Kmcalpin

You can understand why though. If they banned the culprits, it would save them a few grand in repair costs. However they'd lose much much more in ticket/commercial sales as diehards took the huff.

Apologies now being told that monthly subscriptions have to be in £5 levels as per the website. £5 £10 £25 £50

Spot on Grizzly. I think Gent also took a knock. Agree about Blaney. My main concern, oddly enough is not about our defence as its a "known known" but our midfield, which was as soft as s**t yesterday. We have limited options. Could Nicholson play for half an hour? Is it worth giving Elliott 20 minutes or so? We know he's not match fit but he must have a certain level of fitness, otherwise he wouldn't have been on the bench yesterday. I've never been a football purist so don't really care how we set up so long as its effective on the carpet. For the record its not an axminster. Its not nice to say but I'll do so anyway - although it would be great to win it, even by a single goal, it would be even better to crush them and deal them a psychological hammer blow. The team has to be fired up for this game, no ifs no buts, so slip them a wee bonus, for a win, to help their mentality.

Well done. Bear in mind too that my figure of £35 is an underestimate as quite a few of of our 3,800 members will be minors paying a lot less than £10 a month.

You can pay in whatever amount you like ie £2, £6, £8.50, £17 whatever - just contact the Society to arrange (I've asked). The £5, £10 etc options are only there for convenience. I would reckon that if monthly subscriptions were to cover a shortfall in bad year we're looking at 3,800 members paying in an average of about £35 each every month. Thats a very crude figure of course and doesn't take into account any other fund raising initiatives. (£1.6m /3,800/12)

One or two injuries in the first half and several VAR calls, and one goal. Second half - 9 subs, 3 goals an injury, timewasting (Kelly), VAR calls and excessive Celtic goal celebrations.

Thanks again Jay for all your answers. I agree about the effect of the move away from a dedicated website. Also agree that Members should be given an "Idiot's Guide" to monthly income, effect on club budget etc. Take a deserved break now mate. You've done more than enough.

A huge game for us and a must win. As this is only Sunday we've time to bring in a sports psychologist to help the management and players before the game. They're bottom of the league for a reason and 10 points behind us. So, lets feed the players raw steak beforehand and tell them to go get wired in. A positive attitude required please. There's no way we'll prevent Livi from scoring so its 3-1 to the Well.

I don't doubt you're right. However, is Kibble not a charity?

I can't comment on the commentary, but it really was the Willie Collum show today. He gave us nothing except cards. We remarked today that its the first time ever that we've seen a referee pull up a player at a throw in for not taking it far enough forward. I kid not. The Celtic player duly obliged by taking about 3 steps forwrd to take the throw in. You couldn't make it up. Mr Inconsistency.

Quite right to challenge me on that; a lazy post. I'll explain. As MJC said earlier, we did look good early on; I'd say for the first 30 minutes or so. We broke well on the counter and by half time could have been 2-0 up and deservedly so. However in the latter part of the first half and for the entire second half we sat back and camped in and around our own box. There were several reasons for that: Celtic's quality, our tactics, and lack of confidence/self belief. From the 60th minute onwards tiredeness and changes, both enforced and voluntary. Our midfield looked not too bad in flashes on the attack in the first half ie Spittal's well worked goal. However from start to finish we were poor defensively. Despite fielding what looked like a 5-3-1-1 formation, our defence was all over the place from start to finish. Celtic found space and time in and around our box. This wasn't a one off: Ross County did the same and we've seen this week after week. We were exposed down the flanks. Daizen Maeda in particular was left to his own devices all game for example. It was so depressing at times I really thought that Graham Alexander had returned to the dugout. When under the cosh we simply refused to come out from our shell. Defensively our midfield was anonymous, and that was a large part of our problems.

Kelly for me. He did what was asked of him.

Try contacting Sally Hall. The answer to those 2 questions might go a long way to deciding what investment route to go down.

I think it depends on how you define "Can compete". Does it mean: A remain in the Premiership..just B drop to Championship with an occasional foray to the Premiership C settle in the Championship like Morton or Ayr.

Yes, from kick off. In the players' heads they were beaten at 1200 today. We were far too submissive and gave Celtic far too much respect from start to finish. Our attitude has to change for Wednesday. Not disappointed with losing late goals as it was obvious from the 60 minute mark what was going to happen. Fortunately Celtic were poor (by their standards) and they struggled to score 3. Big problem was our powder puff midfield, which was far too lightweight. Hopefully Paton's crutches are only precautionary, but I'm not holding my breath. His industry and energy was sorely missed today.

