STFU

It would seem that they have to issue a report to creditors within 8 weeks and also every 6 months. As the group of creditors seems to be pretty small with just directors, puma?, hmrc?, etc and Savage having paid all the smaller local companies then it's conceivable this has happened already and kept confidential as it should be at this stage. I get what you're saying and a 'we've no update but appreciate the continued support' would be welcome by some. However there's others who would jump on it with 'wtf are you up to, that's a bs statement' bla bla bla. Better to focus on the job at hand and get us through this than invite distraction in my view.

One of those games where it just didn't go for us. Their keeper was on good form (as was ours) and denied us a couple of times with great saves. Still parts of the game we can tidy up and work on but we'll win more than we lose playing as we are I think.

As Motherwell had travelled up on Friday and the pitch was playable that strikes me as the correct decision from the football authorities.

What about travelling teams and fans making a decision for themselves? They have access to the same weather and police reports as the SPFL. Lots of bleeting about SPFL incompetence yet so many of those same people seemingly happy to wait for them to make a decision on their behalf. Very strange behaviour.

From what I've seen talked about elsewhere the pitch was inspected at 11am and there was no indication that it wouldn't be playable come 3pm. It would seem that a problem developed with the drainage and it very quickly flooded around noon. They have never had a game called off for flooding previously.

Precisely why I find it hard to believe that a team would be sanctioned for refusing to travel when a legitimate weather/police warning was in place.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. Precisely why the home club and football authorities should only be making decisions based on stadium/pitch conditions. If the visiting team has travelled early then that decision can be left later. If a team decides not to travel because of a legitimate weather/police warning then the match should be postponed at that point in time. I find it hard to believe the travelling team would be sanctioned for doing so. There are always going to be times when conditions are marginal and again it's for fans to make a personal call on whether or not to risk it. That is their decision and they are responsible for it.

I think they'd be hard pressed to sanction a team in such circumstances. Are there any precedents?

It's not the responsibility of clubs, the SFA or the SPFL to make any call on travel conditions. It's only for them to decide if a pitch and stadium is in fit condition to host a match. If people (including the team) decide to travel despite weather warnings and police advice then that's on them and they should fully accept there's a risk matches will be called off closer to kick off than they might like. Travelling to a football match is not 'essential travel' by any definition of the term.

Free advertising boards all round come renewal time.

Is it really that surprising?

Looks likely that Bert will result in call offs this weekend including ours.

Partick Thistle are another. A couple of weeks ago they were looking for approval to sell another £500k worth of shares and the money was needed for them to remain viable. This is the second year in a row they've had to do that.

I wonder if any of the individuals named in this thread would be up for going on the Wyness Shuffle and doing a 'what might you have done different?' section?

The SPFL has many faults but holding clubs accountable for financial mismanagement is not one of them. The only ones who should feel any shame are those running up debts and then in the aftermath of a global pandemic and cost of living crisis expect others to pick up the tab.

Interesting also that they have a supporters trust rep on the club board yet many of their fans saying they had no idea that they were in immediate risk of administration.

Sounds like they have been a 'victim' of directors selling assets to themselves/connected parties and then not paying up. Sounds a little familiar.

Agree about the ref. Only decision I really want to see again is when their keeper took out Longstaff as it looked a definite penalty and I think the ref has bottled making the call. Didn't like our time wasting and we ended up with silly bookings as a result. Understand why it happens but hope it doesn't cost us with suspensions later in the season.

I'm sure there's still a few Ferguson apologists who'll try and tell us the squad was the problem and not the manager. Regardless we can't change what's come before and need to keep putting in performances like we've seen the last few games. The football is entertaining and the players have a growing belief in themselves. Not a bad performance from any of them today and hopefully Davidson's injury isn't as bad as it looked. Special mention for young Thompson who acquitted himself very well today. Left everything he had to give on the pitch. Also to Billy "who says I can't last 90 minutes" Mckay who was unfortunate not to be on the scoresheet today.

If you could change one event in the clubs history what would it be? It can be anything. E.g. signing or selling/releasing a player, managerial appointment, chairman/director/ceo appointment, outcome of a match etc. The only caveat is that everything after the event is not guaranteed to happen. E.g. if Butcher had stayed we wouldn't necessarily have won the Scottish Cup but we may also not have appointed Gardiner as ceo! Would be interesting to see the reasoning for the change and how you think things would be different today.

I have said before that I thought the council had made the right decision but the process by which they had arrived at it was an utter shambles. In saying that I don't think this decision leaves the club in a great position. Morrison would have been more inclined to forgive what he claims he's owed by the club had he made his money back from the battery storage and that's not going to happen now. That will make it harder for the administrators to do a deal with any potential investors if Morrison wants paid or equity in return.

It's credit to Kellacher that the mindset and approach has changed so immediately. We're seeing it in how the team play and in press conferences and interviews that we've moved from an attitude of 'must not lose' to a more positive 'we can win'. Things aren't perfect but that's being acknowledged with a view to working on improvements instead of throwing out tired excuses and complaints and playing victim. Survival in league 1 is still a monumental challenge and whether we manage it or not there feels like there is a true sense of belief about the club again that's been missing for a long time. We play the league leaders again next week and I'm looking forward to it.

Provided all the assets are not sold off and transferred to another company then that's good news and should protect the supporters trust shareholding. I do worry about the sell off/transfer option though as it's the only realistic way for a new investor to get a controlling shareholding and there would be no requirement for them to honour the supporters trust shareholding. It could also mean that Ross Morrison could get a sizeable percentage of the shareholding in the new company as a settlement.

My understanding of that is shareholders liability extends to the value of any shares they own which would mean that administrators could sell them to meet the club liabilities? This would seem unlikely as an insolvent company is essentially worthless but if a buyer is looking for a majority shareholding and there's insufficient unsold shares available it could be an option they utilise? Under such circumstances I'd think they are more likely to go down the road of transferring/selling any assets to a new company and totally wiping the shareholding situation clean? Of course this would need agreement from cgf to transfer the lease and from the league to transfer the membership. Maybe this is why Savage was keen for the council to come to the table.