madball

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.

Given that most of us agreed that we needed several new players to survive the forthcoming season and we have a new manager, I'm not sure what people would have expected. I have concerns, but I would be more worried if Stubbs had simply sat back and kept last year's squad, built by the previous manager, and didn't impose hos own ideas. As far as I can see, sentiment aside, there isn't one player that has been let go, that you would look at as being essential for our survival. Hopefully, next season we'll be in a far more stable position and be able to approach the league cup with more confidence. Our rebuilding job won't be over until the transfer window shuts, but as others have stated, reluctantly I'm accepting that Stubbs won't have his strongest team available until the opening day of the league campaign. Any money from John McGinn's sale will prove crucial to our survival. Also,on a final note, it shouldn't be forgotten that our best defender and top scorer both knocked back offers fron Jack Ross and not our current manager.

Will deal with both points separately.
I've never said that my intention was to stop fan ownership, rather that my intention was to review whether I wished to remain part of it after the initial £380k was repaid to secure the initial 29%. I was open about this from outset and I'm aware that my attitude is in the minority regarding my point when I review. There will be several factors in my decision including affordability, but equally confidence in direction of SMISA and tangible outputs from that period. I make no bones about making a decision that suits me and where I want to be and where I see the club ownership, what I do will not be a knee jerk reaction where I don't agree with the outcome of a one-off vote and will be considered with all the facts in my possession.
Onto the 2nd point if this is truly accurate and the contract is worded in such a way that even after funding the £380k loan to secure shares then there would be no block of shares held then it is in contradiction to what is still on the SMISA site under "The Basics" and "The Finances". If the contract is opaque and the block of shares is conditional on the whole deal completing then it is clearly not what was being sold to the membership.
https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/how-it-works
Anyway perhaps this is best discussed in another part of the board and letting the McGinn thread run on topic

My sign-up was a bit more nuanced than the end game of fan ownership being the driver. My sign-up was on the initial basis of acquiring significant block of shares becoming fan-controlled to prohibit someone having ability to own 75% outright, following that I always had the intention of reviewing my contribution and evaluating whether fan ownership, in the model proposed, is something I wished to continue with.

Will deal with both points separately.
I've never said that my intention was to stop fan ownership, rather that my intention was to review whether I wished to remain part of it after the initial £380k was repaid to secure the initial 29%. I was open about this from outset and I'm aware that my attitude is in the minority regarding my point when I review. There will be several factors in my decision including affordability, but equally confidence in direction of SMISA and tangible outputs from that period. I make no bones about making a decision that suits me and where I want to be and where I see the club ownership, what I do will not be a knee jerk reaction where I don't agree with the outcome of a one-off vote and will be considered with all the facts in my possession.
Onto the 2nd point if this is truly accurate and the contract is worded in such a way that even after funding the £380k loan to secure shares then there would be no block of shares held then it is in contradiction to what is still on the SMISA site under "The Basics" and "The Finances". If the contract is opaque and the block of shares is conditional on the whole deal completing then it is clearly not what was being sold to the membership.
https://www.smisa.net/buythebuds/how-it-works
Anyway perhaps this is best discussed in another part of the board and letting the McGinn thread run on topic

McPhee was one who I had more respect for. Not the greatest of players always gave 100%, almost always took abuse from our support, but pretty much took it in good grace and can remember him joking and laughing with our fans and even applauding us (in a non sarky way)

Or 6b part 2 where someone advises on best washing technique to avoid logo/badge/numbers coming off

Sent from my G8141 using Black & White Army mobile app

I could see the board selling Smith if a half decent offer came in as he's got a year left on his contract. Magennis would take a silly offer to shift him as more than a year left on and Jack did nothing but talk him up

I'd a similar thought, but also that Jack's future uncertainty might impact upon further renewals and signings  

I think there is a player there too. I wouldn't be surprised if the club treated him much in the same way that the fakes treated Stevie May when there was questions about whether he would be good enough. Keep him on and find a Championship club for him on loan next season to see if he has adapted to the physical side of full time training and can do a job. Someone like Ayr or QoTS would be a good bet I reckon.

If they are at a Part Time club they will be training throughout the week with Saints and joining the training days at the club they are loaned to.

I'm saying you do need 9 in at least, but probably 5 to fill gaps left by leaving players or improve team and the rest to improve squad depth. If you look at the squad that is left and first team players stay (Davis and Reilly), and let's assume Jack sticks with a 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1 what we have at the moment is the following
Samson
No RB 2 CH (2 from Baird, McKenzie, Davis) Eckersley
Flynn Magennis McGinn No LM
C Smith
1 from Mullen/Reilly
 
 
Plus Stewart (GK), McShane (MF), Hippolyte (MF/AM), Kirkpatrick (MF), Stewart (ST)
So we would need 1 RB and 1 LM straight away. I would say probably 1 CH to partner with Davis, 1 LB to challenge Eckersley, and 1 CF to give different options. beyond replacing or deposing players above we need a 2nd right fullback (preferably one who could cover either side), 1 backup Keeper to challenge Samson, 1 CM to challenge McGinn/Magennis, and probably 1 winger to deputise for Flynn.
If more players move out I would want to replace them also so the 9 could become more.

