Kelty Hearts v The Binos

[rhliston]

We travel to Kelty on Saturday to face the League 2 champions in what should be an interesting game. 

Will Kelty be up for this game having won the League last week or will they give  a toss. 

For the Binos given the injury problems we have had at late, can we get something from this match. ? 

Prediction fancy Kelty to win but not by much. 

[Kelheart]

Pressure off , binos nothing to play for 

0-0 coming up 

[TheVoiceofReason]

We have no creativity and no strikers.  Our midfield can't pass the ball five yards and can be guaranteed to give the ball away under no pressure.  They don't track runners either.

Our defence is like the Alamo most weeks and simply can't hold out for 90 minutes against half decent opposition.

So I'm afraid the outlook is bleak from a Stirling perspective.  Fully expect Kelty to have a celebratory rout.

Football is a funny old game though so I may toddle through on the off chance that we might somehow find the form that disappeared in November *sigh* 

[Dumb yatt]

2 hours ago, TheVoiceofReason said:

Football is a funny old game

at forthbank. Tick in the box re grounds (how sad). Will hopefully engage in conversation with some locals and find their secret to success. Pie an’a pint and top up tan. 

[headthebaw]

3 hours ago, Dumb yatt said:

at forthbank. Tick in the box re grounds (how sad). Will hopefully engage in conversation with some locals and find their secret to success. Pie an’a pint and top up tan. 

The reason for their success is no secret 

[rhliston]

14 hours ago, Dumb yatt said:

at forthbank. Tick in the box re grounds (how sad). Will hopefully engage in conversation with some locals and find their secret to success. Pie an’a pint and top up tan. 

Helps if you have someone to invest loads of money by League 2 standards in the team. Is their any wealthy Albion fans out their willing to do the same. ? 

[WC Boggs]

7 hours ago, rhliston said:

Helps if you have someone to invest loads of money by League 2 standards in the team. Is their any wealthy Albion fans out their willing to do the same. ? 

Even if there was they can't invest. They can't because the Trust board was tasked by the membership to produce a new constitution that would permit it and they didn't. There may be good reasons why they didn't, but it disrespects the membership to just sit on it, say nothing and hope nobody ever brings it up.  I just have, thanks for the segway.

On a brighter note good 1-1 result away at Kelty.  

[TheVoiceofReason]

But of a better showing from Stirling today but hard to judge as Kelty were pretty much in second gear throughout the game.  Felt they could have won it if they really needed to/wanted to.

I missed the Stirling goal as I was getting a pie - highlight of the day - but was back in time to see barjonas run the length of the field unchallenged (that's our midfield for you) before slipping the ball to Biabi to score.  Thought Currie might have saved it as it was a bit of a sclaff.

After that it was the usual huffing and puffing from us.  Had a few wee half chances but never created anything noteworthy (that's our midfield for you).  

Was really hoping for Akeel Francis to score a comedy last minute winner but it was not to be.  

Poor crowd I thought for keltys first home game after winning the league - quoted at 519 which looked overstated to me - but good luck to them in league 1.  I've enjoyed the way they play in the games I've seen except for today and i hope we meet up again on league business season after next but I very much doubt it. 

 

 

[TheVoiceofReason]

2 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

Even if there was they can't invest. They can't because the Trust board was tasked by the membership to produce a new constitution that would permit it and they didn't.

I may be wrong but I dont think the problem was the constitution.  From what someone told me it was down to the trust being a community benefit society.  Individuals are not allowed to take profits out of a CBS - any profit needs to remain within the society or be used to further the society's aims 

The potential investors at the time wanted a profit sharing thing and that wasn't allowed - constitution or no constitution 

Presumably that would leave 2 options

A - potential investors put money in but take nothing out.  That would mean paying for the privilege of running the club 

B - trust changes into something else like a community interest company.  Probably need to roll the club into that arrangement too 

As I said I may be wrong so feel free to vent if it helps you 

Neither would require a change to the constitution although option B would presumably need a vote as the trust might need to be wound up?

Edited April 9, 2022 by TheVoiceofReason

[rhliston]

5 minutes ago, TheVoiceofReason said:

But of a better showing from Stirling today but hard to judge as Kelty were pretty much in second gear throughout the game.  Felt they could have won it if they really needed to/wanted to.

I missed the Stirling goal as I was getting a pie - highlight of the day - but was back in time to see barjonas run the length of the field unchallenged (that's our midfield for you) before slipping the ball to Biabi to score.  Thought Currie might have saved it as it was a bit of a sclaff.

After that it was the usual huffing and puffing from us.  Had a few wee half chances but never created anything noteworthy (that's our midfield for you).  

Was really hoping for Akeel Francis to score a comedy last minute winner but it was not to be.  

