PedroMoutinho

Looks like the speakers night to raise funds for the academy isn’t selling well, which is disappointing as I can’t see where any additional funds for the academy are going to be found other than externally. I suspect the reserve team next season is a non-starter if we don’t go up.

I read the wording about finding a sustainable operating model as possibly referring to seeking external investment. In my view, it is no bad thing to have a ‘third ownership stool’ with the funds to cough up in situations like this as clearly groups like the FSS and Patrons understandably cannot raise sums like these.

Presumably you’d be willing to cough up the funds needed to stop the club going bust instead then?

Really pleased with that signing- I agree with John that PJ isn’t the right option as a starter at this stage. It may even be that there is no/very little cost to the club as with Hogarth. Striker and midfielder next please.

Absolutely- clearly plenty of mistakes have been made (more so by appointees of MR and SA I would argue). However, without doubt, the club would not be here now without the funds these two individuals have contributed over the years. They deserve our thanks for that and I think it would be a good time also for some people to think about their words and behaviour towards them. Fans like @MSG GTF! who wanted these individuals gone forever should be careful what they wish for.

My preference would be to bring in whichever is the best player who is going to contribute the most to the first team

You said “the preference is to bring in academy players”. Surely the preference should be to bring in the best players possible, whether they be from our academy, youngsters released from other clubs or a loan player who is going to add quality to the squad?

Presumably you wouldn’t want the likes of Lawal, Yates and Burrell then or previously Will Vaulks or Luke Leahy then as they didn’t come through the academy?

The way I see it loans are really little different to contracted players at this level given so many players are on one year contracts. Realistically, if we had signed Kennedy permanently last summer, a club could just as easily have come in with a bid now and he’d have been sold. Loans are absolutely vital in my view as they give you access to players we would not be able to sign for us.

Huge task now ahead for John and Paul to ensure we can qualify for and compete in the playoffs. Striker, winger and centre mid required at a minimum as we are now short of both quality and numbers there.

Hugely disappointing news- Mcglynn must have his head in his hands. The pressure’s really on now simply to ensure the squad is as strong as it was at the start of the window. Starting to look threadbare numbers wise too.

Not sure how you’ve reached that conclusion. I own shares in the club and see that purely as an opportunity to own a tiny part of the club I support and attend AGMs and vote in my own name etc. I have no desire or intention to recoup what I’ve paid in, and I’d assume most other small shareholders will feel similar.

Excellent summary. Personally i think the above is an area where the perceived cosy relationship between FSS and the Patrons could create an issue. Until recently, we had a situation where the entire board (including the FSS reps) was comprised of patrons. In my view, that ‘dual-hatting’ could be problematic if a situation arose where the FSS should question the hierarchy in the interests of the wider fanbase. Clearly there could be very different interests and concerns between those investing £10k plus v £10 a month. An example would be when an FSS board resigned and the FSS did not want to provide further details out of “respect” to the board and patrons. If one of the FSS’s objectives is to question the hierarchy, it should not necessarily be ‘respectful’ to the board Imo. However, I can see the difficulty if you have a close relationship with the organisation that makes up the whole board. Purely my thoughts- I know others will disagree.

I don’t think the structure of the FSS should be changed but I do think there should be a sharesave scheme that allows individuals to buy shares in their own name. I appreciate that this goes against the FSS ‘block vote’ idea, but I think it’s time to put pragmatism over ideology. I think getting something more tangible for your cash would persuade more to sign up. In any event, surely having a larger shareholding from fans is no bad thing regardless of how these shares are held? Yes, these individuals would need to be persuaded to vote for the FSS ‘line’ but that is no bad thing in my view.

Restriction free life? Except for the regular lockdowns and banning NZ citizens from entering their own country you mean?

For your £250 quid season ticket money you get access to 18 league games. For your £120 FSS contribution, you don’t get anything tangible. Surely it’s pretty self explanatory what the difference is and why one scheme is far more popular than the other.

I agree but I also think we should be looking at other ways to reach those who haven’t signed up to the FSS, whether they be a share save scheme or a tier in between the patrons and the FSS for donations of say £1-5k.

I do think the biggest issue for the FSS has been the disaster on the pitch, and clearly that is outwith their control. I think we would see much more interest if the message was “give us the funds to get back to the premier league” or “help us punch above our weight against clubs with more resources for a top 6 place in the premier league”. Less so for “get us out of league 1 at the fourth attempt”.

I’d also like to see some sort of sharesave scheme alongside the FFS. I think there would be an opportunity to attract people who want something a bit more tangible for their money and also the opportunity to hold shares and vote in their own name (as futile as some may view that). I appreciate that part of the FSS goal is to build a voting block of supporters, but my view would be that we should put getting money in the door over idealism at this stage.

It’s possible the board are still hoping for further investment to bring in as much as possible, or that terms are still being discussed with the likes of MR and SA. However, they were understandably forthright about the situation when the begging bowl came out, so I do think the wider fanbase deserve the same transparency when it comes to announcing that the gap has been filled.

Simply by definition that cannot be true. Public domain means, “the state of belonging or being available to the public as a whole.” Unless I have missed it, there has been no announcement to the wider support.

I don’t disagree but it’s all got to be balanced. It seems like most of the issues have been against QoS so by all means open the north stand for them as well as Dunfermline and Airdrie. I’m not convinced though that opening a 2000 seater stand for 50 Peterhead fans is the best use of resources.

I don’t see how the experience of away fans in our main stand is in any way comparable to the way we’re treated at the bigot brothers.

The north stand was built with the idea of accommodating the likes of Rangers, Celtic, Hearts and Hibs. I’m sure the prospect of hosting 50 Clyde fans was not considered. My personal view would be to only open it for games against Dunfermline, Airdrie and QoS.

A minimal cost can add up over the course of a season. In our current circumstances, surely all available resources should be going towards the first team. There must be some material cost involved or the stand would never have been shut in the first place.