eliphas

I mean I don't think I'm going to convince you, which is fine. I'd argue my position isn't particularly results based. They contribute of course. But I'd also argue the results have continued to be shit since the Ross County game loss where a lot of us had had enough - I mean we've one twice in the league since then with a good number of the draws propwr get out of jail efforts. Bit of stretch to say anyone is changing their mind because of results. Watching us every week (most of the time) Vs every week pre Ross County drubbing is night and day. It's the little green shoots of improvement that I outlined that have changed my mind on Kettlewell as it shows, to me, he can change for the better.

No not at all. We've improved in all those areas I outlined since I wanted him gone. So fair fucks to the manager for that. There was obvious things he wasn't doing that could improve the team. If he hadn't and kept to the things he was doing, not recruited well, then my position would be the same. It's ok to change a position on something/someone if you see change id suggest.

Similarly - I'm on record as saying he should have went pre Christmas. But, also happy he is sticking around. He has addressed the main criticisms most of us aimed at him to various extents. - He recruited decently enough in January to enable us to play some pacy wingbacks. So so key to the system. - He's got us playing really nice fitba at times going forward. - He's did what he said he'd do with Theo Bair - He made a good early change last night which essentially enabled us to get the win.. So do you know what, happy to say I've been proven wrong. However, - Proof will be in the summer transfer pudding. Pros, I do think he will get rid of the deed wood. Cons, not convinced he has the transfer contacts to build the squad he wants (but January is starting to change my mind slightly) - He needs to sort the defence out. Not seem anything all seasons to show he can do that. - He needs to develop a proper Plan B and C and implement it quicker. Perhaps hamstrung by the squad. But he's the one that builds it.

I don't know the ins and outs of it at all either but I'd equally say the McMahon/club video and decisions have perhaps been the rocket up the arse the WS needed to get moving. Maybe not what the 'disruption' was aimed to do but, think I said this maybe already (lost track now), if the outcome is a coherent deliverable strategy from the WS, as majority owners, then absolutely all good.

In theory, 5 subs is a good idea, certainly from a player welfare point of view. But in practice I'm not a fan really for the reasons people have already mentioned. Do agree with @Vietnam91 though in that it's not a major factor in our season or results. Or, certainly there are other things we can do better, much better, to stop losing goals. For as long as I can remember watching us we've lost goals to 'bigger' teams who can bring on better players late in the game.

It really is a mental season. If we survive this we could win the treble next season with some luck

This was exactly it for me. Losing Casey, totally rearranging it, then Gent taking a knock as well as being knackered and ending up with a completely different left hand side absolutely smoked us considering Yang was really improving them down that side already. On the plus side, first half we could have been 2 or 3 up. Vale looks a great asset every game I think, solid from Devine on the right and I thought Kelly has his best game in a wee while. Came for a couple of high balls, one good rush out and the close header he took well.

Interesting. Defintley ticks a few of the info nugget boxes I guess that were given out. He was in a senior enough position at Netflix, leaving in 2019. Could say he 'made his money' Now runs a production company called Wild Sheep Content which focuses on international (ie not American) content. They just made their first film out of Scotland and played it at the Edinburgh film festival last year. (https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/kill-edinburgh-review/5184918.article) He also started out doing sport stuff for the likes of ESPN. Defintley all seems like it points to one thing.

I'd rejoin Twitter/x if we dropped the current motto and changed it to that. Haha. Imagine.

Agreed, I just made it up to make a point.

Absolutely free to discuss what you want of course, everyone is Presenting it in the way you did, coming up with a fairly detailed hypothetical to further/enhance a point, and throwing quite a lot of passive aggressive ire at someone isn't a great laugh though I know you only joined on Thursday but this a place of paneer and GIFs normally.

Is this all conjecture? Or are you party to some inside info on the bid? If it's the former then, for talking sake, let's say the Aussie mob agree that they don't take a cut from players sales that are already in the academy and they take 5% from any sale not including development fees. They don't take any cut if the club is running at a loss.

