CaleyD

Just a note to remind people that this forum is not an official club communication point, and whilst I don't doubt that there's people who will pass information on when they see it, you should not be relying on such and it's safer if you contact the club directly with any questions, requests or information.

Just phone the stadium and they'll sort you out.

I've deliberately not made comment about George Fraser and what his thoughts may or may not be.....we don't know enough about his (the club/boards) thoughts on the matter, what they like/don't like about the proposals etc to be making any judgement on how well we may or may not think they are representing the interests of ICT and Scottish Football....which is why I asked both the club and the supporters trust to consider an open meeting between club and fans (neither club or trust seemed to see the point in such a meeting). I also don't lay blame for the situation at the feet of the current crop of Chairman/Boards either. Most of them have inherited the situation Scottish Football now finds itself in and any decision to bring about the required changes (in football as a whole, not just on league structure) would be a brave/bold one which, for many, would go against their natural instincts as businessmen....many of whom also have large sums of money invested. Not easy to ask them to give up the power/control they have shelled out for....and easily argued "why should they?" Fans don't want the proposed changes, managers and players don't want the proposed changes and some Chairmen are having to be almost bribed/blackmailed into accepting it. What makes the 10 or 12 guys who are pushing through this proposal think they know better than everyone else? Those few Chairmen who are against it have a choice....they succomb to the pressure of the other chairmen and turn their back on the thoughts/wishes and opinions of employees and customers/fans, or they do what they should be there to do and represent the views of the club and tough luck if that upsets a few people. As I said before, this is a major example of business and sport colliding, and it only serves to emphasise everything that is wrong with the running of the game.

I don't buy into the claims that we (the fans) should just roll over because "it'll make no real difference". Where we are now is, IMO, largely a result of events that happened 20 to 25 years ago when fans sold out to the private business model on the promise that it would bring their clubs more money, better players and larger degrees of success. What we've actually seen is the business side of football stumble from one disaster to another with it's overspending, debt and what's fast becoming annual cases of administration...or worse, total club oblivion. Progress on the playing side has, for the large part, been non existent and it could be argued that we've actually gone backwards on the international stage. The same can be said of the situation where we sold our soul to the TV companies. They promised to bring us great riches....we all bought in to it....and then we fell flat on our arse when we screwed it all up and the TV companies dropped us. We're now at the point where, once again, business and sport collide. Unsurprisingly, as the game is now run by businessmen then all the suggestions for change concentrate on bringing in more money and the impact on the product on the pitch seems only to appear as an occasional side note, and even then it's spookily reminiscent of the promises we were given before about them bringing in more money and that somehow equating directly to a better product on the pitch. When are we going to learn? When are we going to take back our game?

Does it really matter who is to blame? What's more important is that it is stopped and looked at properly and in full consultation with everyone, including fans, before they risk making what could be one of the biggest mistakes since allowing clubs to become private businesses.

"If that's progress we must be living in Wonderland, with Alice as the chief executive at Hampden."

I notice that no official statement was given following todays meeting and that Doncaster et al just disappeared straight into a board meeting and avoiding the press. Only statement being published at the moment is from Stewart 'Flip Flop' Milne has changed his position yet again by saying that he would be "disappointed" if the 10-12 league structure did not go ahead.

If that's the case, then why is it that clubs have the right of appeal to the SFA for any business conducted by the SFL or SPL that they disagree or are unhappy with..and accordingly why the SFA have the power to over rule the SFL/SPL, can instruct them to revisit decisions and can also increase any sanctions handed out. The SFL/SPL are a bit like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly...they have certain authority and power, but ultimately they are answerable to Westminster who decide just how much authority and power they are allowed and who can still pull the carpet from under them any time they liked if they were really screwing things up.

As I understand it, the SFL and SPL both run under license to the SFA and if the SFA don't like how they are running the game or think they are bringing the game into disrepute then they have the power to take action by imposing sanctions or, ultimately, revoking their license. Yes, the SPL could continue without that affiliation, but it's teams would no longer be able to qualify for/play in things like domestic or European cups etc.

Because Odi has about as much tackling ability and strength on the ball as a wet sponge....Sutherland offered more of a physical presence in a game that had the potential to become a bit of a clogfest.

