David

I'm far from a financial whizz, but it looks to me like this "share issue" isn't actually a share issue at all, it's basically a printed certificate costing £10, which you are free to sell on for £10 later on if you wish. No dividends, no financial rewards or incentives. Aren't those factors the very backbone on which shares are issued? Not that I'm saying there should be any financial rewards or dividends, but surely this isn't a share issue at all?

As I said before, Thistle can manage to do this, so is it really outwith our capabilities? It would likely be a decent little earner, especially from fans overseas. Think most clubs charge UK-based fans £4.99 or something for all the miscellaneous content plus delayed coverage of the full 90 minutes, and overseas fans a tenner or something for the same coverage except the games are streamed live. An overseas address and bank account are required for the live streaming service.

It's the live games and delayed coverage that's the main attraction though, isn't it? Especially for overseas fans. They don't even need to put too much into it, the new EFL iFollow package is basically one camera angle filming the whole game with no commentary or replays.

Couldn't we just copy Thistle? I assume they're not paying a fortune or using anything that would be outwith our reach?

This is something I've wondered for a while. In the past it was only Celtic and Rangers who had their own TV channel, but now we're seeing the likes of Hibs and even Thistle with a subscription channel on their websites? They offer live access to their games for overseas fans, and delayed coverage for UK based fans (entire 90 minutes are made available from midday the next day). Anyone know why we can't be doing something like this?

Avoid relegation, and try to push for top six if possible. A cup run would be nice as well.

£800,000 for Moult would be more like it.

It's definitely a step down financially, but at the end of the day he's sitting in the stands with the 50,000 fans, not playing in front of them all that much, is he?

If anything we should get more for him in January, as that's the time when clubs who are under pressure tend to blow their cash a bit, especially English clubs.

I'm not sure we can really afford a luxury player like that, as much as it's great having him when he scores one of his fantastic goals. Probably best that he moves on.

You've mentioned Moult being sold twice now, but i've heard absolutely nothing to suggest this is the case. In fact, wasn't it said at the recent Society meeting that we're in a position where we don't have to sell anyone in January? If that's the case, why would we let go of our top striker mid-season? It would make no sense unless a mental offer came in, especially considering he has something like another year and a half on his current deal, doesn't he?

Not too sure the idea of taking players on blind faith is a good way to go right enough. Had McGhee seen this lad play previously? Or did he just go with what he was told by someone outwith the club?

It seems that he's destined to go into the history books as one of those weird signings we get every now & then. A quiz question for the future no doubt.

A lot of those classic shirts are excellent, but I have to admit that I think the Motherwell one is horrible

In my opinion, I'd rather see us tighten up on our summer signings and use our own young players instead. For example, this year we signed nine players, eight permanently and one on loan I think. How many of those nine players will be first-team regulars? If all of them prove to be vital parts of the first-team then fair enough, the signings are warranted. What I'd rather we did though was instead of spending our wage budget on eight or nine half-decent players, spend it on three or four players that we really think could do a job and improve the first team quite a bit (ideally a mix of experienced heads who aren't at the end of their career, and young prospects who can be sold on), and plug the gaps left with young players from our own academy. As has been said, it's virtually impossible to judge a young player on a handful of appearances or 10 minute cameos. What needs to happen is at the end of each season McGhee sits down with Craigan and they work out between them who can be drafted up to the first-team squad. Not every youngster has to be a superstar in the making, they just have to be solid, decent additions to the squad. The kind of player who can come in and do the kind of job that a Craig Clay or a Lee Lucas can do. I know such a system isn't as easy to implement as I'm making it out to be, and most likely this is what the management team are already doing, but I'm just a bit fed up seeing us spunk cash away on players who have zero impact and disappear quietly into the night the following summer.

If it was the same DVD I had, which I bought from the club shop years ago, it doesn't have the full game. It was highlights of each round, with extended highlights of the final I think.

Fat as fuck, eh?

I think he looks as though he could be someone we could make a decent little profit on if he continues as he is with a bit of improvement that playing at SPFL level could bring. He's contracted to us until May 2018 I think.

Word is that he's highly rated by West Ham, which could mean fuck all of course. Plenty of highly rated players amount to nothing. Still, he's an interesting prospect.

All of this begs the question, why the fuck do footballers hire people like this Gino character to represent them?

If he does, he'll quickly be the forgotten man come January, and it'll also not do his reputation any favours with buying clubs. No one likes the idea of buying someone who's a complete arsehole.

The £1 million tag is probably our starting point for serious discussions, where we'd hope to end up with a deal worth around £700,000-£750,000 with maybe a sell-on clause or a promotion clause for an extra hundred thousand or something. We're doing the right thing by valuing him at that price. Truth is, if we'd come out and said "Johnson is a real talent, and we value him at.....£200,000" we'd likely have been getting hit with all the shitey offers under the sun from £50,000 to £100,000. Value him highly, then negotiate with the highest bidder.

Or, three clubs who deem him more worthy of that wage than we do.

The problem we face if the Society doesn't work has been highlighted by the Hutchinson fiasco in my opinion. The guy came in, talking about something like a five-year period only to change his mind and basically throw the plans of the Society into a bit of an uproar if we're honest. Now, I'm not saying that Les doesn't have a good reason for doing what he did (be it health, family or whatever) and I'm not saying he didn't do well for the club in his time here, but it highlights the ease with which things can go awry when you have one man holding the controls. I really don't think there's ever going to be a "perfect time" for the Society to take over the club, and we'll always find reasons to delay it if we look hard enough, but the truth is that if we, as a fanbase, don't step up over the next few months or so then the future is uncertain. I understand people who are disillusioned by the Society at the moment, and it's certainly far from perfect, but the way to sort that out isn't to cancel your involvement or your contribution, as that'll achieve nothing except making the Society weaker. Let's get it to the level we need to get it to, sort out the immediate future of the club, and then at that point we can look at making changes to the structure and those in charge if the majority aren't happy. That's my opinion anyway.

I think I was also at that meeting in May, and I'm sure that McMahon and others at the table were pretty blunt and forthcoming in their answers to any questions put to them. I don't recall any questions being deflected or sidestepped with the exception of the Les Hutchison situation, most likely for legal reasons.