gmca
-
Posts
361 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by gmca
-
-
33 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said:
No, the ones who turn right (eg third exit) with no signal are far worse.
Or the ones who indicate left and don't take the 1st exit. Bugger all idea what the hell they're doing.
1 -
5 hours ago, Iain said:
You can follow live rankings here: https://live-tennis.eu/en/atp-live-ranking
Many thanks
0 -
1 minute ago, betting competition said:
Good to see Andy Murray win in straight sets against the the No 1 Seed. All the seeds will be wanting to dodge Andy Murray at Wimbledon.
Terrific win that. Perhaps even more importantly, he's won 3 matches in a row. Grass maybe takes less out of him, but putting a run of results together seemed to be eluding him.
Hope he can go further and perhaps even win the tournament, though Kyrgios and Berretini (assuming they get through) would be pretty difficult on grass. His ranking must be getting a good boost too.
0 -
6 hours ago, TheWestStand said:
generous
My optimism got the better of me
1 -
5 hours ago, TheWestStand said:
Is anyone else getting worried with the lack of signings? I'm probably over-reacting but hey-ho
We've got 15 players signed up, so would expect something like another 4 to come in plus maybe a couple of loans. Think we're comparatively better off for numbers at the moment than most other teams in our league.
Manager was quoted as saying he hopes to confirm 1 or 2 in the near future. Pre season starts next Thursday.
3 hours ago, BinoBalls said:Yes. As things stand it looks like we’re building a squad to challenge for 7th place again. At least this season we can finally stop getting our hopes up.
A couple of really good signings and I can see us pushing for 5th.
0 -
Why does there have to be an interim board?
Why can't the existing board continue until the new board are voted in (assuming the existing board would be happy to continue)? I would have thought we'd have more stability that way unless the interim board members can hit the ground running.
Creating an interim board suggests there's some sort of emergency requiring immediate action. Things are obviously fraught between the 2 boards, but we don't seem to be in any financial or legal difficulties that need the existing board to be ousted immediately.
2 -
On 25/05/2022 at 15:38, King Crownest said:
The Trust accounts for 2020, published ahead of last year's AGM, showed that two tranches of cash totalling £32,313 went direct from the Trust to the Club.
But that "a further £4,000 of society [Trust] funds were gifted to the subsidiary [the club] but paid to Stirling Albion Associates, a separate entity set up for the purpose of supporting the subsidiary".
So why would money go from A to B - owner to a subsidiary - via C, a third party?
Who asked for the money to be diverted via C and what was it spent on?
As Stirling Albion is a club run competently and with complete transparency, I've no doubt at all there is a reasonable explanation and the information will be forthcoming.
Maybe WC Boggs can shed some light?
You say that £4,000 funds were gifted to the club. Just speculating, but I wonder if there was some tax advantage in setting up the separate entity in a specific way, in the sense they may have been able to claim something akin to gift aid which the club itself couldn't have claimed.
0 -
Where the Crawdads Sing by Delia Owens.
A girl is abandoned by family and left to live alone in a shack on the edges of a marsh in North Carolina, giving rise to her being called the marsh girl by distrustful locals. Throw in a murder mystery and I felt there were slight echoes of To Kill a Mockingbird.
Can't recommend this book highly enough. It takes you on an emotional rollercoaster while also having lyrical passages describing the wildlife and natural beauty of the marsh.
1 -
7 hours ago, #GSC said:
Who from the defence do you want rid of ? , as a unit they’re actually not that bad when they’re all fit, it’s what’s in front of them that’s let them down .
Yeah, was just being greedy, hoping for better than what we have. Agree with what you say, and said in a later post I wouldn't have the dread if we went in with our current central defenders. A fit McLean would help too.
0 -
1 hour ago, WC Boggs said:
That raises the question of Kyle Banner. If he's being retained, is it as a defender or a midfielder? If it's for midfield I can just about understand it. If it's as a centre half I don't understand that at all. Utility player? A bit of a head scratcher for me that one?
I'm guessing McLean, McGeachie, McNiff and possibly McGregor and Cummins will be staying. Just a guess though. I think a minimum back four at least is liable to be retained, additions to follow. What do you make of it?
The West Stand has answered the Banner question for me. Had counted him as a defender, but the manager I'm sure intends to use him as a defensive midfielder. It's still a new role for him, so hopefully he develops even more next season. Could be a big player for us.
I always like to see 4 central defenders in a squad. McLean, McGregor, Cummins and McNiff should be okay for this level. We badly missed McLean this season. Would like an upgrade on one of those 4, but wouldn't have the dread if we went in with those 4 in place. Left back needs to be a priority I think. Obviously miss Hancock, but full backs/wing backs are so important in the modern game.
Midfield and upfront need to show a big improvement on last season. Moore, Flanagan, Leitch and Carrick are all decent players, but, from what I saw and heard from others, they all mostly underperformed. I expected to see a couple of them released, but they're all capable and might fare better in a team that's more solid at the back and with better players around them than those who were released.
