Kmcalpin

I really can't see why. We were given an opportunity to go and listen to the Directors outline their views and put across ours in return. What more could the club have done? Its done far most than most to be honest. I could see the point if you applied to go along but were turned down for whatever reason and denied the opportunity to listen and be heard.

Those members are quite entitled to their view and shouldn't have to justify it to anyone - its a perfectly valid position to take. I say live and let live - there will be those for and those against. Both sides are quite entitled to their own opinions and we should respect that. Likewise they have to understand that there are fellow Dossers who are opposed to the package and they are quite entitled to hold that view without feeling they have to explain themselves.

You might very well be right. If however no vote is taken how does the club reflect the fans views in determining which way to vote? I had simply assumed that because a vote was taken at the Society meeting that one would be taken at the open meeting. That might be totally and utterly wrong.

This may be down to the Police, who at the end of the day will decide the fixture schedule.

Be careful what you wish for. The meeting may not help at all, it may hinder the club's position or it could even deliver a decision which is not what you want. I presume that the club will combine the Society vote and Thursday's vote. The first vote was 57 for and 3 against. Now supposing all 120 fans (if that number turn up) voted to reject the proposals then the final figure would be 68% in favour of rejecting. However it would only take 33 of the 120 fans to vote for acceptance to ensure a split 50/50 vote. In that case does the club abstain from voting as we would have a divided support. Its also possible that more than 33 fans would vote for acceptance and in that case the club would be duty bound to vote for the proposals. Would you be happy with that outcome from a principled point of view? I'm not entirely sure about of St Mirren's or indeed Ross County's motives here. They might indeed be very principled or there may be an element of self interest as both clubs would be likely to finish in the bottom 4 of the pre split fixtures and hence be in the middle 8 post split. All may not be as it might appear.

Don't know about that mate. They'd snap up tickets in most areas of the ground and they'd occupy two wings of the POD Stand just feet away from us. They might not be given our end but they'd be given part of our stands.

Totally bizarre. As others have said these occur in most matches and is one of my hobby horses. At Dens Park last weekend I counted 7 but am sure there would have been more. I reckon in our games we must have something like 150 - 200 per season with about 2 or 3 being picked up by the referees. 3 given in one game ???

Last summer some on here and many elsewhere held up SFL clubs as being paragons of virtue whilst SPL clubs were all that was bad. That was never ever the case. As with the SPL, SFL clubs voted according to naked self interest and hid conveniently behind the big bad boys of the SPL. Nothing has changed, but now they've been found out. Quite a few too thought that having Rangers in the 3rd division would be good for them. Hefty policing and other bills are now convincing them otherwise.

Interesting that, at this time of year when most clubs are tightening their belts, clubs like Partick and Ross County have spare cash to throw around. Yes, during our dark days of administration, there were some clubs who displayed double standards, but Stuart Elliott did end up on Humberside and not on Tayside making us an extra £210,000 in the process.

Really looking forward to this one. Love these 'home' games

If Darren Randolph moves on thats where we'll probably pick up his replacement. There are dozens of top class goalies playing in the reserve sides of English Championship clubs.

RIP Henry. Once a Well fan always a Well fan. Condolences to family & friends.

X2. I may not like some of the details of the reconstruction package but that won't stop me from going to Fir Park. What about a poll option for PATG fans who won't stop going - this isn't covered?

Seconded.

Bang on the money Iain. First and foremost I'll continue to support the Well and last night was a timely reminder why I'll never weaken. My late father went to Fir Park from the 1930s until about 2000 and he never waivered in his love and unconditional support for the club. That didn't mean that he wouldn't criticise the powers that be on occasion. Fortunately there are thousands who think the same. That of course doesn't mean that I like all the components of the reconstruction package (league structure/OF colt teams/cash distribution etc), because I don't and neither does MFC. I think the SFA, SPL and yes even the SFL made a complete mess of things. I'm old enough and ugly enough to know that the SPL/SFL clubs largely vote according to selfish criteria and getting agreement on almost anything is exceedingly difficult. Its quite plain that the reconstruction proposals come as a package and that endless lobbying and horse trading is involved. Certain clubs like Aberdeen and Celtic will NOT budge on particular aspects and to garner their support for Issue Y you have to concede on Issue X. Thats life. Its the same in politics, union negotiations and in many aspects of life. I doubt for example if Union members agree with all aspects of their TU's policies and the world of trade unionism is very murky as we all know. Again thats life. If we look around us at the likes of Dundee, Dunfermline, Hearts and Kilmarnock we have a lot to be thankful for at Fir Park. We have a great board of Directors who run our club very well. Yes, of course they make mistakes but who doesn't. They are far more open than most clubs are. I might not agree with all that do but they have my full support. They are in full possession of the facts on the running of an SPL club and on the reconstruction proposals and we are not (certain aspects have to remain confidential).