Heard Goody saying that too, indeed most part time teams train 2 evenings per week, and less if they have games scheduled during the week. Players are responsible for their own fitness outside of those sessions and loaning club will want to make sure their player, particularly if they have a possible return, is kept fit so does often provide training.
Funnily enough just saw the Utilita Football tweet regarding most powerful shot. Featuring McShane, Hill, Kirkpatrick and Hippolyte. These players were not all around at the same time as Hippolyte joined at end of Jan, yet Hill and Kirkpatrick had their respective loans in and out confirmed mid Jan. The video show players wrapped up warm so it is obviously not current, so the implication is that Kirkpatrick is training with the club when on loan.

I would suspect that we are looking at 4-5 starters and the balance in squad players. If you look at who actually left there are only a couple of players that made a real contribution to the squad over the season in that lot from a permanent point of view. Obviously Morgan will be the big miss from a loan signing, but would like to think that there are clubs who will look at the development of players under Jack who will think that we are a good place to send quality youngsters to develop.

Don't see that the disabled section in the Main would be a barrier to selling tickets there, subject to the correct segregation and security. Pretty sure the fake saints have a disabled section in their main stand and have sold tickets to visiting fans in there.
The problem with giving up the family stand, other asking them to move to other stands and losing the family friendly atmosphere, is that having away fans at both ends of the ground won't be ideal from a segregation point of view for entry and exit. Having them in North end of West or Main stands allows for them to ushered in one general direction.
Edited to add - My personal view is that we should not segregated W5/6/7 as the matchday experience has dramatically improved this season and we don't need to cram all the Saints support into less than half the space underneath. A solution has to be found to allow segregation of North and Main to allow more flexibility, for our benefit as much as opposition... do we really need to open a stand for teams bringing circa 100-200?

I'm thinking using Ottawan D.I.S.C.O
He is K Karl He is A Anthony He is U Uchechekwu He is M Mubiru He is I I I Ikpeazu  
Ok I'll get my coat

I'm thinking using Ottawan D.I.S.C.O
He is K Karl He is A Anthony He is U Uchechekwu He is M Mubiru He is I I I Ikpeazu  
Ok I'll get my coat

Cammy at Dunfermline for me, with Eckersley second and probably McShane 3rd. I can't remember a season where we had so many good quality goal or so many from distance, genuinely been spoiled this season

Cammy at Dunfermline for me, with Eckersley second and probably McShane 3rd. I can't remember a season where we had so many good quality goal or so many from distance, genuinely been spoiled this season

I'm leaving Glasgow city centre via car around 5.15 or so, depends if I get out of the office at 5 or not. I've got space for 3 in the car. Will be going back to Paisley post game, but could drop back in City Centre if required.

Minutes applause on 87 minutes?

No to expanding seating areas further unless we reach 80-90% capacity, and even then would need to be built incorporating an income generating asset into build outside of matchdays.

Minutes applause on 87 minutes?

I've voted no for this as I'm uncomfortable with funds which were included as part of the sales pitch as being ring-fenced being now seen as fair game when the club comes calling.

I wouldn't have ruled it out if there was an earlier conversion into shares as part of the deal, but understand the practicalities of a share issue would've diluted numbers and purchasing from GLS would not have raised capital for the club.

SMISA are asking members here to take a leap of confidence that income will continue to accrue at a rate to repay the ring-fenced monies. That seems a great deal for the club in reducing their exposure and risk, at the detriment of a group of shareholders currently owning less than 30%.

From the outset I was always clear in my mind around why I joined BTB and it was initially about obtaining a block of shares to prohibit an individual enough control over the shares that they could override minority shareholders. Once that was achieved I would reconsider where I was financially and see if the direction, not goal, of SMISA matched with mine before continuing. As things stand I'm not quite ready to call it quits yet, but I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of transparency and the willingness of SMISA to bend and be compliant with the whims of the board of the club.

I've voted no for this as I'm uncomfortable with funds which were included as part of the sales pitch as being ring-fenced being now seen as fair game when the club comes calling.

I wouldn't have ruled it out if there was an earlier conversion into shares as part of the deal, but understand the practicalities of a share issue would've diluted numbers and purchasing from GLS would not have raised capital for the club.

SMISA are asking members here to take a leap of confidence that income will continue to accrue at a rate to repay the ring-fenced monies. That seems a great deal for the club in reducing their exposure and risk, at the detriment of a group of shareholders currently owning less than 30%.

From the outset I was always clear in my mind around why I joined BTB and it was initially about obtaining a block of shares to prohibit an individual enough control over the shares that they could override minority shareholders. Once that was achieved I would reconsider where I was financially and see if the direction, not goal, of SMISA matched with mine before continuing. As things stand I'm not quite ready to call it quits yet, but I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of transparency and the willingness of SMISA to bend and be compliant with the whims of the board of the club.