David

I'll try to keep it shorter and use less big words next time.

Is that the deal I keep hearing hasn't been officially signed yet? If not, then it's not an official deal. Sky will no doubt retain the SPL as part of it's programming, but unless they've already agreed to a deal they are perfectly within their rights to renegotiate. If I was buying a car and the side of it was scraped by a bus the night before I bought it I wouldn't expect to be paying the same amount for a lesser product. It may not be fair on the owner of the car as the damage to the product wasn't his fault, but that's business.

My first post regarding the Clarkson situation was this; Obviously the benefit to us would be having someone of decent quality on our books during our European push. The benefit to the player in question would be getting gametime and putting themselves in the shop window for a move in January. They both go hand in hand. And if they do, then fair play to them, as I said a few pages back as well. It wouldn't hurt to put the word out to them that we're willing to sit down & talk if they decide they wish to lose a bit on the wages side of things for six months in order to play some European football and get some much needed gametime under their belts, possibly leading to a better move in January than they would get at the moment. The amount of clubs who would be interested in a James McFadden with six months of football under his belt is certainly greater than those who are willing to take a gamble on a guy who's been on the treatment table more often than not recently. They wouldn't be playing any European football at Hibs this season, and the chances are pretty good that they'd be competing at the wrong end of the table as well. I meant reasonable to us, not the player in question. We'd be looking to trade off something other than money. As I said, the offer of six months which includes European football and a regular run of games. If McFadden comes into our team and plays for six months without any injury worries and at even half the level he's capable of he'll not doubt be touted as a Celtic target in January, along with other English clubs. You think so? I was under no real doubt that both would sign on here again. Where would they go? Hearts? Hibs? Aberdeen? All those clubs can offer is a bit more cash. They offer fuck all on the footballing front except for uncertainty and underachievement. At the end of the day, if a player is looking for money then he's never going to hang around Fir Park for long. We offer other factors than money to players who are looking at us as a viable employer. You don't think a McFadden or Clarkson can offer us something that our current strikers can't? Seriously? It's also worth taking into account the fact that a relatively recognisable new name signing generates interest at a club. Something like that would help to get people excited again, and would maybe even put more season ticket money in the clubs bank account, not to mention the usual merchandise sales and so forth. If McFadden signed a short-term deal with us tomorrow you can bet that our club shop will need a decent supply of his lettering and numbering for shirts over the next few weeks.

Isn't it the situation that the current deal we have with Sky expires at the end of the coming season though?

And you view that as a reason for them retaining the original terms of the deal that included two old firm clubs?

It all comes down to the luck of the draw though, doesn't it? And if we could secure someone on a six month deal until January on reasonable wages then surely it's worth a risk? Even better would be getting someone in on some sort of performance-related contract until January. It could benefit the right type of player (someone with no club who's looking to get regular football and back into the shop window).

Well, provided the club haven't exaggerated about the ramifications of what happens to us without Rangers, we're fucked either way most likely. Being realistic we aren't going to see the increase in season ticket holders that we'd need to cover the loss, and it appears that finishing third and qualifying for Europe isn't worth much either (i've certainly overestimated the value of it!), so even if we repeat the kind of season we had this year it won't make much difference.

If things could end up as bad as all that then perhaps we ought to be voting yes.

I said that if the loss of Rangers is enough to potentially send us out of business then something isn't right with how we're running things. What's happened to all of the responsible financial behaviour since we went into administration? If the Rangers situation hadn't happened but we had been relegated this season then we'd be seriously close to going to the wall? What are the likes of Accies & Falkirk doing that we aren't? They've survived relegation and managed to live without Rangers money, haven't they? How is that possible when we've been consistently one of the best performers in the SPL outwith the Old Firm for years?

As I said, with the positive noises coming out of Fir Park over the past few years I'd have expected us to take a hit from the loss of Rangers (much like every other club) but to hear stories of going out of business? Especially considering the fact that we've had quite a decent run performance-wise over the past few years.

The definition of "self sufficient" is being able to provide for oneself without the help of others. I'd expect us to take a hit from it, but if the loss of Rangers financial input is potentially enough to send us out of business we are very far from being self sufficient. High horse? What the fuck are you on about? I never mentioned anything about signing players to multi year contracts.

If our club is that reliant on the Old Firm that insolvency could become an issue then maybe we deserve everything we get. I've heard for years that we're "self-sufficient". Clearly that isn't the case if we can't survive without the gruesome twosome.

It may not be the usual type of long-term business that we do, but it goes back to me saying before that we should look to bring someone in for our Champions League & Europa league games that can get the fans excited and who can maybe do something a bit special. I know Clarkson splits opinion, but he's a quality player in my opinion. Bringing him in for six months or a year would work for me. Basically, if we can have a cracking league campaign, qualify for the Champions league and still not be able to improve our squad with a quality player (or even find ourselves operating at a loss!) then we need to seriously ask ourselves why we bother trying to finish at the top end of the table.

All of those factors will play a part in what he decides to do. All I'm saying is that whilst he has no club I'd offer him what we can, with the main benefit to him being a run in a team that's playing in Europe and a chance to get himself in the shop window again. It would be up to him to decide if the money is more important than getting your career back on an even keel and looking to establish some match time. With the squad we have I'd have no real qualms about what he decided to do. If he was willing to take a dip in wages to get himself in the shop window, great. If not, then that's fine as well.

I pretty much agree with this. Why would Sky want to pay the same money for a product that isn't as attractive to a fair chunk of their viewers? It makes no business sense whatsoever.

I'd be looking at punting Murphy as soon as possible though, as he's one of our sellable assets, and I don't see him improving any further than he has at the moment. Speaking hypothetically I'd be looking to shift Murphy, and establish a strikeforce of Ojaama, Clarkson and Higdon along with McHugh all competing for the two starting positions. I'd also be looking to shift Randolph on as well, either this summer or in January.

Obviously there would be no discussion between player & club unless he knew what our financial situation is, which he undoubtedly would. Would it be worth him taking a year to reset his career, play some European football and put himself in the shop window at the expense of higher wages? That would come down to the player himself, but it would certainly do him no harm. The harsh truth is we're able to match what he's getting at present, which is fuck all. If I were running the show I'd get in touch and basically offer him what Jennings was on (if he leaves). He can take it or leave it.

What's the script with Clarky anyway? He signed a three year deal with Bristol City in June 2009, didn't he? Has it been renewed?

Have you heard something?

Not sure if it's been posted, but the Well Society guidance document has been added to the official website;

I don't see that as a possibility. The current cost of a PATG seat is already pretty high, and a raise in ticket prices would simply drive support away, making any such raise counter productive. Put simply, we'll need to just look at cutting our cloth to suit. As someone mentioned previously, the other clubs will have to do the same, so it's not as if we'll be falling behind everyone else. Also, doesn't the current TV deal have a year or so still left on it? If that is the case we have enough wriggle room to allow those with high wages to either see out their contracts or get moved on.

I'd hang back on any such talk for the moment. All of that is just tabloid chit chat. What we do know for a fact is that the club are giving the members of the Society a say in how this pans out, which is all we can really ask for at present.

That's what I was thinking. A valid UK passport is all you need for travel within the EU.

Joe (or anyone else who has the info pack), how much information is actually given? Are we talking a small booklet or a single letter going over a few points? Also, what's the general feeling on the tone of the information? Is it portraying both negative & positive points of a 'no' vote? Or is basically just highlighting what we stand to lose without actually mentioning the possible benefits?

Let's wait & see if Jenno is actually leaving first.