Near the halfway line right in front of the POD Stand. There was a challenge, the ball moved away and then Claros slapped/struck Henrik in the face. The 4th official and perhaps the linesman would have seen it plainly.

If no action is taken by Vincent Lunny against a player who deliberately lifts his hands and strikes an opponent in the face then the "Compliance" procedure is totally discredited. End of.

Will Claros get done for lifting his hand and striking Henrik in the face? That will be a real test for Mr Lunny.

Count me in for a fiver Andy - more if needs be.

Yes, that is 100% correct. The period between New Year and early summer is traditionally a hard time for clubs financially. NethertonWellfan is right about it being a lean time in terms of cash flow. If there are problems they usually surface or come to a head post New Year - Rangers, Hearts, and Dunfermline being examples.

Will Ross County take their fans views on board when voting? Almost all clubs will vote out of self interest. It also depends on the nature of the fans' meeting. Was the club present? Did they address the meeting with any facts/views?

So thats one SPL club who will definitely be voting against the package of proposals?

Maybe its unfashionable these days but whatever happened to schools football?

Yes, I've known the club, like we fans, is frustrated at TV scheduling - it makes arranging games a nightmare. On the whole, the fans have been marginalised from the whole debate and thats downright wrong. Firstly in terms of consultation only 2 clubs that I know of (there may be more) have bothered to consult their fans and thats St Mirren and ourselves. Very disappointing as its a basic courtesy. In particular I feel for the likes of Hearts fans who have recently been asked to help out their club financially by literally buying into it with their own cash. Will they be consulted - a resounding NO. Involvement is something else. The proposals will contain many components, some of which the fans don't and can't know about - commercial considerations for example. However on the crucial elements like reorganising the Governing body and to a slightly lesser extent league reconstruction, fans views should be taken on board. Back to TV companies' influence. Many on here and elsewhere moan and whinge constantly about rescheduling of games to suit TV companies' balance sheets. However I'm willing to suggest that most of them will have bought those very same TV companies' soccer packages and indeed watch them. Well there's one simple solution - the ball is in your court folks - don't watch them or even cancel them. Our fans are part of the solution but also part of the problem. If you're in pubs/clubs with live games then ask them to switch off or over. If you hate rescheduled games then don't watch footie on the TV - simples. Cut off the financial lifleline of the companies concerned and take the game back into our own hands - don't pass all the responsibility to the clubs.

Thanks for the summary Iain. If at all possible I'll attend the next meeting and then make my mind up. If I understand you correctly, the powers that be have concluded that a package of measures (some of which are more palatable than other bits) have to be combined in order to make the overall proposal feasible. That doesn't surprise me. Each club will vote on a selfish basis and will look for different gains from the package. Like it or not clubs will effectively say "If you give us X we'll vote yes". Being realistic its unlikely that the entire package will be to every clubs liking but in order to get change through, horse trading, negotiation and yes compromise is necessary. Not ideal but if change is to be effected then concessions must be made. Thats not principled but its realistic and its how the real world works and how things get done. What do we make of the poor turnout today? Yes, the short notice of the meeting would be a factor but we have to conclude that many members aren't overly concerned about the proposed changes. Some are for, some against and many simply don' t care. The issue of involving overseas/faraway members is an important one and one which I've raised before and will do so again. The bottom line though is that whatever is agreed or not agreed I'll support MFC and the Society to the last.