As ever the summer transfer window is one of the most important times in the year. Hopefully DY has a master plan, and gets all his targets.
2 -
55 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
It looks like a major rebuild in progress and I can't say I disapprove of that. It's all about who Darren brings in now and perhaps who's yet to be persuaded to sign back on.
From what I've seen Darren wants the ball played mainly on the deck and I can't say I disapprove of that either. It's all wait and see for me, as I have no idea who is coming in and who might yet be going. Just a glimpse of how Darren wants the game played and a list of players he saw as not up to it.
With the season over and contracts up, he's hopefully got better quality to go after than was available to him when he took over. He's created the space for them that's for sure. Good hunting Darren.
Not sure it's a major rebuild. By my reckoning, there are 13 first team squad members remaining who haven't been released (not including Aaron Dunsmore about whom nothing has been said so far). Some of those won't resign I would imagine, but that's where we are as it stands.
9 of those 13 are goalkeepers and defenders.
1 -
5 hours ago, RubyTuesday said:
I don't think Jack Leighfield will want to watch the highlights package of this game. Culpable for the first, second and fourth goals and shaky throughout.
Well done to the binos. And thanks for the free pie! Good luck next season. On today's showing we'll be back at Forthbank twice next year...
Cheers, good luck in the playoffs.
0 -
Not quite as much of a cull as I expected. Going by the chairman's twitter, the rest of the squad have been offered terms for next season.
Thought one or two defenders might have been on the released list, but the manager seems to think they can all do a job. Midfield and upfront have been pretty weak imo, so looks as if DY is looking to improve there.
Hope he's successful in doing that!
0 -
1 hour ago, Left Back said:
I’m not saying this isn’t true. It may well be but isn’t part of this discussion the lack of acknowledgement of asymptomatic transmission? Governments seemed to be in denial about this.
Boris said in parliament today the scientists weren't aware at the time that asymptomatic transmission was a thing. No doubt that will be looked at in any inquiry (he says in a rare moment of optimism).
Got a text today advising the Highest Risk list will be ended on 31st May because vaccines and treatments mean those most vulnerable are only as likely to fall seriously ill as the rest of the public.
2 -
4 hours ago, TheVoiceofReason said:
That's certainly what I was led to believe but I may be wrong of course
From memory, wasn't the 'investment' something like £600k? And don't the club have something around that figure in the bank now given the rangers money?
And while money is obviously important, how you use it is even more so.
Yeah, £600k rings a bell.
Accounts to 2021 financial year end showed about £300k in the bank and Rangers money said to be about £250k if I remember correctly. There will have been other incomings and outgoings in the meantime of course, but would think we may not be far off the £600k now.
Stuart Brown recently said money would be used for short, medium and long term use. Sounds sensible to me.
0 -
9 hours ago, WC Boggs said:
Yet the whole point of drawing up a new constitution was to permit investment. That doesn't sit well with your view that investment isn't contingent on the constitution being changed. If I was any calmer I'd be asleep. You've got no effect on that whatsoever, but feel free to think you do. Kip time. Night night..
If I'm reading this correctly, the issue is the legal entity. Because we're a community benefit society it would be against the law to take a profit out of the society. A person could invest, but couldn't take out a profit.
Changing the constitution wouldn't change this fact. We couldn't change the law through a change to our constitution.
0 -
15 minutes ago, WC Boggs said:
No one has been identified as doing that. No one has been identified as casting a new member's vote without their consent either. The Trust board accepted the people they are complaining about as members. The Trust board took their money, therefore those people are entitled to vote, whether via someone else or not. If the Trust board don't like that, they can always put a constitutional change to prevent it and explanation for it to the membership. That is when we finally get the AGM They postponed over a police complaint that went nowhere.
Pretty much agree with you. My point was purely if an individual tried to vote more than once for themselves.
0 -
4 hours ago, rhliston said:
From what I can gather from the Trust Consitution their does not appear to be anything to sig up 50 members or 11 members whatever is the case but in terms of Voting under Rule 45 it states 1 Person 1 vote. Clearly if 1 Person has voted 50 times OR 11 times then I would suspect that these votes were invalid. It does mention block voting in the update and that I suspect would have triggered Alarm Bells ringing in the Trust Board to these actions.
Thanks for that.
Would hope anyone trying to vote more than once would be identified and, as you say, have their votes treated as invalid.
0 -
10 hours ago, rhliston said:
Just received the latest update from the Trust. It makes interesting reading especially the ad hoc meeting minutes.
Briefly
160 new members have joined the Trust since the AGM was announced.
Only 28 of these new members had previously been members of the Trust that means 132 new members have appeared on the scene.
Total membership stands at 429 at present.
It goes on to say 1 member enrolled 50 members
Another member enrolled 11 new members.
