madball

Changed his account... @10lewismorgan

Favourite moment of that game is the 4 man clearance off the line. The pic of that is the epitome of teamwork [emoji106]

Favourite moment of that game is the 4 man clearance off the line. The pic of that is the epitome of teamwork [emoji106]

Favourite moment of that game is the 4 man clearance off the line. The pic of that is the epitome of teamwork [emoji106]

Favourite moment of that game is the 4 man clearance off the line. The pic of that is the epitome of teamwork [emoji106]

Favourite moment of that game is the 4 man clearance off the line. The pic of that is the epitome of teamwork [emoji106]

Favourite moment of that game is the 4 man clearance off the line. The pic of that is the epitome of teamwork [emoji106]

The wee man's not had it off yet slept with it on last night lol

This doesn't even take into account the impact that the Cinema would have on that area too. All seem the right things to be happening in the town, but needs a fair bit of thinking through on transport infrastructure.

I agree with where the Chairman is coming from on this particular option on the vote. However I think the club also need to step up and be seen to be doing more themselves to help local football clubs, coaching time from those doing badges, better access to our facilities, better support of fundraising etc but this sits at Gordon's and the board's doorstep to do. SMISA was supposed to be about the improving the club and better integrating club into the community so this option ticks neither of those boxes for me.
The whole list of options is totally uninspiring to be honest and likely to have me voting no. No toys out of pram threatening to quit etc, but the continual cash cow for basics is not what I wanted from this.
Even if there are option available for improvement of matchday experience, better integration of club into community, or funding revenue generating activities I'm of the view that there should always be a do nothing option. Given we are as solvent as we have been as a club for a long time with no 2nd management team being funded, and most of the neglect from previous board been, or being, dealt with there is no need to fund the BAU stuff around match balls and the like.

I agree with where the Chairman is coming from on this particular option on the vote. However I think the club also need to step up and be seen to be doing more themselves to help local football clubs, coaching time from those doing badges, better access to our facilities, better support of fundraising etc but this sits at Gordon's and the board's doorstep to do. SMISA was supposed to be about the improving the club and better integrating club into the community so this option ticks neither of those boxes for me.
The whole list of options is totally uninspiring to be honest and likely to have me voting no. No toys out of pram threatening to quit etc, but the continual cash cow for basics is not what I wanted from this.
Even if there are option available for improvement of matchday experience, better integration of club into community, or funding revenue generating activities I'm of the view that there should always be a do nothing option. Given we are as solvent as we have been as a club for a long time with no 2nd management team being funded, and most of the neglect from previous board been, or being, dealt with there is no need to fund the BAU stuff around match balls and the like.

I agree with where the Chairman is coming from on this particular option on the vote. However I think the club also need to step up and be seen to be doing more themselves to help local football clubs, coaching time from those doing badges, better access to our facilities, better support of fundraising etc but this sits at Gordon's and the board's doorstep to do. SMISA was supposed to be about the improving the club and better integrating club into the community so this option ticks neither of those boxes for me.
The whole list of options is totally uninspiring to be honest and likely to have me voting no. No toys out of pram threatening to quit etc, but the continual cash cow for basics is not what I wanted from this.
Even if there are option available for improvement of matchday experience, better integration of club into community, or funding revenue generating activities I'm of the view that there should always be a do nothing option. Given we are as solvent as we have been as a club for a long time with no 2nd management team being funded, and most of the neglect from previous board been, or being, dealt with there is no need to fund the BAU stuff around match balls and the like.

I don't get this indignation that Kenny McLean is doing Saints out of a sell on fee.
What is he supposed to do? Accept less money to stay at Aberdeen when he can get more somewhere else.? Refuse to move to a bigger club or even league and further his career?
The lad did well for us stayed on when he didn't have to and we agreed to sell him. We got some dosh for him. End of. He owes saints nothing more.
I wish him all the very best and will always remember a good player who gave his all for Saints when he was here.

You've got to wonder how much the UK Government are terrified about something similar happen in UK. Less so up here, but more in Northern Ireland as Brexit talks don't progress and prospect of no customs deals.
If Sinn Fein called for a united Ireland referendum in the North and pressed ahead with it unofficially I can only imagine the chaos and that we'd swing back to dark old days with soldiers actively on ground with both sides overstepping the mark and it escalating very quickly

You've got to wonder how much the UK Government are terrified about something similar happen in UK. Less so up here, but more in Northern Ireland as Brexit talks don't progress and prospect of no customs deals.
If Sinn Fein called for a united Ireland referendum in the North and pressed ahead with it unofficially I can only imagine the chaos and that we'd swing back to dark old days with soldiers actively on ground with both sides overstepping the mark and it escalating very quickly

Good article on the BBC website about Adam's younger brother and his life post football
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41307372

Baird would've just pipped Liam Smith for my selection, but no complaints with Morgan. Should just rename the award as Morgan of the Match given the amount he's picking up

W3 per chance? If so that's who I thought of immediately when I read this. That and the opening day goading of Loy.

