BazMac

https://www.nowtv.com/watch-sky-sports-online Sports Day Pass 11.98

Not as I understand it..? What if Team A goes 1-0 up in the 3rd minute Team B equalises in the 8th minute and then takes the lead in the 10th minute Then team A equalises in the 80th minute If its one point per minute of each goal Team A would have 87 points for the first goal, and 10 points for their second = 97 points Team B would have 82 points for their first goal, and 80 points for their second = 162 points (not including injury time) Team B wins despite not getting the first goal?

Think I've missed something. And I don't see anything on the club or trust website. Has Stuart Brown been removed? Or is it just a motion?

I seem to remember it was people connected to the Junior Academy that were signed up? If so, I think that's different to just asking, say, 50 guys at your local bowling club who have never been to a game to sign up. If the people at the Junior Academy felt like the current chairman was helping them to prosper then wouldn't it be in their best interest to vote remain (for want of a better phrase). And, even if they weren't a member of the Trust (nor am I), isn't there just as much at stake for them as there is for your average supporter? That said, sending all 50 in on one email was poorly judged, and probably to make a point. It would have been far better if everyone just did it themselves.

Curious to see how the prospective chairperson will - ahead of a vote - demonstrate their ability to hire a manager who will get us promoted, since that seems to be the criteria you live or die by.

If offering 2 year deals gets us players ahead of other clubs at a similar level then I think it’s a great idea. Going by the amount of times we see players mutually ending their contract with the club when they fall out of favour, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was easy enough to let a player go anyway, if it hadn't worked out by the end of year 1.

Do you mean how fans manage a club or do you mean how those running the club manage the fans, cos from reading this thread, I don't know which is more difficult.

Probably still the most sensible thing posted on this thread in a while tho.

I"m not really looking to believe anything... mainly because both sides have probably, in some way, done some right and some wrong. So accepting that, and moving aside the blame game, it would be good to just get down to the point of it and work out a solution.

Ah okay. That might have been explained somewhere already, but to be honest I've stopped reading the majority of posts by both yourself and Rhilston as I find them a bit embarrassing (sorry!). Anyway, as I've said a few times (sorry to repeat myself), removing a chairman because 'we've not been successful on the pitch' is just silly when they have done their bit in making sure there is enough support to be successful. However, this whole business of the chairman not providing the required reports to the Trust is more of a reason for removal. But perhaps there's a problem with the system that's in place. I'm sure many of us have had it where bureaucracy gets in the way... sometimes to the point where it actually becomes very difficult to do your best work. I have been in this situation before and the problem for me was... 1) I didn't have any time to report back. Having to do it meant not doing something else. 2) The people receiving the report were then able to give their opinion on what I was doing. Whilst it can be really helpful to get feedback, sometimes when people don't know every little detail their ideas can be a bit out of touch and it can be a bit draining having to take the time to keep explaining why their ideas wouldn't work. This also ends up not being good for relations between the parties. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chairman doesn't report back because one or both of those reasons. And if that is the case, well the next chairperson is probably going to just run into the same problem. So what to do? Trusts running football clubs are kind of new, but there are a few examples out there. It would be interesting to know how this reporting back works for other clubs.

The heck is the gang of 74?

Ally Love has left Clyde. Potentially signing?

Ross Davidson has left East Fife. Don't know much about the midfielder... except that Darren Young signed him for both Albion Rovers and East Fife. Could he be on his way to us?

Sorry, I know it's a bit hypothetical, but you didn't answer part two...

So if Brown stays on another season and we get promoted, would you back down on your opinion that you want him to step down? What about if Darren Young gets us promoted twice to the Championship?

Amid all the accusation of Stuart Brown ignoring the Trust Board and straining relationships to the point of the constitution being unworkable, I still don't really understand why your focus is on removing him because of results on the pitch, which isn't really his job to get right. I'm starting to think you know this and its a political play... a honey trap... to appeal to the wider fanbase who only care about things on the pitch.

You would thought would't you. You turn up in Benidorm and there's a Bayview Bar with East Fife scarfs on the wall. There's no way you're not going in.

It’s quite crazy that players like Ray Grant, Laird and Leitch are on a few lists to go, but the likes of Moore and Roberts are on the keep list. Obviously we’ve not seen the best of them, but those are some good players. And you just know that if we release them they’ll go on to do well for another team. Makes you half want to keep them just in case they come good with a fresh season.

Has a game of football ever counted for two competitions before across football history?

As someone said before - 150 years and a day since the first international match. That would be a great spectacle. Surely reason enough to give us our place at the World Cup.

I just truly don't understand the sense of wanting rid of Stuart Brown because he has 'no idea about getting it right on the park'. Darren Young has had some success at this level, and he's got a good budget. What more can a Board do than appoint a manager who's capable of success and give them a good budget?? Do people want the board to give team talks? When you see Raith signing Goowdwillie... Even Edinburgh City sacking Naysmith when in a decent position. These are the sorta things that would make me question the abilities of a board. I don't see that at Forthbank. Just seems like personal vendettas to me. Especially given the lack of 'better' option provided, as far as I can see.

Personally I'd appoint BinoBalls, who seems to talk perfect sense.

It's not like Peter had a football person on his board. Most clubs at this level are run by local businessmen, not by ex footballers.

From the outside looking in, Stuart Brown has done everything I'd want. Ensured the club is communicative with supporters Handled tricky situations well Created the space for new initiatives to be tried By all accounts, managed our finances well whilst providing a competitive playing budget to the managers I fully agree with BB_Bino above that the results come down to the management teams. It would be a pretty wild leap to suggest that Stuart Brown has affected player performance. Of course the ultimate responsibility lies with Stuart for appointing a series of managers who have failed in their objectives. But I really don't see our appointments being much different from the rest of the league. You win some, you lose some... sometimes you lose, lose, lose some. Appointing a manager at any level is a shot in the dark. Heck when we appointed Jocky Scott as a big name it was a disaster. So what can I say about the managerial appointments, well, at the very least... I was never against any appointment and the beginnings of a tenure usually started with an optimism, as all the managers seemed capable of putting together a decent squad. From there on in, results are down to the manager. Essentially, if Stuart Brown had made a shambles of any of the bullet points above then I'd be joining those calling for a resignation. On another note.... One thing I do have issue with, and this might just be me missing a piece of news, but when the Trust was put in place I thought that the person running the club had a fixed term. I wouldn't like it if this was just sneakily ignored without any announcement for fear of backlash. That said, I'm not even sure if changing the person running the club every few years is good for business. There's a lot of handover issues there.

Isn't it dangerous changing the rules during a campaign? Imagine if we'd left out players on a card against Denmark, got beat, and then the slate got cleaned anyway. I would imagine no team was stupid enough to leave out carded players when qualification was on the line, but maybe there's a team that missed out on a seeding. I guess that's why they are asking the nations opinions. I wonder if anyone will object and if it has to be unanimous.