BallochSonsFan

Speaking of the new stadium, the club are suspiciously quiet about the outcome of the Scottish government review of the proposed site. If it had been a positive decision then undoubtedly we'd have seen PR puff pieces by now. Can we take it from the silence that the decision isn't entirely in our favour?

That's it official then. Nish is off and it's on the official site. No "All at Dumbarton wish the player all the best for the future" for Colin. Good riddance. He was a wage thief - the only 6ft 3 striker who got smaller whenever he jumped for the ball.

Interesting times at the club right now. We've got the submission to Holyrood regarding the re-zoning of our proposed stadium land, a threadbare squad on a run of poor form and now a striker who's taken the huff and is for the off. In terms of Nish, I've never been a fan and I don't believe he gives us enough. He spends more time arguing with referees about fouls he wasn't given than actually winning the ball in the air. He's given us very little since we signed him and I won't be sad if he goes. But it really just points to a wider problem at Dumbarton right now. Murray has allowed our squad to dwindle to bare bones level and the subs bench yesterday suggests that he has absolutely no faith in our youngsters. Part of this is Murray's own doing. Murray sanctioned the re-signing of the majority of last year's squad. If McDougall and Shug Murray had no chance of contributing then Murray shouldn't have offered them new deals. Even worse than that, we've signed the majority of last year's successful team but embarked on a bizarre project of absolutely refusing to play last year's successful tactics. We weren't always pretty to watch last year but we were effective. We always had a chance of getting a result because we were set up to play direct. Murray seems hell bent on shoehorning players into unfamiliar roles. It's sad to see Agnew relegated to a holding midfielder and to see us often end up with a lone striker isolated from his teammates. Then there's 3 at the back. It doesn't work for us and yet we still insist on using it. Murray is slow to change things - it was clear at half time yesterday that we were getting nothing from the way we were set up and yet Murray didn't change it. Livi went on to take their chances with aplomb. I'm eternally grateful that Murray came in and rescued us from the Alan Adamson slump. He did a fantastic job turning us around and we owe him a great deal in our position as an established 2nd tier side. Unfortunately this season we seem to have lost our way. I've never felt that Murray was adept at working the transfer market and we're going to need some serious wheeling and dealing if we're going to boost our squad for the 2nd half of the season. At times it looks like Murray sticks to his guns in terms of his chosen style of play as a matter of principal. Principals are great and it's admirable if Murray wants to impose a style of play and a footballing philosophy on the club but if it's at the cost of results then it's self-sabotaging. Hopefully we'll get an assistant in who'll give Murray a dose of reality. Somebody who'll remind him that for all that it's great to have a football style and ethos, the most important thing is the 3 points.

I'd hope Murray will be making moves soon. How many more players can we take on loan and how many woud need to be permanent signngs? Being realistic, we need to decide whether Megginson and Campbell are going to play as strikers or if we should move them on to help bring in a genuine wide man? For me we could do with a centre half (maybe bring Joe back), at least another central midfielder and a natural wide midfielder. We have a good attaking midfielder/forward in Fleming but no real goalscorer. Nish isnt cutting it and offers us nothing.

There were banks of lights off on a couple of the floodlight pylons on Saturday. Not surprised to read about ongoing problems. If they persist then the only option will be to follow the Juniors and have an earlier kick-off to ensure that games start and finish in daylight. Not sure how fans would feel about 1:00 kick-offs?

I'd agree with those concerns Moonster. Renton Road will see a significant increase in traffic. Getting to the ground is one thing - traffic will likely be staggered between 1:30 and 2:50 for fans getting to the game. Leaving the site? It looks like a potential nightmare. The pavements and street lighting (or lack thereof) also present serious concerns for anybody using either Renton or Dalreoch stations. Not impossible to overcome but certainly a major stumbling block. Turning onto the A82 sliproad at the Tontine is going to be particularly bad and traffic could well back up from the Dalreoch lights to the stadium itself. It's a poor site to access.

We're coming up to an important hurdle in our plans to move to our new stadium. An adverse decision regarding the rezoning of the Youngs land would kill the stadium plan stone dead. Any news on potential local opposition? Or are we expecting an easy time of it with the Scottish Executive?

I go to most Clan home games and have done since the Clan's first season. I get my tickets through the official supporters club so I'm usually up in blocks N or M. Will miss 2 or 3 a season if they clash with concerts but that's about it. I also go to a few away games a year and I've been to every top flight rink except Cardiff. Going to Murrayfield tonight. Won't be back at Kirkcaldy until they get a proper net for behind the goal and give the fishermen back their trawler net.

