capt_oats Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 Yas! 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayWell Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) Kettlewell apparently saying after the game we're still looking to get 2 or 3 in (he doesn't actually say it in that clip.) Presumably Bair will be away, but that's still a larger squad than I expected. Edited July 6 by MurrayWell 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 19 minutes ago, capt_oats said: Yas! I'd have loved to see a picture of the Politburo when they saw that from the Main Stand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StAndrew7 Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) On 06/07/2024 at 18:48, Swello said: I'd have loved to see a picture of the Politburo when they saw that from the Main Stand. Chairman McMaohan? #satire Edited July 8 by StAndrew7 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 Just now, StAndrew7 said: Outgoing chairman McMaohan? Fixed that etc 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 4 hours ago, MP_MFC said: Did these last any length of time? I saw the Sheep clothing one, didn't see the other about 2.50pm. Had half an idea the stewards might have been instructed to rip them down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gianfranco Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 2 hours ago, camer0n_mcd said: Was surprised by the amount of people I saw wearing the new home kit, think seeing it in person it's grown on me slightly. Was told today that the away top is gray with tartan on it somewhere, unsure how accurate that is though so don't quote me on it. One of the Instagram type posts said we’d had record sales on the top earlier in the week. Don’t know if they meant just in that period? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermarv Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 I was going to suggest that hopefully with the new WS board in place a new way of bringing in revenue would be to emulate what many other clubs do and have a “lotto” however I’ve just seen from someone’s tweet that we do actually had one and for as long as I can remember I didn’t have a clue we had one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 8 minutes ago, Gianfranco said: One of the Instagram type posts said we’d had record sales on the top earlier in the week. Don’t know if they meant just in that period? Alan Provan will be ecstatic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) Can I also say we have two psychopaths in centre of defence now. Casey looks like he has bulked up over close season. Liam Gordon can fairly snap into a tackle. Apparently he has already injured a few players during training with his tackles. Going to enjoy that partnership this season. Edited July 6 by Well Well 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, Neil86 said: Tom sparrow came on and played RWB, looked alright. Sparrow only played 10 minutes at rwb. O'donnell subbed off on, sparrow went to rwb then Brannan McDermott came on at rwb Edited July 6 by Jim McLean's Ghost 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camer0n_mcd Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 57 minutes ago, fatcalf said: Did these last any length of time? I saw the Sheep clothing one, didn't see the other about 2.50pm. Had half an idea the stewards might have been instructed to rip them down. Bob Park would've went round and ripped it down himself no doubt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post philpy Posted July 6 Popular Post Share Posted July 6 I'm a raith fan, but I hope all this behind the scenes shite gets sorted out quickly for you guys. 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellboy1991 Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Sparrow only played 10 minutes at rwb. O'donnell subbed off on, sparrow went to rwb then Brannan McDermott came on at rwb Sparrow started centre mid, moved to RWB then went back to centre mid just as Lennon Miller was moved to centre back… yes Miller to centre half, well I guess sweeper but still. Sparrow worked his arse off but looks very limited technically imo. First half was decent, second half utter gash and no surprise we lost a header from a set play to man at the back post being marked by SODs…. Groundhog Day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie McSquackle Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 5 hours ago, camer0n_mcd said: Was surprised by the amount of people I saw wearing the new home kit, think seeing it in person it's grown on me slightly. Was told today that the away top is gray with tartan on it somewhere, unsure how accurate that is though so don't quote me on it. Is the away top targeting the American Market? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 9 hours ago, capt_oats said: Tbh, that's not really how I see it. I mean, I'm not disagreeing in a broad sense but to me it feels like he's approached the Executive Board after having been chased by St Johnstone and McMahon's "video". Someone, it may have been @Jim McLean's Ghost asked Barmack directly (when he was still trying to "engage") whether he felt in hindsight that he had been dealing with the wrong people. The answer was "No". Which I find quite instructive. Whether this is what actually happened or not I don't know but from the way I've read it the reason that there have been no efforts to find a compromise is largely because the Executive Board and Barmack are actually aligned - in which case, why *should* he try to find a compromise. Rather than acting in good faith and representing the interests of the majority shareholder the Executive Board have simply acquiesced to Barmack's proposal because they don't seem to like the faces on the new WS board. Even looking back to the lengthy statement it wasn't an argument *for* the valuation it was them showing their working for how they worked out a deal to fit Barmack's budget. As I say, that's speculation on my part but if it's even approximately how it's played out it's an actual scandal. To be fair I dont disagree with any of that either. However, given the way things have played out, Barmack could have extended the hand of friendship to the WS in order to find a compromised deal. He hasnt done that, and as you have said he probably doesnt see the need. But given the majority shareholder has recommended against him, it indicates to me, at least, he has no interest in a compromised deal as its not a good deal for him. But yes, I agree, the real scandal is our Executive Board and their treatment of the majority shareholder, who should in fact be their boss if the club was set up properly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vietnam91 Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 Gavin McCafferty just posted this on X. It's in the same vein as my post yesterday showing the 1.31m gap between total put into the club, the spend and revenue generated at the buyback stage. Gavin's done it over three and illustrates how the Barmack's put 900k in but show spending of 3.5m. A factor of just approximately 4x their own commitment. By that stage we will have put in 600k and facing another 750k and writing off 434k of the loan within the next three. Rich guy economics getting those of modest means to pay for your avarice is wild, wild stuff. The 28.3% got their voting slips in the post today. A reminder for all ordinary shareholders, you also need to contribute 6x over the next 5 years for your shareholding to drop in value if you choose to. Everyone needs to remind themselves who will have to put their hands into their pockets for this nonsense <checks notes> its us, always has been and always will be. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 Got my voting slip in today, can someone explain this please. "These non-binding draft Heads of Terms will still be subject to due diligence by all parties should the investment proposal be accepted." Can the WS still kybosh it as it's non-binding? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 Just now, fatcalf said: Got my voting slip in today, can someone explain this please. "These non-binding draft Heads of Terms will still be subject to due diligence by all parties should the investment proposal be accepted." Can the WS still kybosh it as it's non-binding? The WS can always kibosh it by ignoring the Society vote if its board saw fit - the internal poll is just advisory - when it comes to casting its 71% in the formal vote. However, if it's approved formally by the shareholders, you can't really just kibosh it for a change of heart. The due diligence window in that sense is Barmack, for example, verifying - and being allowed to verify - we have X in our bank accounts, we own what we said we own, while we will - or should - check he has funds to meet his commitments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 4 minutes ago, Handsome_Devil said: The WS can always kibosh it by ignoring the Society vote if its board saw fit - the internal poll is just advisory - when it comes to casting its 71% in the formal vote. However, if it's approved formally by the shareholders, you can't really just kibosh it for a change of heart. The due diligence window in that sense is Barmack, for example, verifying - and being allowed to verify - we have X in our bank accounts, we own what we said we own, while we will - or should - check he has funds to meet his commitments. There is supposed to be a 75% majority to make major changes to the way the Well Society operates. If it didn't meet that threshold then imo the Well Society Board would be well within their rights to reject the deal. Obviously it shoudln't get to that and hopefully a heavy majority will send Erik Barmack packing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.