Kmcalpin
-
Posts
9,923 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
62
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Kmcalpin
-
-
14 minutes ago, Stuwell2 said:
It appears to me that they priorities wages for players over making the park up to standard and as such should be punished either financially, point reduction or both.
This. Falkirk all over again.
-
This is down to the SPFL and Dundee. We are the innocent party here. Its not down to incompetence. We're simply pawns in a "bigger game". With the final pre split games fast approaching the SPFL could easily have scheduled Dundee's outstanding game against Sevco for last midweek. That would have left next midweek free for contingencies. What's the problem with that you might reasonably ask? It all seems very logical. However Sevco have a game on Sunday against guess who? Celtic no less. Therefore the SPFL had to give them a free midweek. Preferential treatment?
As for Dundee, as Falkirk did years ago, they prioritised playing budget over pitch renovation.
Why should we suffer?
Nb. Thousands of complaints about sectarian hatred at Sunday's OF game, under the Hate Crime Act, but no action taken by Police Scotland.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, 0Neils40yarder said:
It's been a long time since we've had any real pitch concerns, we invested heavily and still put a substantial chunk into the pitch...Dundees pitch is an absolute disaster and its absolutely their fault
100%. This has been going on for years at Dens Park and nothing has been done about it. When we had pitch problems the SPFL and media were all over us. Thats not been the case with Dundee.
I simply cannot see the point of the pitch inpsection earlier in the week, except for PR purposes. The proposal to play the game on Monday at Airdrie behind closed doors is simply absurd and I'm pleased that our club appears to be opposing this. Football is a spectator sport - right? Given Dundee FC's track record and treatment of their own fans over season prices this week I simply don't trust them to come up with a sensible and fair solution.
-
14 minutes ago, Ballso said:
The five on the executive board were the current three (McMahon, Dickie and Feeley). Other two were CEO (burrows then Weir) and Andrew Wilson, who have now stepped away.
i’m pretty sure the 5 Jay references was at the time of his posting.
I think that will be right, now that you explain it.
Back to the original point made by several of us. Given that the Society "reps" on the Executive Board outnumber other Directors ie Jim McMahon, I would hope that the Society is taking an active part in the negotiations with external partners irrespective of how it is is dressed up. If not, it would appear that Jim McMahon is ploughing a lone furrow. Of course, the Society should be working up its own proposal in parallel. I hope in Mr MCGarry's words, that the tail isn't wagging our dog.
-
7 minutes ago, steelboy said:
As far as I can tell the club legally has three directors.
So there are two people on the Executive Board who aren't directors.
Just checked the annual accounts for year ended May 2023. There were four, but as we know, Andrew Wilson resigned. Maybe Graham Keyes, the company secretary is one?
Graham McGarry, writing in the Herald, says that the current situation with the Society and the Executive Board is akin to the tail wagging the dog.
-
If we do indeed have 5 Directors on the Executive Board, who are the other two? It's a simple question and in no way breaching confidentialities. I'm aware that Andrew Wilson resigned a wee while ago.
-
30 minutes ago, steelboy said:
It's all worth bearing in mind that the Well Society doesn't have majority control of the executive board.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it did. There are 3 directors, two of which come from the Society. The exception is Jim McMahon. I believe there are plans afoot to increase the size of the Board
-
The same could be said for many aspects of life such as juries and elections but we do live in a democratic society and thank goodness for that. We're a Jock Tamson"s bairns as they say. Everyone is entitled to a say.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, MelvinBragg said:
I think there may be a distinction there. The Society as an organisation aren't involved in negotiations. But as members of the board of directors, the society reps on the board may well be involved in negotiations or at least privy to information...
Yes, may be a play on words Greg. An ambiguously worded statement. To go back to basics, the club currently has 3 directors, two of whom represent the majority shareholder i.e. the Society. The third being Jim McMahon.
I can't think of any privately owned club and situation where the majority shareholder is not involved in major investment negotiations. Surely Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely are acting as a 2 way conduit and not in a vacuum? Surely they are putting forward a Society view and acting in its interest in negotiations and feeding back information to the Society Board? I'd hate to think that they were taking an active part in negotiations, knowing some aspect(s) of the proposal might not be acceptable to the Society, but could not voice those concerns because they were not "acting in the Society's interest" so to speak. If not, in whose interest are they acting (the Club's ?????).
I have no problem with the amount of information being released. Lilke Mintymac, I think a simple update is sufficient and regular communications every 4/6/8 weeks or whatever are fine. I'm not in favour of frequent and regular public sector style announcements simply saying nothing has happened or theres no change. Report by exception. I'm thinking of the old Monty Python airfield sketch here!
-
27 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
They are not involved in negotiations. They've just said this. Surely the fact that members will be able to accept or reject should be enough.
Well, as the majority shareholder, and to all intents and purposes the owner it should be. It would appear that the Club board is two tier, with Society reps being junior partners. As a Society member, I sincerely hope that our representatives, are actively involved in any negotiations with potential investors.
-
58 minutes ago, steelboy said:
An utterly ridiculous statement from the Society. Nothing to do with them apparently, they are only the majority shareholder.