Poor crowd I thought for keltys first home game after winning the league - quoted at 519 which looked overstated to me - but good luck to them in league 1.  I've enjoyed the way they play in the games I've seen except for today and i hope we meet up again on league business season after next but I very much doubt it. 

 

 

Agree re the better showing from us, good move early on to score but once again our DEFENDING nobody challenged the guy running thru and it was no surprise that that they scored. 

Second half Kelty started the better team and felt that they would win in the end but no, we hung on and might have snatched a late winner but it was not to be. 

Happy with the point and Yes poor attendance for team that the previous week had won the League 2 title. Lets hope their attendances improve in League 1 next season. 

[Kelheart]

13 minutes ago, rhliston said:

Agree re the better showing from us, good move early on to score but once again our DEFENDING nobody challenged the guy running thru and it was no surprise that that they scored. 

Second half Kelty started the better team and felt that they would win in the end but no, we hung on and might have snatched a late winner but it was not to be. 

Happy with the point and Yes poor attendance for team that the previous week had won the League 2 title. Lets hope their attendances improve in League 1 next season. 

Crowd down due to Fife school holidays probably I know I’m sunning it up

[WC Boggs]

1 hour ago, TheVoiceofReason said:

I may be wrong but I dont think the problem was the constitution.  From what someone told me it was down to the trust being a community benefit society.  Individuals are not allowed to take profits out of a CBS - any profit needs to remain within the society or be used to further the society's aims 

The potential investors at the time wanted a profit sharing thing and that wasn't allowed - constitution or no constitution 

Presumably that would leave 2 options

A - potential investors put money in but take nothing out.  That would mean paying for the privilege of running the club 

B - trust changes into something else like a community interest company.  Probably need to roll the club into that arrangement too 

As I said I may be wrong so feel free to vent if it helps you 

Neither would require a change to the constitution although option B would presumably need a vote as the trust might need to be wound up?

None of that addresses the fact that the Trust board were tasked with drawing up a new constitution and didn't do it. They failed to inform the membership that they didn't do it, or why?  I thought accountability was your thing, so why a diversion into speculation not related to that failure when it involves a Trust board failure?  Back to watching Snowpiercer for me. Enjoy your evening.

[TheVoiceofReason]

4 hours ago, WC Boggs said:

Even if there was they can't invest. They can't because the Trust board was tasked by the membership to produce a new constitution that would permit it and they didn't 

The point I was making was that investment is not contingent on the constitution being changed.

Enjoy your TV show.  Hope it calms you down a bit 

[WC Boggs]

1 hour ago, TheVoiceofReason said:

The point I was making was that investment is not contingent on the constitution being changed.

Enjoy your TV show.  Hope it calms you down a bit 

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..

[gmca]

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.

[TheVoiceofReason]

1 hour ago, gmca said:

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.

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.  

[Dumb yatt]

Surprise, surprise. I thoroughly enjoyed that match. Kelty had most of the ball, but  Stirling had more goal scoring chances. Stood beside a Cowdenbeath fan 1st half, they flip/flop. We agreed SA had  three chances early on. He also mentioned, he had watched the worst game of his life last week. A fact echoed mentioned by others.  Yesterday looked a fast free flowing game. Plastic possibly gives that impression. Standing at a barrier, so close to pitch, makes for an intense bear-pit atmosphere.

Re Kelty party trick. Ball goes into stand, occupied by Kelty upstarts. One cheeky youngster retrieves ball and holds it over barrier for McGeachie. As McGeachie approaches, satan's spawn throws ball up the side-line. If youngster contacts SA, I'm sure Ross could thank him personally.

1 hour ago, TheVoiceofReason said:

And while money is obviously important, how you use it is even more so.

Yes big deep pockets. Question on loanees. SA have Mason Hancock while Kelty have Kieran Ngwenya. Both on loan from Aberdeen and playing similar positions. Both cracking players.  Big deep pockets, how you use it, plus cross your fingers and hold on tight.  

[kayemphoto]

NEW PHOTO GALLERY: Kelty Hearts 1-1 Stirling Albion

See all the match photo HERE

[AlbionMan]

End of season stuff with neither side having very much to play for, Kelty were well down on their normal control around the park and we were better than expected. Still no point in reading anything into performances or result as Kelty are going up and we're still mired in lower mid-table mediocrity. Anything to give hope for next season? - a fair number of the team will be elsewhere by then.

[WC Boggs]

5 hours ago, gmca said:

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.

My memory on this isn't 100% either, but wasn't being a community benefit society the legal reason belatedly discovered why the club couldn't be sold? At which point the takeover bid was withdrawn.  A vote was then taken to alter the constitution for the purpose of permitting investment.  Why would that vote have been held at all,  if it wasn't possible to achieve that purpose that way?  Perhaps someone from the Trust board would like to step in and clear this up.