Regardless of views on either side of the wall one thing 'the video' did that was good was shake things up enough to get some interested parties circling, which in turn seems to kicking the WS in to gear about producing a proper, hopefully deliverable, strategy as the majority stakeholder in the club. If this all is a catalyst to somehow create a WS strategy to increase that yearly take to a better level than it is today and catalyst to change at the club then all good.

There's a lot of made up examples of things getting chucked about here from various people to try and persuade people from different positions. Some pretty big stretches. For me right now it's as simple as the WS question states (are you up for considering the majority WS shareholding position being up for grabs or not). Everything else is pure conjecture and not particularly helpful at this juncture.

Absolutely vote for what you want and why - genuinely not pushing a case here. But that's not really what we were asked to vote for though. Your vote placed has said you would not in anyway consider any proposal that reduces the majority shareholding. Full stop. Red line. Whereas it sounds like you would with some more detail around an actual buyer bid consider it. Which is the other option

On record saying I think that was a great email. Very very informative and straight forward I thought. But, aye, I think it could even be worthwhile to put out a short follow up quickly, as in today on email and socis, explaining what you've explained here about it being non binding etc. If some people have missed the point and voted in a different way, even the minority, I'm not sure how that squares up vs votes already posted and all that to be fair.

In all seriousness though, if we take Grant Russell to the side for the moment as my head kind of got lost in him as an individual last night probably and I genuinely don't have anything against the man. My main point to I think it was @Handsome Devil's post is really just if I was picking a CEO I don't really want someone in with brand and marketing basically as their main experience and selling point. Even I'd that's football brand and marketing. I'd rather it was someone who has maybe ran a football club before, someone with solid proven financial and negotiation skills defintley but don't need to be a finance guy, someone who can foster some great relationships with other CEOs, views marketing and brand etc as important for definite, someone who has been in and about the football side of it too a little bit too probably given the size of our club and the fact they won't be able to appoint an exec team below then. So, a very simple hire....easy.

Aye that's fine, he can do it again if he wants in under my leadership if I'm picking the CEO. Haha.

To be fair it's a good point. I don't need to go for a pint with them or like them which is clouding me somewhat this evening. If I can pick freely, maybe a more balanced mix of pure finance focus and pure marketing focus. Someone who has more experience on the actual running of a club properly day to day rather than someone with marketing and brand ideas as their primary focus or experience. Good strategic thinker across multiple areas including experience on the football side of it too. Sound financial manager and good negotiator. Connections if possible in football. Hire Grant and stick him in an office to report to the CEO. He was on STV about 5 or 6 years ago. Everyone starts somewhere but I'd prefer someone with more experience applicable to a CEO gig to be guiding us this time around.

Not for me. Don't particularly want a brand, marketing and content guy or gal running the club. We need to be shooting higher than that for the CEO job.

That's how I read it too. I voted for the second option. That I would consider it. Which I would be sure I'd want to hear what people have to say. Defintley in no way is that me saying I'd vote for any old option presented. As @Busta Nut says, I hope we can stay fan owned too, but for me I'd like to be presented with all possible options and red lining not giving up majority ownership isn't for me tbh. I totally understand why people would though if it's really a passionate subject for them for multiple reasons.

I mean. We all can say plan and leadership Grant. Edit: Don't have twitter so only seeing that here and noticed it's a thread. Genuinely not bought into 99% of what he says as any real needle mover.(the season ticket stuff with CRM is saying is a good shout ). Ultimately coming down to a final tweet which is essentially a rebrand. I know he's a marketing guy but come on.

Good email from the WS

Similar staff numbers to what I posted about Killie. They didn't seem to include youth/academy for some reason. Maybe same as St.J?

I'm a jaded/lapsed WS member as I mentioned yesterday and to be honest I think there's as much chance of us growing the club via WS as there is an investor popping up and giving us some cash. I can see us keeping the club afloat and finding our level down the ladder but growing it I'm unconvinced. Very happy to be convinced though and agree recent soundings from @JayMFCand others do raise my optimism levels a bit from where they have been.