It's become blatantly obvious to me that the "SPL Restructuring" plan is/was actually intended more as a SFL takeover plan. For the top 20 or 22 teams the promise has been one of more money/opportunity, for the rest it's been asked that they make the sacrifice "for the good of the game". In truth what's really being proposed is that the SPL want control over all the money coming in to the league setup and the power to control it's distribution. The top teams will get a better %*, and this will be funded, in part, by distributing less to the lover level teams. (*reluctant to say more moeny as it's entirely possible the proposals could damage the game to the extent that incomes would decrease as a result). I still find it amazing that the SFA continue to remain so silent during all of this. It's not the SPL's place to be redesigning the game in Scotland, it's the SFA's. In fact, allowing Doncaster and his cronies to continue doing what they are doing is only resulting in further damage to the sport and it's reputation and the SFA need to step in and put a stop to it now before something happens that does some real harm.

Nah he was trying to make himself look like a twit and succeeded Yeah, told me he had been on here taking lessons from you on that one

Couldn't help but ponder whether or not that was code for "hope someone puts a match to him"

It's the points on the board that count, everything else is just one big "What If" and not worth getting worked up over. We cannot be deducted points, so it's up to those behind us (regardless of how many games in hand they might have) to do the worrying and chasing. We're already way beyond what most people expected from us this season and, IMO, have nothing to lose/fear.

We got the message below sent to the site and thought it may be of interest to some of you......

I accept that clubs can (and do) ring-fence funds coming from external sources for things like the footballing debt and giving the business a boost post administration, but I think Dundee could find themselves on a very sticky wicket when it comes to setting aside money that the business itself has produced....time will tell whether or not it is allowed, but you can be sure that if it was an individual who was facing bankruptcy then the system doesn't allow them ANY control over their spare income, certainly not in terms of picking and choosing who they pay and who they don't. It also wouldn't allow them to pay off their mortgage to the tune of 6p in the ? and remain in the property, which is what seems to be the case with the Sandeman "debt". Hadn't read the 200% piece until today and have to say I find articles like that a little unfortunate. As you say, some valid points raised by the author, but I think he ties himself up a little and loses the point/impact of the article by allowing it to become long winded...which inevitably leaves it open to some inaccuracies and gives people an easy excuse to dismiss everything he says as a result. It's one thing to discuss and debate these things on a forum, quite another to take a position of authority and set them out there in an article or statement. Not sure you can so easily separate the legal and moral arguments either. I know I could never support something which went against my morals, no matter how legal they are/were....and I think my many protestations in regards the actions of ICT on certain matters over the years stands as testament to that. The reverse of that being that I could probably be more accepting of an illegal action if it was done for moral reasons. It's perhaps taking it a bit far to suggest the administrators at Dundee have done anything "illegal" as everything is out there to be seen by those who need to see it, probably fairer to look at it from the point of them testing the limits and seeing how much they can get away with. Whether or not that turns out to be acceptable in the eyes of the law and legislation isn't much of a factor in my thinking, I'm more concerned that their actions are simply serving to demonstrate to others how the system can be worked and, what should be considered suicidal financial risk. isn't actually all that risky when you can just write of millions of debt and continue as normal when it all goes wrong. I'm not claiming to be any kind of saint and I can push my luck and test the limits with the best of them, but I like to think that my actions are guided by a fairly sensible moral compass and that I would draw the line at doing anything which would have any far reaching consequences for people other than myself.....but then again, people might just think I'm full of shit!!!

He convinced me to give up on football and take up rugby....well, it was more along the lines of considering me a danger to the opposition and telling me I would be more at home on a rugby field

I believe Dundee only had one home match postponed (away matches don't generate income, and actually save a club money short term on travel etc) and that game has since been played so they will have had the income from that already. Plus they've had money in from the sale of Griffiths and the TV Money from the Cup Game v Motherwell which seems to have just vanished or been magically squirrelled away somewhere (about ?250k in total). I've also read that they could come a cropper as a result of the Sandeman debt which was included for the CVA. The ?925,000 there apparently represents the clubs next 32 years rent...so it's not actually debt accrued at this moment in time. This would mean that Sandeman Properties would get 6p in the ? for a debt that doesn't yet exist and then be free to negotiate a new agreement with the club...if that agreement is set at the same rate as present they have effectively achieved a 6% profit from Dundee's administration.....probably a small price for Dundee to pay in return for a guaranteed yes vote on the CVA from one of the biggest creditors.

