Kmcalpin

The interview sounds good and we should find out more about it in due course. The devil might well be in the detail though. So far so good.

That's fine up to a point, but we did eventually shell out big time to sort the problem. Dundee will stubbornly not do so unless forced. That's where the difference lies.

Agree about the importnace of youth but selling our talent on has been a key part of our financial plan ever since I began supporting the club and that wasn't yesterday. It won't change, but I wish it would. We do, however, have to maximise our income and finances from other sources. We should only sell if the price is right for us.

It's high time they were punished. This had gone on long enough and they've done nothing to address the problem.

Yes, it is pretty well known now but it certainly was not widely known until a year or two ago. As has been said above, original members who paid by lump sum were never contacted about paying monthly contributions. The fundamental change from some members paying their subscription monthly to all members, irrespective of status, being encouraged to make monthly contributions was never ever advertised until very recently. Thats was a huge and costly failing. The move away from a dedicated website and lack of communication was at the root cause of this. "Lapsed members", like myself, for want of a better term were never contacted directly. To finish on a positive note, things have certainly improved now, and thats the importnat thing. .

The Rancid is reporting that SK is trying to fix up Georgie Gent and Jack Vale for next season. I hope he can pull that off ,but fear its a pipedream. .

I contacted the Society several times about this situation over the years, but nothing was ever done. I'm sure quite a bit of potential income was lost as result. As you say the initial plan was for members to pay in a lump sum or instalments until certain levels were achieved (Steel, Claret, Amber?). These levels attracted certain levels of benefit as you say. I'm exactly the same boat as you. Following the early launch, the Society moved to a monthly subscription model, but this was never communicated to original members. Those who had reached the initial levels were never contacted about the switchover. We were never told that we could, or would be encouraged, to contribute over and above the intial levels. Matters do seem to be improving now.

Alan Martin, Reece McAlear.................

Thems the rules. Just to clarify though that there are 2 distinct categories of "non payers". Those who fully paid the original target sum eg Steel membership level in one lump sum or several smaller lump sums and secondly those who were paying by monthly instalments and stopped. To a large extent, this arose because of widespread confusion and ambiguity when the Society changed the subscription system to monthly sums, whether or not you had fully paid up the initial sum in full.

You are still entitled to a vote. Sorry, but it needs to be asked.............have you changed email address? Have you checked your spam/junk folders? Try ringing the Society. These problems do need to be sorted out. I'd hope, in any event, someone from the Society has/would PM you. No doubt there are others like you. We have to be patient in the short term, to give the Society time to work up its proposal. After a period of torpor, things have improved since the Society elections.

The ink is not dried yet. However, if it comes to pass, it would be a good bit of business and a boost to our Academy. Probably best for the lad's long term development too.

I've been a critic of SK in the past, but credit to him, he's turned things around. As others have said, whatever his faults he seems to be a good man manager and never lost the dressing room at any point. He's being seriously tested just now though. There will be a number of players he wants to release in a few months but he has to keep them onside for teh time being.

I agree with a lot that has been posted on here. I'm still not fully convinced though about the Society making a recommendation to members, although I get why it would. Should the Executive Board of the club also issue a recommendation to the 29% private shareholders? In that eventuality, it would be vital that both messages to private shareholders and Society members are harmonised. Thats not been the case so far, although I'm optimistic that recent changes in the Society and club are improving matters. We don't want differing messages. This will have to be handled carefully. I'm in no rush though - better to take time and undertake due diligence.

Sam Nicholson?

I think this reflects the nature of the Executive Board, which in recent times has been almost divided. Maybe "divided" is slightly too strong a term. Maybe operated as two entities. Mintymac is right. When the time comes, a meeting or meetings should be held for members, and probably also for private shareholders. IF the Society makes a recommendation to members, it has to be careful how that is worded and not be seen to rubbish any private proposal. A fine line to tread. I'm sceptical of a "trade union" approach as I had a couple of bad personal experiences of that during my working career.

Yes, I think it would Bobby. If it ever comes to this, both proposals could be put to members with FAQs and an idiots guide for folk like me.

Normally I have no interest whatsoever in OF games, but from a selfish perspective that was a good result today. It keeps the title pot boiling and means Sevco will be desperate to beat Dundee in midweek and Ross County next Sunday.

Moses quoth "Let my teaching fall like rain and my words descend like dew, like showers on new grass, like abundant rain on tender plants." He taught Dundee a lesson all right.

Yes, his form is a bit erratic, you're right. However, he's hitting the net regulalry. I don't think we're actively planning to sell Bair, but would accept a decent offer if one came in during the next window. Thats not unlikely in my view. We have to consider that scenario, and I'm sure we are. I have no inside knowledge whatsoever but wouldn't be surprised if Miller moved on in the summer for a decent fee. Almost certainly the club has factored that into their planning.

In theory it should be a good game. We'll want to win to confirm our Premiership status and keep us in the hunt for an, albeit unlikely, top 6 slot. Hibs will want the 3 points to secure top 6, should Dundee falter. I can see it being an open encounter, which will suit us.

I get where you're coming from Sinjy, but everyone is different. Folk can show support in different ways, handle defeats in different ways, and handle disappointments in different ways. Its important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater though. Most of the names you mention can make very valid points at times, although we may not agree with how they're expressed. That said, I get Yabbas Turd's recent comment about posts that the mods delete (You and your colleagues do a good job Iain - largely unseen by many including me). Steelboy's recent post this morning is a case in point - although succint, thought provoking comments about squad deficiencies.

There's two ways to look at squad rebuilding for next season. A large amount of bodies will be departing; lack of consistency and time for new lads to settle in and gel; managerial time and effort required to plan for this; some new arrivals will tank. Most, maybe all of this is true. However, I prefer to take the opposite, more positive view. Having managed the team for a bit longer now, SK will be more aware of individuals' strengths and weaknesses. He'll have seen them in more diverse situations. He'll also have more freedom to sign his own men as so many depart. More deadwood will have been cleared. More cash will be available to him to spend how he wants (not in overall terms but through distribution of what we could call wasted money). On the Dundee matchday thread, Steelboy makes a very valid point in this respect, when he wrote "The problem with our squad is Lamie, Tierney, Maguire, McGinley, Obika, Wilkinson, Elliott and Shaw. Change them for a decent centre half and centre mid and we'd easily be top six." Some of course have already departed, but will have consumed cash in the process. Now to that list you could also add the likes of Butcher and Kelly. The latter, in particular, will be on a fair wedge. There are always contrary opinions of course, but I suspect most fans would not be apoplectic if Kelly was to move on. I think we could secure a better keeper for the same outlay or hopefully less. Then, in the middle band, there are OOC players like Mugabi and O'Donnell and Slattery who some would retain and some wouldn't. Of those OOC, the only one I'd really want to keep is McGinn. Younger prosects like Ewan Wilson - I'd also want to keep too. In short, I'm not overly bothered if "all 5", whoever they may be, reject our new offers. Some questions to be answered too. Is Nicholson considered to be a replacement for Spittal? Would he sign on again? There are also known unknowns - the likes of Miller or Bair, might move on if offers are right. SK has already said that he identified signing targets months ago, and has been working flat out on squad planning. This summer promises to be very busy and interesting for us fans. I'd like to see us bring in a new commanding keeper; strengthen central defence; and introduce some steel to midfield. .

Indeed there is. To Dundee FC - be careful what you wish for. What a comeback!

Don't panic we only need to finish above one of Ross County or St Johnstone and neither are winning at present.

Please don't worry. Although the call handlers might be overworked, Police Scotland will have instructed their officers to take no action in these cases.