Good point, with which I fully agree Denny. I want to help every single good local cause but at this time we need to help ourselves first and foremost. I hope that doesn't sound selfish and self centred. I know it's chickfeed in the great scheme of things, but what about another bucket collection at the next home game...if there are enough volunteers. Strike while the iron is hot.

That issue badly needs addressed and the now standard monthly subscription approach needs communicated to all. That was the boat I was in paying in the odd top up but I'm now changing that.

Thanks Jay. You've struck a fair balance. I can now see the importance of supporting the Society in the coming months irrespective of the eventual outcome

Good post Jay. Well done. I agree with 95% of it but am unclear about the other 5%. From what I've taken from the AGM, and I wasn't there admittedly, we have enough cash to last us for some time. However, the SPFL requires an 18 month guarantee in October, that we'll have enough in the coffers to last for a further 18 months (until March 2026) if we have another bad year. Currently, we couldn't give them that guarantee ie roughly £1.5m annually to cover that bad year. To be clear there's no imminent threat of adminstration whatsoever. Is my understanding correct, albeit the £1.5m figure might be inaccurate?

I hope they score their goal early. That way it gives us plenty of time to score one more than them. We're not keeping a clean sheet. Get in their faces and show them no respect. Feed the Bair.

Some good points made by Antiochas III and Handsome John on P & B. These need to be more widely shared. The current MFC shareholder split is roughly 71% Society and 29% miscellaneous small shareholders. If a new investor were to arrive on the scene and buy newly issued shares to attain a 51% holding then the other shareholders' holding's would be diluted. In short, the Society would hold considerably less than 49% of the shares.

Funnily enough, I was thinking exactly the same thing. If that's what the membersip wants then it will have to contribute more and quickly. We need to realise, that if there are no other aspects to a Society proposal other than increasing member income (and I'm confident there will be), then we're looking at roughly tripling average subscription levels i.e. from £5 monthly to £15 monthly or from £10 monthly to £30 monthly.

Yes, I'd be a bit concerned too. St Johnstone and St Mirren were in the right place at the right time. In St Mirren's case they sold old Love Street at the very height of the Retail boom when we all worshipped the big supermarkets. There was money in them thar stadia. In St Johnstone's case, they sold Muirton to a supermarket too, Asda on Dunkeld Road. A benefactor, farmer McDiarmid gifted them the ground for free to build a new stadium with plenty of surrounding land on the edge of town. In the Geoff Brown era they were rightly lauded as being a well run club and their war chest from the sale of Muirton, allowed them to push the boat out a bit on the playing side. Times change though and Geoff Brown and his family wanted out. The multi million war chest has now diminshed. Timing is critical in these matters, of course and after years of opposition, an expanding and wealthy Perth is gobbling up more land. The once sacrosanct land to the west of the A9 is being opened up to developers. For those of you who know Perth you'll be aware of the development at the old Auction Market site, and the new housing there. Bertha Park too, to the north west of the infamous Inveralmond roundabout is zoned for housing. So its quite conceivable that St Johnstone could flog McDiarmid Park to a housing developer (its within the existing settlement envelope and to the east of the A9 after all) and make a killing out of it. unlike Fir Park, there are no underground workings. Then build a new stadium on greenfield land to the west of the A9. Unlike the Motherwell conurbation, and it is a conurabtion, Perth is a wealthy wee city with a large rural hinterland and no ugly sisters nearby. That said they do attract smaller crowds than us and the population is smaller, but growing. In short, their situation is not quite the same as ours. They have more to gain, but more to lose.

I agree with most this. Despite owning the club, the Society seems to have taken a passive back seat role. It should have been more proactive. Derek Weir and Jim McMahon and perhaps others a year or two ago seem to be have been ploughing lone furrows. Credit to them for their service though. The Society ought to have been a bit quicker off the mark to draft up a proposal in principle. More joined up thinking required, as you say. On another tack, I'd like to hear a bit more about the other 3 or 4 external proposals which are not as far advanced as the 2 main ones.

Good post Denny. As to your first point, I assume that the net figure takes into account staff and admin costs. Beyond that, I'm not clear. Does it take into account monies already paid to the club or to other beneficiaries? I'm supportive of a Society proposal to raise say £750k annually, but like you I'm not sure how they'd go about doing that. Early days of course and we have no details on which to base decisions.