I'd have to go do some digging to get the source of the figures, but from memory Dundee had a low 6 figure sum of cash on hand when they went in to administration. That has totally gone and the only money they now have on hand to pay creditors is the £150k (or thereabouts) that they will get from the Supporters Association. As all debt is frozen at the time of entering administration and only day to day running costs/wages (including administrator costs) need to be met then that cash in hand has to have gone somewhere....certain day to day costs are unavoidable and if the money coming in can't meet them then the business is not viable. The only place it could have gone is player wages, an area where further cuts could have been made, but weren't. In other words, that cash in hand has been used to subsidise players the club could not afford within it's day to day budget. Spending more than you can afford to "remain competitive" is not an excuse and is exactly what got Dundee into problems in the first place. Then, to add insult to injury, the first statement that comes from the club after the announcement on the CVA is "We hope this lifts the transfer embargo"....yeah, great idea...you couldn't afford the squad you had before, you couldn't afford the squad you had during administration, so now the administrator is packing up his suitcase you want to bring in more players you can't afford. A sure sign lessons are being learned.....NOT!!! Whilst I don't think the current regime is the best I can't see any club voting for a change...even Dundee. In any other industry a business would find itself struck off from any related professional body for such a serious indiscretion (certainly would be for two in 7 years). Whilst Dundee may have claimed throughout this whole thing that the "vested interest" was used against them, I'm actually of the opinion that it is perhaps what saved them. I doubt I would be far off the mark in suggesting that every club in Scotland is one poor (financial) season or less from administration, and with so many other clubs teetering on the edge then none of them were/are going to set a precedent of expulsion or automatic relegation because they know they could easily be the next ones in the dock. They have to be seen to do something, but as I highlighted previously the 25 point deduction and transfer embargo served as no real punishment and, if anything, probably encouraged Dundee to continue spending a bit more on players during administration than they could really afford....in short, it would actually appear to have been counter productive in terms of teaching anyone a lesson or serving as a deterrent to others.

I kinda got the impression when Dundee went into Administration that they (Dundee FC) felt it was unnecessary and forced upon them by HMRC...in other words, they felt they had the debt under control. If that was the case then I wouldn't have expected to see so many of the smaller debts and it only serves as a sign that things were far more desperate than they made out. Granted, we don't know how old these debts are or how long they have been running....many could be 30 day credit agreements from suppliers, but if they are then it indicates that even with administration pending they were continuing to run up debt. Sorry, but I don't care who the administrator was or how well respected he might be, but if you are overseeing a business that is in administration then continuing to run it at a loss is not ensuring that creditors are going to get the best possible deal. What's more, I fail to see how running at a loss can be considered "ensuring viability". I think you are partially correct about how others might have reacted if you had "taken your punishment". The victim mentality that has emanated from Dens Park since day one has done the club few favours. For me, what's done most harm is that more could/should have been done by Dundee FC to ensure creditors were better treated. Doesn't matter how many players you cut from the squad or how you skirted the transfer embargo to bring in trialists...the fact is their was room for further cuts, and cuts that would not only have brought the club into break even but might have actually seen it make a few quid....money that could have gone to the people who were due more than 6p in the pound. What's more, the footballers would have been guaranteed their money at some point under the league rules in regards to paying footballing debt. Instead, Dundee FC have effectively held these players and paid them from the pot that should have been earmarked for the creditors. They got into the mess they are in by putting performance on the park ahead of business performance, learned nothing, and continued to do the same whilst in administration....instead of paying what they couldn't afford to win the league, they have been paying what they couldn't afford to avoid relegation.....that's giving the 2 fingers to the 25 point deduction as far as I am concerned. We've had this discussion before, Dundee FC were signed up to the rules as a member of the SFL/SFA and made little or no moves to change the situation prior to going into administration so don't have much room for complaint when they are held to account by it. Now that it looks like you are coming out the other side, it will be interesting to see if you continue to fight for a change to the system. If I'm honest, it's probably the fact that there's few signs that lessons were learned the first time round, and even fewer are being learned/taken on board this time round. Performance on the pitch continues to be put ahead of all else and even throughout administration this has been to the cost of others. The fact that other clubs will have witnessed it all and seen Dundee FC come out the other side with barely a scratch does little to deter them from doing the same....in fact, being able to wipe out the vast majority of your debt whilst maintaining a competitive squad and overcoming a 25 point deficit could almost be seen as encouragement for others to continue taking the risks they do with the finances.

