madball

I've had enough of the making things up as we go along approach. Firstly the ringfenced money being used and spending monthly spend to repay this, and now a new vote for money found down the back of the sofa. FWIW I voted to support the Christmas Meal option in the last quarterly vote, so it had it's chance and didn't get the support, so to have another side vote on it doesn't seem right. The way SMISA is being ran in the public domain with regards to transparency, or rather lack of it, has not been sitting comfortably with me for some time. Also I've never felt right supporting the funding of day to day operating expenses of a football club, but I swallowed my pride on this throughout. I always said I would review membership at a 3 year point or should my financial circumstances change, and given some uncertainty regarding my job emerging last week I've decided to do that review now, and given the reasons above I'm not willing to continue with my membership at the current moment in time. I may return, as I support the principal objective behind the movement, but can't currently continue to contribute financially as things stand.  

Well Gordon is a member after all, so it is accurate to say all the club requests come from members too [emoji6]

Well Gordon is a member after all, so it is accurate to say all the club requests come from members too [emoji6]

It won my vote.

No worries on disagreeing, good healthy debate is positive.

I'd prefer ultimately to see a full list of what was proposed for any given quarter and then the top 3-5 as agreed by the committee, at least then we can all see the transparency of what has not been taken forward. But in absence of transparency it would at least be an option to ensure that something for a community option appears on the ballot.

As things stand we get 2 or more things the club wants, perhaps 1 or 2 ideas from elsewhere with no background to who put forward and no view of what the other requests not on the ballot were.

My thinking behind placing categories on it would stop the domination of the list with club requests which seem to be polarising opinions.

Option 3 is the best option put forward for quite some time, although I'm swithering between that and retaining the money.
Like others said it would be good to know the process followed in shortlisting the options as it is very opaque about what has been suggested and there have been concerns raised regarding supporting specific agendas.
What I would also like to see is the options curtailed to 3 on future ballots, 1 for club requests, 1 for community activity and 1 for do nothing, for at least that way it would squash noise about fairness and weighting on ballot options.

You'll find that I do not agree with the banner being displayed as I said in my post. The relationship had already been soured by the club and this was a reaction to it.
 

I disagree that it clears things up or that we can all sign up to it. I'll not defend the banner in light of the club explicitly refusing permission, however what prompted the banner was the club being complicit in providing details of supporters to police which infuriated many.
For Gordon to talk about return to positive atmosphere at the ground then go on a extremely negative rant for around two thirds of his update about banners doesn't quite match up. Gordon said "This atmosphere of positivity was however soured by the production of a banner in W7 which greatly disappointed me". The banner was displayed during the game, and the majority knew nothing about it until either halftime via twitter or post game, so it didn't affect any positive atmosphere at all. In fact it was the actions of stewards at the behest of the directors that could've soured things further.
Appreciate the need to be in compliance with Police and other regulatory bodies, however it is the compliant nature of the board without looking after fans interests that's not comfortable for me. I do understand that there could be cost of policing to be factored into their responses to Police, but seems like they have forgotten that fans are the lifeblood of the club and seems easier to piss them off.
Oh and for what it's worth I sit in W2 and have no personal involvement with W7, but targeting an area that have been largely responsible for the increase in noise, positivity and encouragement to the players seems counterproductive.

I disagree that it clears things up or that we can all sign up to it. I'll not defend the banner in light of the club explicitly refusing permission, however what prompted the banner was the club being complicit in providing details of supporters to police which infuriated many.
For Gordon to talk about return to positive atmosphere at the ground then go on a extremely negative rant for around two thirds of his update about banners doesn't quite match up. Gordon said "This atmosphere of positivity was however soured by the production of a banner in W7 which greatly disappointed me". The banner was displayed during the game, and the majority knew nothing about it until either halftime via twitter or post game, so it didn't affect any positive atmosphere at all. In fact it was the actions of stewards at the behest of the directors that could've soured things further.
Appreciate the need to be in compliance with Police and other regulatory bodies, however it is the compliant nature of the board without looking after fans interests that's not comfortable for me. I do understand that there could be cost of policing to be factored into their responses to Police, but seems like they have forgotten that fans are the lifeblood of the club and seems easier to piss them off.
Oh and for what it's worth I sit in W2 and have no personal involvement with W7, but targeting an area that have been largely responsible for the increase in noise, positivity and encouragement to the players seems counterproductive.

