Kmcalpin

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.

Just to add fuel to the media frenzy fire the STV evening news sports section mentioned that no action was being taken against Skippy and it then went on to show the elbowing incident twice. However no mention at all was made at all of the John Rankine or Callum Morris X 2 incidents. It just goes to show how selective, subjective and biased media reporting is.

Good news indeed, but did the Compliance Officer speak to Crawford Allan about any other incident during the game? If not why not?

An electrical storm at full time. I think Yir Elder commented that it a was a sign from above.

Its more than that. A quick check of online reports in the Scotsman, Daily Record, and Dundee Courier reveals that they all mention the incident and express surprise that MacDonald got off. None mention Morris's 2 incidents nor Rankine's elbow. I'm sure there must be more examples if I was to check. It may just be lazy journalism or it may be more than that. With the exception of the BBC, the other media outlets are not there to report the facts, despite what people may think. They are there to make money and therefore pander to what they see as the biggest sections of their customers. They need big circulation figures or viewing figures. They have no requirement to be fair. We have examples in the past of nepotism on TV sports programmes. Comments which seemed odd at the time turned out to have logical, if worrying, explanations afterwards. In short, I'm not promoting a conspiracy theory but neither am I ruling it out.

I recall a soured Dundee United fan writing to the Courier to complain bitterly about Ally Maxwell's behaviour in the final ie he was cheating. I wrote to reply in strong terms but it was never printed.

The more the merrier Andy but we've heard rumours of Aberdeen bringing 3k, 4k and even 5k to Fir Park but rarely do these figures materialise.

Thats true up to a point. However during the game the cameraman has discretion as to what to film and what not to film. If highlights are broadcast then the editor(s) have discretion as to what to include and what to omit.

A bit less than us. Ground capacity also limits big game attendances.

I think thats right. However had we opted not to sign another a striker we may have been able to offer him a bit more. From what I hear Ross County are paying crazy wages just now. Thats not not sustainable, even with a sugar daddy, and they've been in financial trouble before.

I tend to agree with the Captain and Brainier. However, as we know referees can change their mind between the actual game and submitting their reports. He may say something along the lines of "At the time I didn't think it was a foul but in retrospect and having seen TV evidence I should have issued a yellow/red card."

Robinson. I first heard that we were in advanced negotiations with Irvine at the Livingston game which would have been on 18 July. My understanding is that Ian Baraclough wanted to sign Irvine and an another striker (Robinson). In the event he was told we had sufficient money for one so he opted for a striker. These things can take a few weeks to come to fruition and negotiations with signing targets can take weeks or months.

Are we talking about the same incidents? In the first 20 minutes he poleaxed Johnson with the ball nowhere near them. I would deem each to be a straight red card.