any circumstances, of joining their scheme or indeed are vehemently opposed to it could register their details with the operators and they would be guaranteed no further contact. It would save the individuals hassle and annoyance, perhaps even stress, and save the club unwanted wasted effort and money. Could that be an option here? My only other point is that I hope no-one is refusing to join because they think that there are other options - as Steelboy has said above "talk about outside buyers coming in is fantasy stuff."

Your points about the Society's finances are well made and I agree with them. The Society will probably need to provide a short term annual financial cushion to the club, which would be repayable. Now, if the Society raised say £100 k per year, there could well be a shortfall in year 1 and that would be the hardest year. In year 2 the Society would have say £200k; in year 3 £300k and so on. So as time went on the short term financial float would be more manageable. Why is Les Hutchison moving on? I have no idea - there could be any number of factors. As to what happens, a lot will depend on what is contained in the legal agreement and again I've no idea whatsoever about that. However, under the old 5 year timescale, the Society would have had 4/5 years to build up a financial reserves presumably to about £500k. If Les moves on now that won't be possible and so I hope that suitable adjustments of some kind will be agreed. I'm sure thats an oversimplication but thats how I see it.

Thats disturbing - I've PM'd you. Why hasn't the Society made itself known to fans on matchdays? I don't know for sure but perhaps lack of volunteers could be a reason. Surely though it could set up an information table or desk in the Cooper Club prior to games. One person could staff that.

At the public meeting last November it was stated by a Society representative that monthly contributions, from all sources, was running at about £8,000 - £9,000 monthly. Just read Les Hutchison's piece on the BBC website. In it he says that we have 1689 members who pay an average of £5.75 monthly. Now I'm no mathematician but reckon that translates into a monthly income of £9,711 - I suspect those figures are a week or two old.

This is a point I've made before. I've enquired about this and been told that I could continue to pay annually or now monthly and the latter is the option I've chosen. However members, especially the original ones should be contacted individually to clarify this position. Not everyone has the time or inclination to approach the Society for clarification. I daresay there are quite a few members like you who are still waiting to be contacted. Its all very well burying away advice in long notes or answers but they have to be up front.

Members can pay their renewals via a variety of means, not just direct debit. I know a few folk who pay on an ad hoc basis as they can't commit to a regular monthly sum. I agree that the membership status issue is rather complex and does need clarification and simplification and I've made that very point to the Society. The current situation is a reflection of changes that have been made over time. The lack of a direct debit scheme at the outset? I don't know if you mean annual direct debits or payment by monthly installments. If its the former I don't know, but there would have been a reason. If its by monthly installments you mean, then this was raised at the initial meetings and the response given was that due to legal / regulatory reasons it wasn't possible at that stage. I very very much doubt if lack of foresight came into it at all. Sorry - you were probably at these meetings.

What do you mean by two tier? Adults and juniors? Or do you mean those those paying up their membership by intallments + those renewing their membership + those just joining V those paying nothing?

We have about 1,700 members of whom just under 500 are junior members if I'm right.

You have to compare like with like though. By that I mean compare our attendances with those of Ross County when we were comfortably in the top 6. What were their attendances when they were struggling in the bottom 6?