Kmcalpin

That was always going to be the case. To be fair though some fans did dig a bit deeper or used their cash more effectively for the club's benefit.

The regulation/custom is that home teams pay the expenses (however they are defined) of the visiting teams.

For the year ended 31 May last year about 33% of our income came from gate receipts. About 43% came from TV and radio, with the remainder coming from other sources. .

To quote but one example I reckon our share of the Pittodrie gate would be about £36k - hardly a fortune. We would have made a loss on the replay.

Don't forget that a higher league placing will mean higher bonuses paid to players. Also, players who will remain with us next year will be entitled to wage rises so the situation is not entirely clear cut. Add to that the cost of reseeding the pitch and a potentially healthy profit is whittled away. We were warned of this months ago. Other clubs too though are having to reduce their budgets.

Prices, the fact that it was on TV and that it was Celtic. Our home crowd was always a good 500 - 1,000 down at Celtic & Rangers games.

Thats my exact recollection too Andy. The money is to be used as a returnable overdraft/cash float in times of need, usually in late winter or early spring. Its was mentioned at the Club's AGM that it was likely that temporary loan(for want of a better term) would be required in the spring. That said, the club has to use the cash for something - it would be pointless asking for the temporary loan and then not using for some purpose, be it wages, repairs or whatever.

I think thats also worth pointing out to the media. What a shocking way for any organisation to treat its customers.

Throughout this whole sorry saga, there's only one thing I've been certain about and thats we've not been told the full story and that I didn't know enough to form an informed opinion. The SPL (and SFA & SFL) operates in secrecy and I can understand the reasons why. As far as voting is concerned I did not know until last autumn that there were different thresholds for different issues. I also learned for the first time a few months ago that Aberdeen were against changing the 11-1 voting. Since then I have assumed, very mistakenly as it turns out, that only Celtic and Aberdeen opposed changes to the voting. Now it transpires that clubs like Hibs, Hearts, Dundee United would also oppose any change. Again I can understand why - self interest pure and simple. I'm all right jack! I've known for some time that, in general, SPL Chairmen were a very awkward bunch and that trying to get agreement on anything including what sandwiches to order at working lunches, was almost impossible. I don't think Neil Doncaster (and his two colleagues at the SFA and SFL) has handled matters well but I now appreciate the difficult and trying environment in which he has had to work. For many of us the voting issue was always very clear cut and simple - why don't the other 10 SPL members gang up on Celtic and Aberdeen and change the thresholds. Now is the moment. In reality there was only ever limited support for it because of self interest. As for the issue of cherry picking the best points of the proposals I now suspect there are none which would garner sufficient interest to be passed. For example, Neil Doncaster is not going to come out and state publicly that amalgamation of the 3 governing bodies will be taken forward on its own as Clubs X,Y and Z will not support it.

An interesting interview with Stewart Milne. Text on 11-1 voting is revealing. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/stewart-milne-fears-for-scottish-football-1-2904067

Quite shocking and totally unacceptable. Paying customers should be treated with much more respect. Such an attitude would not be tolerated in most organisations. If we are wrong then United should tell us that and explain their reasoning.

The first step is to contact Dundee United and find out why the bottom tier was closed and why there was no prior warning of this. Incidentally the home "shed" was also closed. Its a very poor show if they closed the bottom tier without any prior notification. Had they wanted to close it for safety/cost cutting reasons then they could have offered those who wanted to sit there cheaper entry to the Upper Tier (there must have been a way of administering this). The amount of money involved would have been less than £200 in all likelihood. At the very least they should be asked to explain themselves.

Well done Bop for organising this. A very poor show from United both before and during the game. Glad the event was a success and at least our own club benefitted financially. The 3-1 result also helped.

I noticed this too, however it stopped after a short while. Searches took place on the street and not on private property. Home fans were not being searched. Interestingly, the notice of rules and regulations stated that excessive noise eg use of transistor radios was not acceptable. Presumably that includes drums and other musical instruments. What about singing or shouting? Certainly the PR system was loud enough. On the park a great evening with some tremendous goals. United fans moaned and whined from start to finish as usual.

A bit like Brian MacLean - will play solidly well (at worst) for 88 minutes but then make 2 or 3 horrific blunders in the space of a few minutes. Prone to sudden rushes of blood to the head.

Fair dos, but that service comes at the price of awkward kick off time and the like. We can't have it both ways.

Its a win win situation. If there was a mass switch in Scotland, they might just might listen. If they didn't, then KO times would revert to 3pm on Saturday and live attendances would increase. Its not just Sky of course but also ESPN. Why not boycott pubs and clubs while live footie was being shown? I know that not everyone on here does have access to live TV footie but many will do.

There's no doubt that TV is having a seriously detrimental impact on the game up here - from inconvenient kick off times to derisory financial offers. But there's no point in us whingeing and moaning about it when we are probably the root cause of the problem ourselves. There's no point in blaming everyone (SFA/SPL/SFL/the club) but ourselves. The solution is in our own hands - unsubscribe. Hit Sky & ESPN where it hurts - in their pockets.

A good post Netherton - well balanced. I too am disappointed at the attendance and there could be many reasons for that but we may have to face the fact that many fans simply may not care either way. Maybe we are guilty of assuming that our support is either for or against but in reality many just turn up to watch the football and don't care about the politics.

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.