Kmcalpin

Does it matter? We must avoid getting involved in witchhunts. I'll be emailing the Society to ask for the reasoning behind the 3 board members' vote. I have no wish to know their identity. I simply want to understand their thinking. We know the reasoning behind the other 6, I just want to know theirs to inform my thinking.

They might well have been, but surely they kept other Society board members informed? Given the Society's public response, you'd think Messrs Dickie and Feeley were given other board members' responses to feed back into the official negotiations no? How did the Society board let things go this far if they were totally opposed to the details we've been given? It doesn't make sense.

Where did you see this?

One issue that's baffling me, is the substantial reference to the Society in the external proposal. Surely the Society would have been actively involved in discussing this, despite previous comments to the contrary?

Agreed. I have not read the external investment proposal in detail yet. However, I do have concerns. I'm going to digest it in more depth in the coming weeks. It transpires that the Society Boards vote was not unanimous, being 6-3. I would genuinely like to know the reasoning behind those 3 members voting yes. They must have some justification. The Society now needs to finalise and publish its proposal, as promised. When it does that I'll make up my mind. One thing is for sure, simply trying to increase membership, although admirable, is no solution. A final plea. Please keep the online discussion respectful. We've already seen some "poor" posts on P & B and on X.

100% agree. Rather naively, I assumed that both proposals would be made available at the same time.

Having skimmed through Jim McMahon's statement and the Well Society email, I'm equally baffled by both, for different reasons. I raised the issue of potential conflict of interest some time ago, but no one bar a couple of posters (and they know who they are) seemed to think it an issue.

Not a big issue in the grand scheme of things, but do you know this for a fact? In order to access those monies of course, we had to extend his contract, thereby forking out another £15-20K in employment costs. Still well worth it though.

It sounds a bit complicated to me Ropy. Does that mean that a player can sign for another club, be employed by it and be paid by it, but can't actually play for it until the window opens?

Yes credit to him. He could simply have left us. However he couldn't sign for Rangers until next Friday when the window opens. That would have been 2 weeks without pay. I don't know which, if any, club would have been entitled to a UEFA payment until that date. He'll still get a signing on fee from them. We should be grateful to him though. As I say the arrangements benefit us and him.

By signing on for an extra month, he'll earn 4 weeks or so of wages, he wouldn't have otherwise received plus, I suspect, a slice of the UEFA payment. A win win situation.

How do we know that Liam Kelly has signed on until after the Euros? I've seen references to this but can't find the official source. How much is it worth? Presumably we'll split any monies received with Kelly himself.

A nice guy by all accounts. Good luck to him. I wonder where he's heded to next? Another defensive vacancy and that provides some clarity.

I've just had another look at the survey and I really do think the results will be of very limited use indeed and perhaps even be misleading. A few examples: Many of the multi option questions are inadvertently worded so as to be not mutually exclusive eg disabilities. There isn't any question on where the participant lives or their postcode sector (I know we have to be careful about data protection issues). If the club wants to know how fans travel to home games then its essential to relate their answers to where they live, or at least their distance from Fir Park. The question on catering: are the food options tasty? They might well be but a fan might not like them. For example, I know that a spicy food will be tasty but I don't like/can't take spicy foods. Availability of parking: will those who don't drive know? Does this only relate to club parking or does it relate to general street parking as well? The idea of the survey is good but I think its needs to be changed and relaunched. There's little to be gained from expending a lot of time and effort to lift results and draw conclusions from unreliabale data.

Well said. I just don't get this recent communication release. This particular one irritated me no end. The timing is terrible as you say.

A lot of older folk do struggle with online transactions. However, if clubs are going down this inevitable road then they have to make it easier for folk to complete their purchases. We have cases of scanners not working properly. There's also no excuse for clumsy confusing sites.... are you reading this Livingston FC?

100% agree. I began filing in the questions but then gave up. A missed opportunity from the club to gain some much needed information. My biggest grouse was the single option questions. Also there should have been "don't know/have an opinion" options. It was also a bit woke and to some extent a box ticking exercise. I found the ethnic question impossible to answer as there was no option to simply tick British, although there were other Britsh options. - and thats not making a political point, its true in my case. I simply don't understand why religion was included as we've always been a non denominational club and I hope we stay that way. A poorly put together survey, I'm sorry to say.

OK Texan. I hold my hands up - missed that mate. 😉

Your memory is excellent. Thats exactly what happened in 1969. If I recall rightly, Montrose were leading 1-0 and Joe was moved forward and bagged a hat trick. I think Chemical Tom scored the other?

I didn't say that we needed the details, why should we be given them? All I was saying was that without details its very hard for fans to come to an informed view.

Not necessarily. We don't know the details. It could be that St Mirren saw him as a squad player, whereas we see see him as a starter. Who knows? I wouldn't read much into this.

Some logic to that certainly. Irrespective of changes to the squad, we do need a degree of continuity and stability. Many of you will recall the consequences of Ally MacLeod's sweeping changes and how they worked out. However, whats the alternative? Renew contracts of existing players, bring in slightly better new faces to ensure we have a squad and then mutual the contracts of some players we've just re-signed? There will always be an element of risk but its about balancing that.

This is where I'm at. I just don't get re-signing the all of the same players or offering them renewal deals, given last year's serious defensive problems. It wasn't all down to Liam Kelly, who also seems to have been offered a new deal, for whatever reason. Coaching didn't seem to work either. Are we going to sign a new defensive midfielder? Now, I get that its early in the close season and the transfer window is yet to open but it all seems a bit weird to me. No doubt time will tell.

That suggests to me, that we weren't in for him at all. Agood Championship level player, his best days might possibly be past him at 30 years of age.

Does that mean then, that McGinn, who has just signed a 2 year deal too, gets bumped?