STFU

6 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Let's be clear here.  This is about supporters supporting the Club.  It is not about supporting the people who are currently running the Club.

The problem is, that's exactly what supporters are being asked to do.

We are where we are due to years of financial mismanagement and we're being asked to back that by giving those responsible even more money.

This is not a binary situation where the Supporters Trust do what they are doing or do nothing.  There are other options for action.

It's interesting that the decision makers at the club are the ones who've got us where we are, yet it's the fans who are now expected to show themselves worthy of being trusted and having a say.

And then to top it all off we're also expected to pay for the privilege.

Are fans really that gullible?

If shareholding is so important to having a voice, then why do most of the current board members have little or no shares?

Was talking about this with a couple of friends last night and when we had a look it seems that the current chairman doesn't even hold any shares.  Is that right?

12 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The company currently has £4.9 million issued shares so it depends what percentage of that would be needed for it to be thought fit for a supporters’ director to be appointed. On that basis, I think the 10% Supporters’ Trust entitlement would put it in third place behind the approx 20% if you aggregate the holdings of the Muirfield Mills group and the 14.9% of the Community Trust, with the likes of Alan Savage/Orion and the Sutherland interest probably next in line along with the McGilvrays. However I don’t think there’s a specified number of shares. As far as I know, board composition is matter force current board and shareholders, in accordance with whatever it says on the Articles of Association.

I'd hope the Supporters Trust have done the calculations and think it would be good to manage fan expectations by knowing what the target is.

E.g are we talking about £50,000, £500,000 or more?  If fans take up the suggestion above of signing their shares over to the Supporters Trust, is that as good as a cash contribution?

I also don't fully understand how an organisation that sits so high on the 'power chart' you lay out can't get board representation when you have people with zero, or almost zero, shareholding or voting right on there.  What are we missing?

I'm far from convinced this initiative will succeed in bringing about the change that's required and would have preferred to see it announced alongside calls for more direct action.

E.g. Fans to boycott spending with the club and attending matches until the CEO and Chairman were removed.  Encourage them to donate the money to a 'fighting fund' instead with a commitment to using said money to purchase shares when they were gone and a fans rep has been appointed to the board.

That kind of action I would fully support with a cash contribution because it has a chance of effecting change.

As is, this seems a bit of a toothless endeavour whereby fans are being asked to raise money to be given indirectly to the club or to pay for things, with no incentive for them to change how it operates.

At this stage of the season and in the position we find ourselves then results are way more important than performance.

The team got the job done today and we now need the same again next week.

What's the maths, and how much needs to be raised to achieve to goal?

24 minutes ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

Of course the buck has to be accepted by Dunc and Bollan as with any team. I really don't think that ANY other manager would have done any better. And what a load of ***** that Dunc was responsible for stalwarts leaving. If he keeps us up then it will be miracle in itself. And in regard to my "dogs of war" comment it refers to the term given to the Everton team that remarkably escaped relegation. I am simply saying that it is purely about pride, application and determination and Dunc has that in abundance. His summing ups appear more about detracting any blame from the players and trying to keep momentum and confidence going 

He's definitely keeping the momentum going it's just unfortunate that our momentum is in the wrong direction.

Regardless of the reason for players leaving Ferguson is responsible for the replacements and signing predominantly defenders when our biggest issue is at the other end of the park is on him.

The only person he's trying to protect with his delusional post match comments is himself.

Can't say I've seen anything resembling passion and the only fight has been when he's turned in fans at the end of games.

I was one of those saying he should be given time but his press/interviews and actions are showing him to have a scarily similar delusional personality to our CEO.

11 minutes ago, Duke of Inverness said:

Maybe he's still concussed from 'that' headbutt in 1994!!

I'm hoping I wake up in the shower to discover it's all been a bad dream.

2 minutes ago, CaleyCiuin said:

If we scrape into 8th place or survive the relegation playoffs, do we think DF and GB will still be here next season ?

Yes.  They were tasked with keeping us in the Championship and those who appointed him will be claiming it as job well done and a successful season.

6 hours ago, old caley girl said:

We were down other end so hard to tell. Ref seemed right on it and flashed yellow quickly. Doubt we will win without good evidence tbh 

Given the state of our match videos these days I wouldn't be holding my breath on that.

6 hours ago, old caley girl said:

I don't think he has a clue re where we are this season.

I'm starting to think he doesn't know where he is, or what season it is.

When Christie resigned in 2007 he said it was due to pressure of the job and the impact it was having on him and his family.  He also made it clear last year when he took the job alongside Robbo on an interim basis that he was not interested in it permanently.

