bobbybingo

As fans, we can. Our lot were talking pish, their lot are talking pish. That's 25% of their home game bit the dust so far. Can anyone remember how many postponements we had?

The model we have gives Society members the right to vote on the future ownership of the club. The fact that you disagree with how some will vote and believe folk are easily manipulated, clueless morons doesn't render that model flawed or meaningless. Can't help you with the name of the person who bought those shares, but you're probably looking for someone sporting a top hat and a black, twirly moustsche.

Ok. So the answer to my question is, no - the membership's vote will determine whether any vote goes through or not. Yes or no - would you, under any circumstances, be prepared to consider giving up fan ownership?

Your proof that he intends to sell investors a majority shareholding is that Society members were asked whether they would consider such a possibility or reject it out of hand - would that not be prudent when talks with any potential investors reach a certain stage, irrespective of any individual's views? And can an individual push such a deal through without the Well Society members voting in favour of it?

Ok. Can you quote the bit where anyone says anything about selling them majority shareholding, or is that just your personal take on what he meant?

When did he promote the idea of giving an American the majority shareholding?

Talking to folk about their concerns won't secure that.

From what I've read, Gent's contract appears to run till 2025. Completely agree, he's been great for us. If there's any realistic way of getting him back next season, we're surely looking at that, rather than spending money on one or two unknown quantities to replace him. He seems happy here and must realise he's well liked, which are good starting points, although a chance at Blackburn or bigger vultures swooping will obviously kill us.

You know what 'over the piece' means. Nothing's perfect. It sounds like you believe they should make an unequivocal statement on this right now. Out of interest, which side do you think they should come down on?

That seems a fair comparison to me, though your opening words, 'I see the society as....' are interesting. I think a lot of people may be asking the question, what should the Well Society board's position/function be in this situation, given it hasn't been tested till now.

Would that not be seen as suggesting how members should vote? Should the Society be taking a position on this offer?

Not excusing the defenders for their failings, but you can never underestimate the effect a shaky goalkeeper who won't come for crosses has on those around him. Stevie Woods managed to spook far better players than we currently have.

If you read what the Dundee fans are saying, their complaint is the opposite of ours - how many times they've taken the lead and failed to hold onto it. It would be great to start games strongly more often, but that's this league for you I suppose, riddled with inconsistency.

Don't suppose we'll ever know what their thinking was, but he has 6 games left to start contributing something meaningful. If he does, maybe it's been worth it. If not, I don't see how it could be painted as anything other than a complete waste of money.

Same for Stewart. If Bowie's January splurge was designed to prove who has the biggest dick, it's clearly Kilmarnock. Another mob who are gonnae have to put a new pitch in front of new players shortly.

Closed doors at Airdrie.

I completely took my eye off that possibility!

10 points (taking goal difference into account) ahead of Ross County. Surely to god that's us safe.

Sounds painful.

Email Brian Caldwell.

You don't expect a sensible, fan-based approach from the blazers, and shouldn't expect anything other than a shambolic dungheap of a pitch from a club who sacked their head groundsman months ago and failed to replace him.

Yeah, it's a tricky one. Like you say, Dundee surely won't fancy 2 games in 4 days (if the SPFL can actually order the match be played elsewhere on Sunday) and Hibs might well object to it being played after their last fixture (if it leaves Dundee knowing exactly what they need to get into the top 6). Then there's us. One thing you can pretty much guarantee - when the authorities are faced with a tricky situation, they'll come up with the most lamebrained solution imaginable.

They can bugger about with dates, but can they order a game be played at an alternative venue or behind closed doors as a result of a postponement? Those would clearly be punative measures and surely open to legal action from either or both sides.

According to Caldwell, Saturday at Dens or rescheduled for a later date. No Sunday, Monday or alternative location is acceptable.

Pretty sure they continue the game if the technology fails during a match (as opposed to the humans), assuming both sides agree. I imagine the same would apply in the event of an unfixable breakdown prior to kick-off.