The Spider

You are quite correct in the rest of your summation, but hurling that level of abuse at fellow supporters just because you don't agree with their view of a game or our coach is quite shameful, or "pretty shit" as Mick would label it. God help us if this is indicative of tolerance for opposite views as we prepare for further discussion about our future. In the immediate aftermath of a disappointing match where our shape was wrong throughout and it took hoofball to rescue a point, it's not surprising some people took the opportunity to vent their frustration, OTT as it was. A few months back you were the one expressing the need for unity going forward - not your finest hour Winston.

Take your point and especially hoping Foy can fully recover from his injuries as he looked a good prospect. I haven't seen Griffiths and happy to accept your judgement on him, but where did i say i'd play Wharton in defence? When he played for Rovers in the last game at Hampden he played as a defensive midfielder in front of the back four and very much looked the part there. I'm not saying he'd be a first pick every week but I would have a place for him in the first team squad. I know that view isn't shared by everyone, and I appreciate he was a liability in a few games for us, but you'll note that I did qualify the circumstances I'd take him back in as if he has eradicated the silly mistakes from his game I think he'd be more than good enough for us. Certainly a player that divided opinion in his time with us, so I'd be interested to hear what Rovers' fans think of him, as maybe he's continuing to make bad mistakes, and I only have that game in January on which to base my current opinion. Be delighted if he had three howlers on Saturday to gift us the points though .

That would be some outcome..................two different players scoring own goals I mean . Oh, I see what you are getting at now, but I'd still take Wharton back without hesitation, assuming the calamitous errors are a thing of the past now?

A real shame if that's the case, but his body language in his latter subs appearances suggested something of the sort. Wonder whether he's got his head screwed on now, or whether 'Rovers have accomodated his temperament recognising his undoubted ability, or whether he's just a Darren Mitchell-esque argument away from looking for a new club.

For me East is the only one that should never have "got away", and it's a shame he didn't apply himself more (was he sulking because he wasn't in the starting line-up?) in his latter appearances, as he's more than capable of playing at a higher level. Osalador & Fotheringham will obviously try to do well against us, but I suspect East will be returning with a determination to show us what we're missing.

I agree that having tea and biscuits (your words, not mine) would be a step too far, but there's a big difference between not socialising with people and treating them with contempt which I thought you would be smart enough to work out for yourself. Let's leave it there if you don't agree.

By your own argument you suggested that we were morally superior to Cove. What i'm saying is that I'd like us to show that we are better than them by not treating them with contempt. One day we might need Cove's vote for something and it would be petty and small minded to make enemies with an emerging new league club when it won't change the past. We need friends at every level in the game, and that kind of attitude won't get us very far. Happy to debate further if you want to take this up on the main thread.

Is this really the future you are envisaging for us? Wow, you really do want to bring us down to the level of all the clubs around us, don't you?

That's why I queried Annie's (or AN's to please Mick) assertion as I'd heard they were considering a member's area, but Annie/AN is quite correct that the members/season ticket-holders/paying punters will be in much closer proximity at Lesser, and that can only be a good thing for atmosphere. Back in the 70's there was a great atmosphere for pre-season friendlies (pay at the gate - no clique's necessary!) when the likes of Bill Currie was strutting his stuff, and who can ever forget that Glasgow Cup tie v Celtic when Pearce (sic) O'Leary and Tommy Burns helped make it a match to remember. Probably one of the best atmosphere's I've experienced at a Queen's game was the recently commemorated game v Aberdeen at Firhill where, even before extra time and penalties) there was something special about the great and the good all being huddled together in such a small (relative to Hampden!) space. Hopefully we can creat something similar at the "new" stadium, although the only concern to me is how open-sided it might be, thereby allowing any crowd noise to dissipate rather than reverberate. I very much doubt that acoustics will be high on the planners' priority list, but for me it it would be baffling .

Have they said for certain that there won't be a separate members' area at Lesser (or whatever it will be called)?

Easily sorted. If the shop started selling a special QP edition of Werthers then you could rustle your toffee papers in discontent at stray passes too! Perhaps HD might want to look into this as it's another issue that should be resolved as a priority.

That's a fair point about the family bit. I know some fans who were first attracted to the club by our history, but of course their children are embedded for family reasons making their parents' original reasons completely irrelevant. On that note, I guess the younger the supporter the less they'll be concerned by any change, and of course they are the future of the club.

What the above would do, in additional to turning professional, is to remove a lot of the uniqueness of the club and bring it far more into alignment with most other clubs at our level. Some will argue that's a good thing and would open up the club to newcomers. The unknown factor however is what % of our support were attracted to it by it's special status and would feel less of a connection in future. Historically the club has evolved rather than changed, so would all these changes simply be a speeding up of the evolution process, or be taking the club in an entirely new direction altogether?

