Howlin' Wilf

Unclassified roads simply means roads that are not designated a classification such as A B or C. Usually roads with no specific destination. An allegory for many arguments on here .

If you check, you'll find that not only is a stadium classed as a bad neighbour, floodlit pitches with or without stadia, are too. But really this is not my fault. I'm only pointing out that the bad neighbour thing, in terms of planning applications, that many here have said is a trumped up figment, is in fact the case.

I think you'll find that this is a question for the legislators, not me.

The whining of the supporters can sometimes reach unacceptable levels Don't brothels avoid being bad neighbours by being....er illegal? Or have I missed something?

Yes a football stadium is a 'bad neighbour' see table 7 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/03/29102736/11

Who told you that the travelling community have to comply with the law? However it seems they did have to comply with the civil law.

That may be the layman's view but unfortunately that isn't the way things work in real life. The residents there can complain about anything they like, be that litter, noise, traffic, parking or whatever. How long the neighbouring development has been there does not give that neighbour the right to behave in a manner which is a nuisance to a resident whose home also has planning consent. Same with live music venues. Doesn't matter how long they've been there before the houses, they still have to comply with the law.

Seems a bit odd but illustrates the point that housing development is likely to gain approval and other development isn't.

Actually I think the point he was trying to make was that Alloa and Cowden by taking in more money than us during this season had the wherewithal to pay higher wages. He was pointing out that the club was trying to compete by offering as good terms as possible but that in the medium to long term DFC needed to make more at the gate, save money by having its own training facilities and also maximise income from other sources to continue to be able to attract players. The mention of going full-time seems to have been missed............

There was an exit strategy outlined in the case of the club not moving - that being the building of a few houses on the current land without a move.

I did the work to get the Golden Share adopted into the Articles of association of the Club. Thanks to the Scottish Enterprise solicitor not doing his job properly there is some ambiguity in the wording of the final document over what the holding of the C shares actually mean. However if it were ever to come to law there is a paper trail which clearly shows what was being agreed between the parties. Would it stand up in court? I tend to think it would in a straight case of the owners trying to sell the stadium for housebuilding with no alternative site for the club. I couldn't see the council agreeing planning in that case either. The fear would be in the worst case scenario that the club were either moved out of down or simply placed in liquidation. The Castle Road site is only of any use in its current form as a senior football club stadium. In either of these cases the planning department would probably give in if there were no longer a club to protect. The other weakness of the golden share is that the holders of the C shares have no control of money being borrowed against the heritable asset (i.e. the stadium). It wouldn't stand up in the case of a lender calling a debt in. I really don't think it will come to that though. ETA, when I was first asked to join the Community Stadium Company, holders of the C shares and having read the paperwork, I pointed out to John McFall that whilst the stadium was protected the club wasn't. This point seemed to have been missed by everyone until then.

The meeting was pretty informative. I will be interested to see if the criteria laid out for the stadium move by Gilbert last night is adhered to. If it is then it would seem that the risk to the club is minimal. I'm still concerned about how things will proceed though. At the presentation recently the plan was for 180 houses at the Rock. Last night the planning consultant said that this was likely to be reduced by WDC. In response to my question last night we were told that the loan to proceed with Phase 1 would be secured on the Dalmoak site itself. However to buy that site from Chivas will require borrowing too. Will Brabco guarantee that themselves or will there be a subsequent charge over BBS? I don't think Brabco have yet purchased the Dalmoak site as they have no assets. On the plus side, as soon as permission is granted on the Dalmoak site, it will increase in value so maybe the trick will be that the security for the lender will be in that increased value rather than BBS. I would certainly hope so. According to Gilbert last night the purchase price of the Dalmoak site is fixed. The whole project it would seem hinges on the expected increase in land values and housing demand over the next two years. I have a feeling that should that not happen, the project will be shelved not cancelled. Whilst it does seem there is a plan B for Brabco to recoup should the project not go ahead, that comprises the club staying at the stadium and a small number of houses being built. I can't really see that as a realistic option. I also note that there was an acknowledgement from the platform of the validity of the 100 C shares (the golden share) last night.

I'm told that he supported the same team as you Auld Son

You won't find any argument from me that the PR of the club could be and should be much improved. However I can assure you that it was always thus, or at least regarded as such. I must admit to having had a loud chuckle at Auld Son's praise of Ian MacFarlane - irony doesn't begin to describe that

Great work and thank you.

Whilst agreeing with aspects of your first paragraph, in your second I do wonder if time is lending enchantment? No one could question JH's commitment or efficiency in running the club. However, his demeanour could never have been mistaken for one of joy or civility. I knew Alex well and I liked and respected him. However.....

Which is exactly what they used to say about John Hosie, Alex Wright and Ian MacFarlane. It comes with the territory.

We really are in trouble if John, Alex and Donald's PR is better than the current Sons board!

The PR at the Rock is not good. However to get nostalgic for Ian MacFarlane is taking it a step too far. Ian had many good points (determination, vision and an ability to stand up to Rankine) and was probably the right man at the right time - but PR? do me a favour.

Egos.......at a Dumbarton supporters' meeting......can't imagine that really.

George W Bin Laden......Ah.....George W....now I get it.

Frank Kelly! a very, very funny lad indeed.

Now I really don't know you you are......

There is no direct Brabco representation on the Dumbarton FC board.

If they didn't I have met Calum Hosie once. I shook his hand and said hello. I don't know the man at all. Neither do I know Mr Stainton his co director. I know Colin Hosie well but he is nothing to do with Brabco and frankly most Sons fans over 40 know Colin. He's a good guy and a Sons fan. I have not 'spoken in defence of Brabco' I have no relationship whatsoever with the Hosie family. I know Gilbert Lawrie and whilst I've had my differences with him over the years would trust him 100% not to act against the interests of DFC. He's a friend of mine - sorry about that. I also know Alan Findlay as a friend too and would have the same level of trust - Sonstrust if you like in him to protect the club's interest. It was Alan and I who conducted the negotiations to get a Sonstrust director on the board. It took six Wednesday evenings as I recall. The club's negotiators were then club secretary John Benn and....Colin Hosie. If Alan is reading this he can confirm that the negotiations were lengthy and not without problems and hurdles. However, ultimately their success was down to open minds and compromise - on both sides. It must actually be a good thing that we have two guys (Gilbert and Alan) with possibly differing views on the direction forward but both with the club's interests at heart.