Rev IM Jolly

I personally think you can take it as read that until such time as a new manager is appointed then there will be no news re: player transfers or contracts - aside from unusual circumstances, it is the new guy in charge who'd have responsibility for making offers to players, so until he's in, I'd assume we'll be light on such news.

Is it expected to be on the telly?

Put simply, I don't disagree with any of that. This side ways move talk is a little short sighted in my opinion. If Mark McGhee replicates his first year with us at Pittodrie, then as a club their potential is unquestionably greater than ours, I can't see what's side ways about that - they are a bigger club. No big deal really. If/when he departs then I await his succesor with interest.

Al, Personally, I like the fact you're taking the common sense approach and defending what should be the blindingly obvious to the hilt on these threads. From the recent past and as it stands, Mark McGhee has not created any "situation" which should be resolved "sooner rather than later", nor has he taken his eye off any ball, as i imagine he's on bloody holiday, as he should be! For what it's worth, if he moves to Aberdeen or Celtic and we get compensated as per his contract value then to be honest we can't have any gripes. He's not in control of the timing of any of of this and he may well not be approached for either job and he may just even stay in the job he's got afterall. If he goes, then whoever comes in has a tall order, but thats just the way the cookie crumbles to be honest, it's no ones fault. In my opinion both jobs he's been linked to are without a doubt bigger, higher profile jobs than he currently occupies. I would think one he take in a heartbeat if offered, and I don't think anyone with a brain would blame him. The other, might take a little more thought and I'd be more inclined to think it would be a more difficult choice, however it's his to make if he's given the offer after permission to discuss was granted. The paranoia with no factual basis has gotten tiresome; for me anyway.

I mind that game really well tae, I got in for nowt when taken along by the junior section at the BB's no less! Was stood at the wall at the front of the terracing, just to the left of the goal as you view it from behind where the Cooper stands now sits.

It's only the SPL who dream up madness like that!

...and indeed the article on the official site in advance of the Killie game appealing to the fans on that very subject and it was very much worded in a way which suggests the club would be more than happy to accept the place. I believe Mr. McGhee himself may also have said exactly that just a couple of weeks ago.

They're surprised because there's no rhyme nor reason for it. Why Hibs? Why not Rangers, Killie, Dundee Utd etc...

But at the same time Cambo no one knows, as the SFA don't seem to publish this information until the end of the season; so surely all anyone has to go on to gauge the standings is the usual crime count charts of yellows and reds. That's why people are scratching their heads as to why Hibs seem to have - for whatever reason - come to the fore in articles about this fair play stuff.

In which case you are basically broadly against the idea of supporter's Trusts in general then. I can understand the point you make, to an extent, however as you already point out there is relatively little influence in real tangible terms as the shareholding the trust would hold is likely to be small. In which case it allows a modest influence in terms of decision making, but it does undisputably give a guaranteed platform for the fans views to be aired, which in my opinion is the whole point.

Yes, the board member would have a voice (and ears) in board meetings, and a vote in decisions where appropriate, which would be cast solely with the fans interests in mind, one would have to assume. It's a common goal of supporter's trusts in the UK and I don't personally see what's so difficult to understand, I would have thought it a no brainer for the body to hold such an ambition.

Indeed Moe, I should qualify that that was not directed at you specifically, more a general comment that throughout this thread there has been numerous accusations levelled at Frazzle of hiding behind flannel or shying away from specific issues for instance, whilst at the same time some people have merely been taking shots at him on very general terms such as the Trust does nothing etc etc without really making any viable comment or posing any pertinent questions. I also credit Frazzle - and you yourself have obviously just highlighted it - that it is far harder to stand up and open yourself up to these debates than it is to hide behind general sniping without offering credible alternatives or indeed be prepared to stand up and make a contribution themselves. Again, I can understand and to an extent agree with your position Moe, but I think it would be reasonable to give Frazzle the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that he has taken the difficult step of mucking in and trying to change things from the inside rather than only dissent from the outside. I myself couldn't even contemplate getting involved in the running of the Trust due to lack of time, however I applaud these guys who are giving it a go, and certainly to me at least, they seem genuine enough in their intentions and aspirations.

I think it's perhaps somewhere between the two Moe. In an ideal world I personally believe it's conflict of interest which shouldn't exist, however I can also sympathise with the position that Frazzle has highlighted in that who else would take it on? As you have said yourself, it's been going for a number of years now and I don't believe there has been a credible alternative at all. Rome wasn't built in a day so to speak, the new blood on the board should be afforded time to try and change the direction of the Trust and perhaps build on the membership number's through their own new initiatives. If they achieve that then perhaps a year or more from now a real alternative for the chairmanship may exist. Until then I can't see what good it does to take pot shots at the new guys who quite frankly can't do a damn thing about that particular problem at this time.

I acknowledge the validity of your opinion Moe, in that Martin Rose's dual position is an un-workable conflict of interest, however I think Frazzle's stance that as a fellow board member it would be unfair to comment further on a public messageboard on that particular issue is entirely reasonable. The Trust is a legally formed entity with paying members and due process et al to go through, which is also the reason for minutes of meetings to be formally recorded and press releases to be issued. It is frustrating at times that communications have to be handled in such a formal manner, but it is nonetheless often a requirement.

I would have thought the purpose of a designated supporters trust seat on the board was pretty obvious. I believe there are at least a few Trust's throughout the UK who have secured such a seat at their respective clubs, and it is surely pretty much in line with the whole purpose of Supporter's Trusts in general - to provide an organised representation of the supporter's interests to their clubs; a task which would be quite plainly assisted by having an elected representative on the board of the club. Surely. I am a now lapsed member of the Trust and I watch with interest to see what changes the new guys are proposing and what actions they take, however I see no value in berating them/the Trust movement purely on the perceived reputations of the previous board.