Agreed Boris and hopefully we all can now. Remember, the route we take is just as important as the destination, and the secretary's excellently worded invite was a great start.

No need TMWNN as I'm happy to confirm that the Secretary has now "intimated a response" (see, it's not just me that talks funny) from the President to me, so unless something changes before the next meeting I'll be quite content to forego the pleasure of your company.

nailed it Nathan!

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me Michael.

So why (along the same lines as someone else proposed a few pages back) don't you get enough members to form an EGM and propose reducing the % to 50%? Personally I'd have no problem with that and would support your motion, but until then rules need to be followed. That's the democratic (whether you deem it fair or otherwise) process, and I would suggest that failure to abide by the rules of the club would present a far greater risk of chaos ensuing than from people who fail to win a vote under the existing rules. A few years ago there were some disgraceful goings on at an AGM where the Committee effectively belittled new people who wanted to stand for contestable positions, but rightly or wrongly they won the day. I and many others were very upset by what transpired that evening, but we accepted the result however unfairly it appeared to us that it may have been achieved. No chaos ensued, nor should it have. Them's the rules so abide by them or try to change them, but please don't try to bypass them completely just because you're feart you won't get the outcome you're hoping for.

Because it's the nickname that was given to him/her (and not by me I might add) on this site many years ago. Is that okay or do I need to run this sort of thing by you first?

Annie, please re-read the above extract from my earlier post and compare it with your reasoned argument and see if you can spot the fatal flaw.

At the moment there appear to be three camps. Those who wish us to remain amateur in any circumstance, those who wish us to turn professional, and those like me who wish to remain amateur until it is sufficiently demonstrated by comparative business models that turning professional is the only way to survive. If as you believe it is so blatantly obvious that turning professional is the only option, why would you believe that once presented with the appropriate business models the propsed change wouldn't receive the necessary majority of members' votes? Why are you so scared of following due process if you are so confident that it's a one-sided argument? And why aren't you familiar with the phrase en masse?

Jeez Annie. Sometimes you make the simplest things unbelievably complex so I'll keep it ultra-simple for you. If it comes to a members' vote there will be two choices........turn professional or remain amateur. Until i see the detailed plan of how turning professional provides a brighter future for the club than remaining amateur, I'm in favour of the status quo.

It's rather obvious we are going to experience significant change; a new ground for one and a significant drop in income for another, but at the moment we appear to be having a primary discussion about whether we stay amateur or turn professional when embracing that change. In the context of model A v model B the status quo was simply the model for remaining amateur, and that's all I meant by meant by that phrase.

Your first sentence is entirely accurate, but your second sentence is very selective. Professionalism also creates appreciably increased expenditure and based on minumum wage, training hours and travelling to away games I'd suggest that you would be looking at wages in the region of £100k. There would be an appreciable saving on travelling expenses though, but I've no idea whether that's £20k or £50k. Nonetheless there will be a net increase in expenditure v an expenses based model, and whether the club are able to generate more than that in incoming transfer fees / compensation would determine whether or not the model actually works. Also, would the coach be given additional funds to dabble in the transfer market? If so where does that money come from? These are questions that have not been answered yet as (until recently at any rate) the fine details have yet to be discussed at Committee level. It would be madness for the club to make any decision without asking their accountants to produce a detailed cost analysis of both possibilities, and once created it would be foolish not to share them with members. You and everyone else who are convinced that professionalism is the only real choice may well be proven correct, but until I see the two business models I'm not prepared to gamble our future purely on an individual's say-so.

Let's put this in context. The current President is the first ever ex-Professional to wear the hallowed chain of office and without seeing any business model to support the claim that we would be better off going professional, based on your posts to date you are prepared to take what's being said at face value and would be happy for him to simply wave this through without any members' vote? As someone who was attracted to the club by their amateur status in an entirely professional Scottish League, i would be very reluctant to see them turn professional and based on the limited information we have been given so far I remain opposed to the change. However, even though I personally would prefer the club to remain amateur, if are truly in a "do or die" situation as is being claimed then I would put the club's best interests before my personal ones and reluctantly vote in favour of the change. However, as I understand has been requested by many who attended the President's meeting, until such time as I see business model A v business model B which clearly demonstrates the need for such a change, then i will remain firmly in favour of the status quo. It's insulting to suggest that the Members of the club aren't capable of making the right decision when all the facts are put before them, and I it would take a very brave (or very foolish) President who would attempt to bypass the very people to whom he is directly accountable.