The signing of Davis was/is a risk. Signing any player returning from a bad injury is a risk.
Looks like the manager and the board agreed it was a risk worth taking and if it works out then we have a very good player to call on for 18 months.
The injuries to Gary MacKenzie were unfortunate, and it looks like he's going to be out for another wee while hence the manager moving to bring in McCart to provide cover and competition for Buchanan and Baird whilst those two recover.
Injuries and suspensions are part and parcel of the game and hopefully our situation will improve.
To be winning games like yesterday without MacKenzie, Davis, Magennis, Eckersley and Buchanan and dealing with the in-game injury to Todd was very encouraging.

Specifically if you look ahead as none of our central defenders other than Davis is contracted beyond the end of the season. In fact I think it is only Eckersley, alongside Davis, of our full defence that has a contract into next season

Baird would've just pipped Liam Smith for my selection, but no complaints with Morgan. Should just rename the award as Morgan of the Match given the amount he's picking up

Baird would've just pipped Liam Smith for my selection, but no complaints with Morgan. Should just rename the award as Morgan of the Match given the amount he's picking up

My tuppence on this.
The player has no interest presently on signing a new deal, for which I have no issue as we got him for a free when he was rejected at Rangers. And in that he is no different to any other player brought into the club,  we can try and monetise them, but more often than not they will move on at end of contract.
We've been incredibly fortunate, thanks to the recruitment and development, to have quite a few coming through the pipeline from youth teams to the first team over the last few years. Morgan, Mcallister, Mallan, and McGinn are all really good examples to other players to either start or continue their development with us as a club as we will give first team opportunities and give them every chance to move up the levels. 
I would expect that if he were to be allowed to leave in January it would only be for a significant sum of money as his current importance to the team and possibility of influencing promotion would mean it would need to be very large to 1. compensate for that, and 2. to allow us to bring in player(s) that make a material impact, otherwise I would see offers being declined.
I think unlike Mallan, and McGinn, we may get a very good offer in January to take him as if he maintains anything close to current form then I expect that come 1st of January we will have several enquiries being made as teams wouldn't want to chance things and miss out. I do foresee a bit of a bidding war for him as we will not want to do business right at the end of the window and I would imagine that clubs would want to try and get it over the line quickly to avoid getting gazumped. This would allow us to set terms of his departure, including perhaps him remaining on loan. If we don't get significant offers I would see the club holding onto him and taking the development compensation.
Whether he goes in Jan or the summer we can say that we've had our moneys worth out of him as a player regardless of the fee received. His input into games in the last 18 months has been excellent and the wages he will have been on will be less than several of the experienced pro's who have delivered a fraction of the contribution. He will move onto a bigger club than ours in time and will go with my blessing.

My tuppence on this.
The player has no interest presently on signing a new deal, for which I have no issue as we got him for a free when he was rejected at Rangers. And in that he is no different to any other player brought into the club,  we can try and monetise them, but more often than not they will move on at end of contract.
We've been incredibly fortunate, thanks to the recruitment and development, to have quite a few coming through the pipeline from youth teams to the first team over the last few years. Morgan, Mcallister, Mallan, and McGinn are all really good examples to other players to either start or continue their development with us as a club as we will give first team opportunities and give them every chance to move up the levels. 
I would expect that if he were to be allowed to leave in January it would only be for a significant sum of money as his current importance to the team and possibility of influencing promotion would mean it would need to be very large to 1. compensate for that, and 2. to allow us to bring in player(s) that make a material impact, otherwise I would see offers being declined.
I think unlike Mallan, and McGinn, we may get a very good offer in January to take him as if he maintains anything close to current form then I expect that come 1st of January we will have several enquiries being made as teams wouldn't want to chance things and miss out. I do foresee a bit of a bidding war for him as we will not want to do business right at the end of the window and I would imagine that clubs would want to try and get it over the line quickly to avoid getting gazumped. This would allow us to set terms of his departure, including perhaps him remaining on loan. If we don't get significant offers I would see the club holding onto him and taking the development compensation.
Whether he goes in Jan or the summer we can say that we've had our moneys worth out of him as a player regardless of the fee received. His input into games in the last 18 months has been excellent and the wages he will have been on will be less than several of the experienced pro's who have delivered a fraction of the contribution. He will move onto a bigger club than ours in time and will go with my blessing.

The bit around the change of rules seems to indicate that a player may be quickly treated on the pitch instead of leaving the field when an opponent is booked, however I think the grey area is around quick treatment, if ref thinks treatment is going to be lengthy he would still be within rules to ask player to leave field.