superward

I posted the link on another thread - Page 4 of the news section on the WS site spells it out fairly clearly. Loan is to club, club pay the instalments back. But if there is a shortfall the WS have agreed to help out. If we missed a payment, the club didn't quite have the funds because, I assume, not in a break even position yet (or for long enough yet to get excess). Also it would seem the WS couldn't help out. Reasons are not clear for that 100% but would seem to be an injection of funds to the club of 120k by the society between Jan - Jun as well as maybe not as many WS sign ups didn't help. The latter probably prompting the recent noise from oor Les.

It's the other way around. Onus on club to pay back but if they can't the WS agreed to help out with shortfalls. Loan was to club, not WS. In an ideal situation the club would become self sufficient ASAP, pay back the loan payments as planned over 5 yrs and the WS would have a pot of cash. I think that it was explained in one of the early communications...found it...http://www.thewellsociety.co.uk/category/news/page/4/

The way I read it from he initial Les conversations/comms was: - He puts money up now. - We invest to get the right structure and team. - That may put us in a loss making position initially but within the 5 years we should be operating in profit/break even position due to the investment up front, returns that brings AND, importantly, the ongoing subs from WS. - Within the 5 years we have certain amounts to pay back and targets to hit to show him that the overall investment and setup will work. For the paymentsame if the club can't make then the WS will help of they can. So, my thoughts are we are probably not running a break even position right now and not quite hitting the targets he set. Not to say we won't long term. But it does not sound like at the moment Les would let it go the full 5 years as he want to protect this investment. Could be wrong. Seems he will be monitoring it and of we aren't hitting 2k WS numbers by end of the year the business plan may be revisited.

I would say that with Pearson out this is the ideal signing. A short term, could be extended if it works, deal.

Who/What we're you expecting ?

Going by the website we have 21 + Robinson + Grimshaw. Not too big really.

On the face of it seems a good signing. Never seen him play mind you.

Grimshaw confirmed. Well done that man who said above.

We 'nearly signed' a man u u21 last time....i will believe it when i see it.

More importantly - what are Grimshaw's Football Manager stats like for passing, positioning, strength and tackling?!

I noticed on Twitter he had been released. Just wondered if he might be the one...no more than that.

Imagine being a Killie fan this season.

Danny Swanson contracted terminated. Could he be one?

Did someone on here not say the Reid charges were all dropped? Or have I made that up. So he has just been injured and that it?

Re. Twardzik - looks more like the players actually counted as 1st teamers are being given a couple of days holiday (not including Reid). No Clarkson, Thomas, Kennedy either...all played the last U20 game.

Fair enough. Either way, I don't think there will be many (any?) players on much over £2.5k a week with us.

Where does that understanding come from? Seems very very very unlikely

I think the player needs to be out of contract before our window shuts. So if he just let's the contract run out in October it would be Jan before he could sign. I think.

Someone posted on here they overheard Flow at a game saying we couldn't match Ross County for wages. Irvine is on 2.5k according to some on Twitter. Also, he was already there on loan so that would have had a lot to do with it I am sure. Same for Woods.

We were interested in Woods before he went to County first time around. So, there might be something in it. Can't say I am hugely bothered.

EE is fine for me in the main stand.

He was rarely played in position. If he is brought back I don't want to see him on the wing again.

There was definitely 2 occasions. One Thomas and the other Johnson. They played it directly across the 6 yard box at pace and 3/4 of our players were just arriving a bit late. At the time most around us said Sutton would likely have been there...not that I really wish we had kept him! I think Fletcher by the looks of it is the 6 yard box poacher of the strikers. McDonald probably would have been there but was playing too deep to be right up with play. You could argue that the right ball maybe wasn't played as well. Maybe a bit of both.

Coulsnt agree more starsail. It's easier for folk to have 1 scapegoat and call him an imposter etc. rather than sit down and think through the various issues as a whole. Hence this thread as lasted as long.