I think we could have a ready made replacement for Kane at the club already - Mitch Megginson. We're getting less and less from him punted out wide, He continually looks to come inside and he offers his fullback no protection. He was a striker before signing for us so why not see if he can offer us a goal threat up front?

Not too surprised to see Murray and McDougall shown the door. Murray needs to be playing regularly at this stage of his career and if Clyde can offer him that then is a good move for the player. McDougall has bags of talent but absolutely no desire to use it and I'm glad we're getting shot. It does unfortunately give us a shortage of options in the squad. Hopefully we'll be able to do some deals in the next week or two - its probably good timing to get the Rangers and Hearts games out the way early with a view to having a stronger squad going into games we have a chance of taking points in.

1 in 200 flood risk dont you know...Flooding isnt the main issue with the site. Trying to drain the land with a high leven is. The drainage on that land is really poor. The burns overflowing arent the problem so much as draining waterlogged ground.

Dundee are a real mess this year. Another player jumping ship after a rumoured fall out with Hutchins. Jeff is a liability who offers nothing on the ice and his lack of man management skills compromises his ability off it. He might be the cheap option with a job outside hockey subsidising his overall earnings but he got lucky last year with a great group of players and one guy in particular who could pick up a lot of the coaching slack. He doesnt have that this year.

I think cynic is the wrong word to use here. You can't change a cynic's mind. Theres no way to convince them of the merits of anything that they fundamentally disagree with. I'd say most fans right now are sceptics. It might be semantics but I think it's an important distinction to make. You can never change a cynic's mind but if the weight of evidence is there then you can convince a sceptic. Right now fans who are asking the difficult questions are sceptical of the proposal to move the club to Youngs Farm. I doubt whether anybody is genuinely cynical and scepticism is healthy. If the board won't make a decision based on blind faith and optimism then fans can't be blamed for wanting something more than blind faith and optimism as well. Hopefully we'll get that and a healthy degree of scepticism should be welcomed. It adds an extra level of scrutiny to ensure that any decision is in the best interests of the club. If it passes the approval of the board and the case is strong enough that it meets the concerns of the sceptics then we can all be happy because we've arrived at a development that should be absolutely in the best interests of the club. In the mean time? Keep an open mind. Keep asking questions. Keep evaluating the answers.

In fairness to the board, they could well walk out en mass. A new board would be elected. An EGM could be called. A shareholder with 75% of the available voting rights can force the agenda at any such A/EGM. I'm not for a minute saying that they would do this but whilst it would be a great gesture for the board to walk out and to seemingly put Brabco in a poor position, when you have a controlling say at AGM level, you have a massive amount of leverage over any board of directors.

I'm happy to accept that the board are able to pull the plug before the deal goes ahead if the numbers don't stack up. Unfortunately I'm not buying that we're not exposed to any risk. The development vehicle could buy the Youngs Farm land, start selling commercial property contracts for the 6 development plots, borrow against the value of the site etc. We only agree to proceed with the development when all of the finance is demonstrably in place. Unfortunately that's the first bit that worries me. Theres a massive difference between having commercial contracts in place and having money in the bank. So we go ahead with the development and we start seeing bricks laid. We see concrete poured an a stadium take shape. What happens if some of the funding falls through? A commercial partner pulls out, goes bust or otherwise reneges on the deal? Or there's a development overspend and it take more money to complete phase 1? It's still the development vehicle who carry all of the risk and we can walk away? Really? Brabco, who will own 100% of the development vehicle, won't step in with their 75% voting rights at A/EGM to force a deal? Alternatively the developers could have a shiny new stadium waiting for us to collect the keys and some of the finance for the purchase falls through. What happens? Are the developers left with a completed phase 1 site that they can't sell to the club because our finance falls through? If it was a residential property deal and you were reliant on selling your own house in order to buy a new one then it's your job as the buyer to arrange bridging finance. For me theres a massive degree of risk involved. Turnberry Homes bought the old Newton site in 2007. Market conditions mean they haven't dug a foundation or laid a brick yet. Brabco bought the majority shareholding in March and by September that year we were in the grip of a world-wide financial crash. We can sign contracts and commence development with the best of intentions and the figures can stack up overwhelmingly in our favour when the first bit of earth is turned over but with the massive degree of volatility in the commercial and residential property markets, there's no guarantee that we're entirely protected from any unfavourable market changes beyond the assurances of a board of directors who, by their own admission, haven't met our majority shareholders. I want to take the club at face value. I want to believe that it's a smooth road from paper proposal to a pie and a Bovril in our new ground. I want to believe that we can walk away at any point in the journey until the developers hand us the keys to a completed Youngs Farm and a cheque for the surplus raised from the sale of the Bet Butler site. For a club that doesn't hold AGMs and owners who seem to have absolutely no relationship with the board? That's a hell of a lot of crossed fingers and some pretty big hopes and prayers.