This is the main problem, we're not allowed to stand. Does it not go back to the Taylor report and Hillsborough? I think it's like our laws on Marley's special herb where, depending on the officer who catches you (and what music their into), you will get treated differently, even though it's against the rules all the same. My mate told me this, I wouldn't know for sure though..... As I've pointed out numerous times, "you must sit" is an SPL directive, not law. You just have to go to Murrayfield for a Rugby Match or to a stadium concert to see thousands of people standing without issue and you don't see people there being harassed and huckled out of the ground by the stewards. The law states that any stadium with a capacity greater than 10,000 should be all seated and that anyone admitted to the stadium must receive a ticket for an allocated seat, it says nothing about you having to remain seated. The Taylor Report recommended all seater stadiums as a means of controlling numbers in stadiums and preventing crowd rushes/surges. It was not designed to stop people from enjoying the game. The problem is, getting into a tussle with the Stewards is not going to change anything. It's the SPL that need to alter or scrap their "You must sit" policies. Clubs are quick to hide behind the "SPL Rules, Sorry" line, but ultimately they are the ones with the power to change/scrap the SPL rules...not the stewards or police. It is the clubs that we should be putting pressure on to have things changed, not just at their own grounds but across the entire league. Boycotting games is pointless unless you first make a proper case for what you want and why you are doing it, and even then, you have to make sure you are boycotting clubs who are not in support of your proposals. It could easily be that whilst we may not have the same level of issue with our own stewards, the club itself supports the SPL rules on sitting down...whilst St Mirren could be against the SPL rules on sitting but have a match commander who applies them to the letter. I think people have a fair point about how they are treated etc, but I also find it a bit cringworthy when I see/hear how they handle themselves when they get in to a situation. Teenagers who are pissed up to the eyeballs getting into the face of Stewards and, on occasion, deliberately setting out to wind them up doesn't do anyone any favours and gives them an easy excuse to dismiss any complaint. What's more, when it's the same people who seem to be in the thick of it time and again then, rightly or wrongly, you get yourself the label of being a troublemaker and again, give them an easy excuse to dismiss any complaint. Not saying fans have to accept the situation, but they do need to be a bit smarter in how they handle things.

This is what happens when you act on blind faith

It's impossible to know what his future intentions are, but I note that the Social Club has actually been purchased by Grassa's pension fund. Aside from the fact that he's obviously been well advised on how he can save himself a shed load of tax, it also hints at the fact that there's no plans to flip the property for a quick profit as it wouldn't make sense to pay the additional costs of putting it in to the pension and any profit would also find itself tied up in the pension fund. Given annuity rates it's likely that the investment in the Social Club would produce more income by way of rent than it would from purchasing a "standard" annuity. On that basis it would make sense that the pension fund hold the property when he retires as opposed to selling it to buy a "standard" annuity. The income from the rental could also be passed on "in-perpetuity" to his family/beneficiaries, unlike a standard annuity which might give a reduced income or lump sum on death. It doesn't entirely remove the risk of the property being sold off or turned into flats or whatever, but it does push it more towards the "more hassle than it's worth" side of things. What's more, and again this is just supposition, there's every chance that as the property has been purchased by his pension fund then their will be no attached borrowing and, as a result, no need for any income from the investment at the moment....any income would go to the pension fund in any case. This means that it's entirely feasible that any rent being charged is being done at a more favourable rate than might have been the case if the club had chosen to re-mortgage the property directly themselves. It doesn't get away from the fact that the club have now disposed of their final asset, and as was the case when the Stadium was sold on, it's a "one time deal"...although I'm assuming that there's some profit for the club in the ?2000/month "donation" they are seeking from the Social Club (I believe this is less than what the Social Club have been donating in the past). Only time will tell, but with a few more facts at hand then it certainly makes more sense of the whole deal.

Having watched the game on BBC "Waste of Cash" Alba, our back line looked like the only weak area today and that was a situation we could do nothing about. Encouraging that the rest of the squad made up for that by making sure we stuck enough goals in at the other end to cancel things out. Rooney and Foran are really starting to click and I think we've found a bit of a gem in Doran, not only in his willingness (and ability) to run at defenders, but in his ability to actually deliver a decent ball from set pieces...once the guys on the receiving end get accustomed to a pacey ball instead of them floating in then I can see a few more goals coming there. St Middens penalty looked very soft, but the other two were well taken and we can have no complaint about them. Even though we shipped 3 goals I still think there's more positives than negatives to be taken from today and it has to give Butcher a bit of confidence that, with the exception of the makeshift defence, he has capable players he can call on when needed.

To be fair to the OF fans, they seem as opposed to a 10 team league as the rest of us (see here).