McMahon and Dickie leading Feely around by the nose.
Whilst I don't agree with your tone, I do agree 100% with your point. This very point is also being made on P & B. I get that the Society is not the club, but it is the major shareholder and as such the owner. Surely the Society is involved in the negotiations. It must know the details. If it doesn't then serious questions need to be asked. That's not say of course that details should be divulged to members at this stage of course.
-
1 hour ago, dennyc said:
I think I'll patiently wait until details of the proposed investment are officially released rather than listen to conspiracy fantasists with an axe to grind. Then I'll make up my own mind as to whether any proposal gets my support.
My view too. However, I do hope and trust that, if and when any external investment proposal is put to the Society membership, then full details will be made available. Members can only make an informed decision if they have all the facts.
-
Should the game be postponed, as seems likely, then the re-arranged game will need to take place the midweek following the Hibs game, as Dundee have a midweek game next week.
-
Any progress updates on the discussion with external parties or with the Society proposals?
-
Given the state of Dundee's pitch and this week's weather forecast, there must be doubts over the game going ahead.
-
9 hours ago, weeyin said:
I also hate the playoffs for a similar reason. There is no way a team that finishes fourth should get a sudden death chance for promotion over the team that finished second after a full season. After Dundee Utd and Raith Rovers have opened a huge gap and been slugging it out every week, can you imagine if it was Dunfermline - 17 points behind - who got the shot at the playoff? Would be a travesty.
100% agree. There is little or no sporting integrity in the current system. Did Partick Thistle not beat Peterhead in the 2006 playoffs on penalties? Both clubs finished 13 points behind the runners up, Morton. A complete farce.
I'm all for discretionary play offs though. You could set a points difference margin, for example, teams finishing on the same points, or within say 2 points of each other. Final league placings in such tight situations could easily be down to refereeing errors. If teams finished more than 2 points apart then there are no playoffs.
-
1 minute ago, wellsince75 said:
Was thinking likes of Callan Elliot, Nicholson, Moses should all get some game time. Hopefully Adam Montgomery recovers and gets a few games.
Young Ross , Ferrie + Wells are the younger ones who've been in and around the squad.I'd completley forgotten about Callan Elliott. Agree that Nicholson should be given some more game time.
-
Of late, things have been a little argumentative and acrimonious at times on on here. So lets have some harmless fun.
Given BobbyBingo's thought provoking post on the Dundee match day thread, I thought I'd try to predict the outcome of the 7 remaining games. It comes with a significant health warning though. Some big assumptions: the bottom 6 remains as is; our post split fixture list pans out as we would predict; and my predictions are inherently biased by being a slight pessimist. Here goes:
Dundee (A) 0 pts
Hibs (H) 1 pt
Ross County (A) 0 pts
Livingston (H) 3 pts
Aberdeen (A) 0 pts
St Johnstone (H) 1 pt
Hibs (A) 0 pts
So, thats one win and 2 draws and we finish of 38 points in 9th position, behind Hibs and Aberdeen. The one factor suppressing any optimism I might have is that we are virtually certain to concede at least one goal in every game. Post split results are notoriously difficult to predict and we could realistically finish with anywhere between 37 and 40 points. I think Ross County will finish on about 35 points and St Johnstone will also end on about 35 points. Goal difference will be crucial and the scrap for 11th spot could be very very tight.
-
1
-
-
Luca Ross would seem to be top of the Academy list. After him - Ewan Wilson?
-
11 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:
Same throughout a league that's as bereft of real quality as any I can remember, and odds are the standard of ability and entertainment will keep dropping.
It will until the English lower leagues collapse financially. They're running up huge unsustainable debts.
I have always modest expectations of entertainment and whilst I didn't like yesterday's level of performance, I don't get unduly concerned about it.
-
11 minutes ago, wellsince75 said:
Defence has been an issue this season - I honestly feel the midfield is our weak link for a few years.
Yes, we need a bit of a midfield destroyer to protect the defence. Someone similar to Davor, but with a bit more physical presence.
-
If, as Wee Dougie suggests on another thread, Bevis Mugabi will leave at the end of the season then the central defence will require major surgery. Rightly so in my view. Its been our achilles heel this season and cost us a shedload of points. So:
Mugabi - leaves
Lamie - off to Dundee
Casey - one more year
McGinn?
Blaney - one more year but maybe out of favour?
Butcher - time is up.
In my view we need a dominant centre half and a leader.
-
1
-
-
I have one plea - keep it simple Ketts and don't overthink tactics!!
-
2
-
1
-
-
I thought the referee Matthew McDermid had a reasonable game yesterday but I was curious about his treatment of Hemming. He had a long word with him fairly early on in the game about blatant timewasting. Fair enough. However he then spoke to him again, but despite that Hemming simply refused to desist. Why not speak to him once and then bring out the yellow card. That would stamp out this practice.
Any views on Vale's yellow card for diving? Not many refs issue them these days, despite it being a common malpractice.
Dundee v Motherwell 6/4/2024
in Club Chat
Posted
Game is on but is the pitch playable?