The club is an absolute shitshow at the moment, and regardless of how this season ends, there's going to be a lot of pressure on the club and team next season.  Either to bounce back from League 1, or to be challenging in the Championship.  That's going to be beyond anything he experienced in 2007 and the last thing we want is a manager walking away if we get off to a slow start because they can't hack the pressure.

As for him finishing out this season.  Why would he put himself in that position?  In fact, why would anyone put themselves in that position?  Even if we could afford to get rid of Ferguson.

Like it or not we are stuck with Ferguson and we have to hope he walks or there's a relegation clause that allows us to dump him at the end of the season should the worst happen.

If we are relegated then who's managing the team will be the least of our worries.  Even if we avoid relegation there's every chance it will still be the least of our worries.

"As I've said to you before..." this guy is absolutely feckin delusional, isn't he.

Everyone elses fault, no accountability, world's against us.  No wonder Gardiner liked him so much and was keen to appoint him.

Some players just can't seem to catch a break, but it does appear that some are risked with returning sooner after injury than others.

21 hours ago, Yngwie said:

That doesn’t sound right.

True, the £835k of losses from the last set of filed accounts might suggest spending has actually increased.

On 3/25/2024 at 9:07 AM, Charles Bannerman said:

I agree with a certain amount of what you say but there are other criticisms that were also made of the previous board and also of boards before that, and indeed are made by football fans throughout the game. The basic truth is that there is no obligation on anyone to put themselves in the firing line and spend their personal funds running a fundamentally non-viable business using a fundamentally non-viable business model - which is common throughout the game. It’s been clear from the start that there isn’t enough demand, neither actual nor (probably) potential, for a product involving around 30 full time front line employees with several more in backup roles, to make that business anything other than regularly loss making. Over time, something in the ballpark of £10 million of other people’s money has gone into keeping this business going and it always runs into the same problem because of its fundamentally loss making nature. Far too often in football there seems to be this expectation that it’s someone else’s responsibility to fund this loss making process and failure then leads to calls for the removal of those who have used their own money to try and their replacement by others prepared to expose themselves to the same routine.

You are right that nobody should be under any obligation to put money into a football club and that various people have put in substantial sums over the years.  That Is their choice and until recently those 'investments' have either been written off or converted to shares (to my knowledge).

This is the first time (again to my knowledge) that a Director has put a charge in place to try and ensure they get their money back.  Coincidence that this charge only appeared when the battery scheme looked like it may not happen?

If nobody is willing to put money in to support overspend then we should not be spending more than we make through football operations.

The fact we are failing so miserably in the Championship while maintaining our previous Premiership level of spending is mind boggling and not a sign that those running the club or the team know what they are doing.  Damn right they should face criticism.

Our financial position and the future of the club is a situation of the boards making.  Living beyond our means to an extent that they are no longer willing to fund and now trying to hold the city to ransom over planning that will allow them to get that money back.

Crying over fans not turning up in sufficient numbers when they're serving up a **** poor product at an ever increasing price.

All sense of community and belonging stripped from the club, and any who dare protest being shown the door.

If that's the cost of allowing the club to be run the way it is by those currently on the board, I don't want them there.

It might not be so sad if we were seeing even a glimpse of success, but if people such as yourself are happy for the club's soul to be sold in return for a pitiful existence, then have at it.  The longer it continues, the fewer who'll be around to pick up the pieces when needed.

Unsecured loans, so they can shout all they want for the money, if we don't have it they can't get it.

High chance we're facing administration anyway, so they'd get nothing back then either.

I'd rather cut the cancer and take a chance on recovery than continue to let it slowly kill us.

Apparently they got caught whilst trying to put the tickets back.

11 minutes ago, dougal said:

Ok fair enough I’m quite happy to be corrected. 
So if we won the appeal how much of the reported 3.4 million we receive installing the battteries goes to pay off debt?

Dougal

Based on profitability from our CEO and Chairman's previous ventures, we'll probably add a million to the debt.

There is no cost for the appeal and if the case is as robust as the club claim, then they won't need much, if any, additional professional input.

Instigating legal action against the council is a whole different matter.

And it's an event being run by our CEO.

Scot Gardiner getting upset at fans lobbying him verbally during a game?  Surely not?

They don't need a legal case for appeal, it is their right to do.  Just as it was the Highland Council's right to call the decision in to full committee.

The 'side case' of taking legal action for corruption (which seems to be the jist of Gardiner's allegations) may actually delay any appeal if Scottish Government don't want to get involved while that's going on.