The update goes on to give details of an interview that took place with Police Scotland regarding the voting irregularities. " Where it was confirmed that if proven , the matter could involve fraudulent activity"
"A discussion followed on whether the Trust would seek to go down this route but that given the outcome would impact on the reputation of the Club and Trust, it was agreed to find another way to resolve the potential block voting"
What the Trust are saying their DOES appear to have been fraudulent activity around the voting. NOT a good sign is it. ?
Is there any way this can be done under the Trust's constitution?
Assuming the "additional" members are intended to vote in the club executive's favour, the Trust, it seems to me, would either have to reach agreement with whoever arranged these additional members to have their membership withdrawn, or cancel their membership themselves. Given what's been said, the former option seems a bit unlikely. I would have thought the latter option could open the Trust to difficulties if those members object, since the Trust hasn't taken the legal action the Police indicated was possible.
Don't envy the Trust.s position.
0 -
15 hours ago, Ray Vaughn said:
There was no need to change the rules for someone to inject funds into the club. It can be done under the current rules.
Taking profit back out the club is against the rules of a Community Benefit Society was the reason Neil walked away from the club. It didn’t help was the overcomplicated deal he proposed meant your average fan could not work out if he was a benefactor or someone trying to asset strip the club. Still can’t work it out to this day.
Thanks for that.
Seem to remember the Supporters Trust are required to have a majority holding. Not being able to take profit out of the club seems potentially like a double edged sword by perhaps putting off potential investors, the charlatans included.
0 -
3 hours ago, AlbionMan said:
When the club was bought and the Trust Board was setting up the executive everyone was pals in the new situation, and a divergence of opinion between the two bodies was not foreseen, which by stages has led us to this, partly by the Trust Board's failure to act earlier, partly by the executive's manoeuvring.
For the past few years the chief operating officer and chairman has banged a drum claiming fan ownership doesn't work. Fan ownership by itself is neither a good or bad thing. However, in the case of Stirling Albion, it can't work as the "fans" running the club on the executive do not believe in fan ownership and have been actively trying to change our status. Thanks to the removal, by the chairman, from the executive and company board of every dissenting voice none of the "fans" currently running the club believe in fan ownership.
An individual with any integrity would have resigned his membership of the trust and stood down from his appointments when he found he no longer supported the aims and objectives of Stirling Albion Supporters' Society. That individual however, would not be our chief operating officer and chairman.
Sounds like we've reached an impasse.
If the Trust Board feel the working relationship with some or all of the executive board has broken down, is there not some requirement for the directors of the executive to put themselves up for re-election every so often (think it's every 3 years for limited companies), allowing them to be removed that way by the shareholders, presumably the Trust members in our case. I did wonder why Rhilston put forward his resolution for removal if there was already a mechanism in place.
I seem to remember there was talk of possibly changing the constitution following John Neil's aborted attempt to inject funds a few years back. I assume we're still in a position where we aren't legally allowed to accept outside funding If we were, that might satisfy our current executive in accepting a sort of hybrid fan ownership model. Apologies if I'm way off the mark and/or covering old ground.
It seems to me that something fairly drastic needs to happen for things to work more smoothly behind the scenes. Perhaps Rhilston's resolution proposal to merge the Trust and Executive Boards is the way to go.
0 -
9 hours ago, headthebaw said:
Bill Orr is KRs assistant at EK
Cheers.
0 -
I see Bill Orr has left or is leaving the club.
And KR has been appointed manager at East Kilbride.
0 -
2 hours ago, AlbionMan said:
No doubt the team's abysmal season has contributed to the dissatisfaction, but it's very far from that, What did start as private member's motion for the Trust AGM has forced trust members to think that after 5 years of hanging on with the 'devil you know' this may not be the case. There have been several discussions on the supporters' bus along the lines of 'how can he be got rid of'. There are better devils around.
After the departure of the old trust board 5 years ago, its replacement was over conciliatory in attempting to restore calm to the club. This merely paved the way for the executive committee to further marginalise the Trust Board and destroy any balance in the club structure. The executive committee's continued actions would indicate they do not even acknowledge that they represent a subsidiary of the Trust and are accountable to its members through the Trust Board.
I hope, that if anything this furore will bring the Trust Board's mind to bear on the adoption of protocols under which the executive committee will have the limits of their responsibility set for the day to day running of the club's operating and the Trust Board's level of authority as the principal to scrutinise their subsidiary's activities. Whoever the individuals are, roles, responsibility, accountability and authority need to be clearly set out and followed.
Decent post Albion Man.
I agree entirely with the bolded part, and wondered if that had been part of the problem. If the respective roles and responsibilities have not been clear or adhered to, and/.or the protocols you set out have not been in place, that would suggest a level of incompetence that concerns me.
0
LEAGUE 2 Predictions
in Scottish League 2 General Chatter
Posted
What makes you rule out the possibility?
At this stage there's no team you could point at and say they'll be cast adrift the way Cowden were last season. We avoided finishing 9th by a bawhair, and imo haven't strengthened much so far.
Most fans expect there to be not much between the teams, so, given our indifferent performances in the last few seasons and our off field shenanigans, I don't think it's much of a push to predict us finishing bottom.