Kmcalpin

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?

Good post. Fans now have to back the Society, although being realistic many won't. However, the Society now has to up its game and become more professional. A start would be to make the Society more visible on matchdays. Get out and meet the rank and file, press the flesh, and speak to punters face to face.

Facts are thin on the ground right now. However we can put this misunderstanding to bed without further ado. Its the club who owes(d) Les Hutchison money, NOT the Society. The Society has paid the club all that it was supposed to.

Do we know how many away fans attended the two games?

Deary me you're optimistic! What makes you think we'll be able to retain our best Under 20s for next season if the apocalypse of fan ownership comes soon.

My view exactly. We've been given a very vague news update, possibly because matters are still in progress. Given that, I'm not expecting fine details anytime soon. I would guess this premature handover has been in the offing for a good few weeks now as I believe Jim McMahon met with Les Hutchison a few weeks ago in Barbados. I don't know to what extent employees outwith the Board of Directors were involved in discussions. I just don't know what to make of it - it may be good news or it may not be. In terms of fans' contributions £5 a month is not a lot to ask. Its just over half the cost of a packet of 20 fags or it might buy you 2 pints of beer. Not a lot in real terms. That said there are those of us to whom a fiver a month is a helluva lot of cash. There are yet others who are totally opposed to the Society and/or the concept of fan ownership and an additional 1p a month would be unacceptable. I understand both situations. Going by posts on this board the more optimistic posters are cautiously pessimistic whilst the more pessimistic are very pessimistic. Lets just wait and see.

That depends on who the player or club is. In general though you're right. Its a journalists job to jazz up any event or story to drum up interest amongst viewers or readers. However the media does not want to alienate certain important sections or customers. Bigger clubs carry bigger supports and in general radio, TV and the press don't want to upset them. Occasionally, they do however. I can think back to the Daily Record having to grovel to Rangers and Celtic after upsetting them. More recently Graeme Speirs was asked to leave the Herald after he upset Rangers. Scottish football is a small circle and bedevilled by the old boys network. Football programmes are often staffed by ex players of certain clubs. Given all this there is a plethora of vested interests to be appeased and so we are where we are.

Some good points Tweed. As I said earlier, much comes down to the cameraman and sports editors as to what they film and what they show and down to pundits as to what they highlight. So for various reasons there is potential for inbuilt bias in what is clearly a subjective process. Sporting fairness does not come into it. I recall some years ago the then Compliance Officer, Vincent Lunny, stated that in reviewing games, he took into account all sources of information and I think this threw a few folk. I and a few others wrote to him to highlight potential cases but never received replies or even acknowledgements. A mate then wrote to him to ask what evidence his office used in assessing cases but again never received any acknowledgement. Some time later, he reportedly said that on a Monday morning his staff ploughed through TV footage to identify potential cases. So on that basis the TV and radio companies, and by default their employees, have a huge influence over the compliance officer's baseline evidence. In short it is trial by television pure and simple. We all know TV and radio pundits are not objective and unbiased. The compliance officer system is not consistent, comprehensive or objective in sporting terms.