I'm going tomorrow. Looking forward to hopefully getting some more information about the specifics of the development rather than the very broad outline.

It'll be interesting to see if we get any more information about the practicalities of the proposal on Wednesday. The journey from paper proposal to actually building the thing is massive and whilst Gilbert can assure us that any deal will be in the best interests of Dumbarton FC, the reality is that a 75% controlling interest gives Brabco free reign to do as they see fit. I don't grudge them a profit but given the numerous examples in British football over the past decade of owners screwing clubs for their own gain, it's understandable for fans to be massively cautious. If this is to go ahead, Brabco will need to become far more visible and transparent in order to build eve basic trust between themselves and the support.

I'd also consider Braehead. We're competing for fans with Rangers, Celtic and other sports. The Clan have come from nowhere and in their 5 year existance they've gone from 1000 fans a game to now selling out Braehead and bagging 3000 fans on a regular basis. Plans have been approved for a major arena upgrade. We might be the #1 football team west of Glasgow. Thats not to say that theres a market out there just waiting to be attracted to a new ground. Our crowd has been pretty static for several seasons and its hardly grown since I started following the Sons. If we can't get new fans along to the BB, why will we suddenly be able to market ourselves aggressively when we move to a new ground?

The £4million rough estimate is more than I could get from Gilbert when I asked him Wilf. He flat out refused to answer my question and stated quite clearly that he wouldn't be telling me any figures when pressed on the issue. Even rough ones. Moonster asked for a ball park figure as well. Answers were there none. As a purely paper exercise, theres little to object to in the public consultation. I have my own concerns regarding access to the ground via Renton Road and a potential traffic black spot getting back onto the A82 at Renton. I also find it more than a bit worrying when the public consultation calls for a single 1500 capacity stand for phase 1 when both Gilbert and the Rod the planning bloke were eager to tell me that they'd actually be building 2 stands for a 2000 capacity. But in general terms the notion of moving to the new site is relatively sound, with a massive caveat: It has to be in the best financial interests of the club and it has to be done in a way that protects the fans. Promises of a fully booked function suite for 52 weddings a year are brilliant. They don't pay any bills, but they're brilliant on paper. Same goes for the £130k income we'll get from 3 community pitches. If the market exists. If it doesnt then what looks great on paper suddenly starts to look questionable in practice. How much can the market afford to pay? How many brides are willing to have their wedding reception disrupted by 1500+ football fans on a Saturday afternoon? How many teams in west Dunbartonshire are going to give up their current training arrangements to flock to the Youngs Farm site? And what will the council do when local teams suddenly stop hiring local 3g pitches from them? Then theres the actual funding. The proposal is to sell the BB and to have contingency for 6 plots that can be developed to provide Dumbarton FC with finances to help pay for the development of the new ground should our existing site fall short in raising funds. Why can't we develop these 6 plots anyway and provide the club with additional money? How much will it cost to build the community facilities? Whats the time scale for them to start generating money for the club? How do Brabco fund development of the site before we purchase it from them? Will Dumbarton be expected to borrow at commercial rates in order to fund the move to the Youngs Farm site and then sell the BB? Theres a massive difference between what looks good on paper and what works in practice. On paper the proposals should be generally backed. In practice? What safeguards are in place that will ensure that we walk away if the deal isnt in the club's best interests? With Brabco owning a massive majority and therefore a controlling interest in the boardroom, fans can surely be forgiven for thinking that this is less a public consultation and more a fate accompli.

That'll be why they stuck all that Robert The Bruce/fake shields and ye olde chibs stuff in the now closed Renton train station.

The proposal did include a tourist information point but there was no mention of a themed tourist attraction.

2nd back row. My season ticket is in M

Purely selfishly on my part Moonster. If I've got a hockey game to go to straight from the football, I want to know that I won't be sitting trying to get onto the A82 at the Renton on-ramp until nigh on face off time.

The proposal is also wrong. It clearly stated that phase 1 will be the construction of the access road, 1 stand with a capacity of 1500 and 1 synthetic training pitch. According to Gilbert and the developer last night, phase 1 will actually be the construction of 2 stands - 1500 seats and 500 terraced. They're making this up as they go along.

Aye