madball

Nahmani at the weekend was rumoured to be getting recalled, so that might be 1 extra space. Still too many though Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

Carson signed a 2 year deal in Summer 2022, so even without the extension signed in March 2023 he would have still been under contract with us in the coming season. Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

His contract will be end of June same as almost all contracts, which is why he was with us in Belfast. After it expires he would leave the club, but if he signs for another Scottish club, as his next club, at any point in the future up to age 23 we would get compensation regardless. Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

Kyle Turner left Thistle. Looked ok in playoff games, but apparently was hot and cold through the season according to some Thistle fans. Wouldn't be a starter but maybe a squad player. Sentimentality would play a part in it being Tommy's son Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

Stuart McKinstry released by Leeds. Was on loan at Motherwell last season, but was at Motherwell as a youth at the same time as Robinson was manager. Pacey which we need. No rumour, just speculating Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

Said this elsewhere, but Erhahon leaving diminished what Baccus offered to the team Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

Erhahon was unfairly booked in first half and after that the dons were trying to wind him up. He did bite a bit though and checked one of their players off the ball. Was for his own protection and in our interest keeping 11 on field Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

Currently we are trailing the sheep in the vote in the final for Away Kit of the Year. Get voting troops Sent from my 2107113SG using Tapatalk

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/john-mcginn-transfer-details-revealed-18625595

Sean Kelly released by County. Option for left back?

After much deliberating I've decided to vote no. A lot of what Kibble would bring to the table is commendable and would certainly help in aspects of the club, however concerning is the fact that this has been carved up without looking at other ways to get members more actively involved and also the structure of the deal. I've been on other committees and always found that when the consequences of non-activity were laid out then people understood and came forward. I'll hold my hands up and say that I didn't come forward last twice as my other activities elsewhere wouldn't have meant that I had spare capacity to do anything. It seems underhand to have progressed as far as they have with the proposed deal without advising members we were considering looking for alternative options to the 71% model and also not to present any case around alternatives (ie other charities / organisations approached). On the structure of the deal I'm not comfortable with what has been stated regarding number of seats and potential veto. The ability for material decisions, which may be in the financial best interests of the club, but at odds with the direction of Kibble, to be vetoed is not what I'd want from the board. The board have talked previously about putting financial sense ahead of the wishes of fans (Old Firm in Family Stand), but are now recommending a deal where shackles will be put on the ability to make directional decisions that could be profound for financial well-being.

Presumably then they choose to buy or not? That's what I recall from the video, the meals were optional but charged if taken. Was trying to find it earlier, but not sure if it was on Alba as couldn't find it elsewhere

Pretty sure it came up on a video recently, might even have been Goodwin that said it, that the meals put on for players was chargeable to the players.

Never claimed to be, but thanks for the call-out. And this was not a "SMISA bad" post, but rather let's get it right and make sure that the organisation and more importantly it's members are adequately protected

Just read the email that has arrived in connection with signing up for the new SMISA database. Thought I'd read the Privacy Policy that you are asked to accept. Point of notice on the Privacy Policy is that it doesn't address the new database within it, so this needs fixed before asking people to accept the policy if data is going to be held on systems/places that are different from prescribed