I'd 3 Celtic fans walking behind me on way back to car. 2 were bitching about their defence with its obvious height advantage and that it should easily deal with Mullen or Smith with them being midgets in comparison, and that they play for Saints so must be shite. The third one actually praised our guys and made a comparison to Scott Mcdonald as being an absolute pest to much bigger players. Avoided telling them that Mullen is a good guy and Mcdonald is a wank

I'd 3 Celtic fans walking behind me on way back to car. 2 were bitching about their defence with its obvious height advantage and that it should easily deal with Mullen or Smith with them being midgets in comparison, and that they play for Saints so must be shite. The third one actually praised our guys and made a comparison to Scott Mcdonald as being an absolute pest to much bigger players. Avoided telling them that Mullen is a good guy and Mcdonald is a wank

I'd 3 Celtic fans walking behind me on way back to car. 2 were bitching about their defence with its obvious height advantage and that it should easily deal with Mullen or Smith with them being midgets in comparison, and that they play for Saints so must be shite. The third one actually praised our guys and made a comparison to Scott Mcdonald as being an absolute pest to much bigger players. Avoided telling them that Mullen is a good guy and Mcdonald is a wank

As I mentioned tonight to my mates, Stubbs was unfortunately the boot in the baws we needed,
Had OK been our man from the off, the comparisons  to JR would have been swift and probably unfair. 
Stubbs breaking the feelgood factor up shows just how bad we could have it and OK is being gauged as the remedy to Stubbs rather being judged as JR's replacement.

I think we definitely need someone in that type of role if we have aspirations to be more than makeweights in the league. When we do well we will lose good players and staff to better teams, this appointment will implement a philosophy at club level about what we want from the coaching staff and will help ensure continuity. On the playing front it should help bring in players that can work in the setup we play under, and ensure that talent is spotted within our budgets.

In the interim it will help OK adjust and understand the game in Scotland.

With regards to Gus, I'm ambivalent either way. Yes he left under a cloud due to cup final and negative way of playing, but his remit under board was to avoid relegation and budgets cut under him regularly. However, feedback from Queens Park supporters I know is pretty positive for his wider role in their club. He's stable and reliable without being prone to jumping between extremes.

I think we definitely need someone in that type of role if we have aspirations to be more than makeweights in the league. When we do well we will lose good players and staff to better teams, this appointment will implement a philosophy at club level about what we want from the coaching staff and will help ensure continuity. On the playing front it should help bring in players that can work in the setup we play under, and ensure that talent is spotted within our budgets.

In the interim it will help OK adjust and understand the game in Scotland.

With regards to Gus, I'm ambivalent either way. Yes he left under a cloud due to cup final and negative way of playing, but his remit under board was to avoid relegation and budgets cut under him regularly. However, feedback from Queens Park supporters I know is pretty positive for his wider role in their club. He's stable and reliable without being prone to jumping between extremes.

I think we definitely need someone in that type of role if we have aspirations to be more than makeweights in the league. When we do well we will lose good players and staff to better teams, this appointment will implement a philosophy at club level about what we want from the coaching staff and will help ensure continuity. On the playing front it should help bring in players that can work in the setup we play under, and ensure that talent is spotted within our budgets.

In the interim it will help OK adjust and understand the game in Scotland.

With regards to Gus, I'm ambivalent either way. Yes he left under a cloud due to cup final and negative way of playing, but his remit under board was to avoid relegation and budgets cut under him regularly. However, feedback from Queens Park supporters I know is pretty positive for his wider role in their club. He's stable and reliable without being prone to jumping between extremes.

I think we definitely need someone in that type of role if we have aspirations to be more than makeweights in the league. When we do well we will lose good players and staff to better teams, this appointment will implement a philosophy at club level about what we want from the coaching staff and will help ensure continuity. On the playing front it should help bring in players that can work in the setup we play under, and ensure that talent is spotted within our budgets.

In the interim it will help OK adjust and understand the game in Scotland.

With regards to Gus, I'm ambivalent either way. Yes he left under a cloud due to cup final and negative way of playing, but his remit under board was to avoid relegation and budgets cut under him regularly. However, feedback from Queens Park supporters I know is pretty positive for his wider role in their club. He's stable and reliable without being prone to jumping between extremes.

That and they were nasty cynical bastards who played on the edge of the rules and beyond when they could get away with it

That and they were nasty cynical bastards who played on the edge of the rules and beyond when they could get away with it

Most saying positional awareness and reading of the game is good but no pace

Most saying positional awareness and reading of the game is good but no pace

Most saying positional awareness and reading of the game is good but no pace

Most of the pruning was already underway before Stubbs. I would agree with most of those that have left, very few would've been, anywhere near first team, problem is that those recruited do not look light they were even on a par with the leavers

Agree with this.
I was originally of the view that we should probably keep MacKenzie and Eckersley as squad players, however saw somewhere else that between them they played 38 games last season through injury and suspension so it is fair to say that they were becoming squad players already. If I take the sentimentality out of it I would say, at the age they are both at, then it is likely not to be improving players that would challenge a first team position and both are likely to be at the expensive end for being squad players.
The other 2 I was just surprised they had made it this far if I'm honest as McShane has been found wanting at Premier level before and Stewart has never threatened Samson's position last season (and I see Samson as becoming more of the backup next season).
Another thing that struck me is perhaps in MacKenzie's and Eckersley's position the new manager has thought about putting his own stamp on dressing room and wants the experienced pros to be his experienced pros. It might be he has seen something in the training camp that makes him think that he wants his own leaders in the dressing room. Jack did similar with McGinn when he had the chance, and perhaps Stubbs wants this too.