Hi Guys,
Given the strength of feeling over the situation I was reluctant to come on and post this as I attend games with my young children and could do without any unpleasantness with fellow supporters, however there are some strong accusations being banded around, so hard hat at the ready, here goes!
I am almost 100% sure that the Herald article was taken from a freelance submission I sent to them last week. I am concerned, however, that the article appears to have led to a fresh round of accusations and recriminations and I am extremely uneasy about aspersions being cast about other people when I know that I was the original source.
I can swear, on the lives of my children, that I have no connection to Alan Wardrop; I have genuinely never even met or spoken to the man. I am a supporter of the club, a season ticket holder and a SMISA member, but as far as the influential cliques of St Mirren supporters go, I am a rank outsider.
I submitted the article (which was very different, particularly in tone, to the one the Herald printed several days later) purely because I felt there was a strong public interest justification in the situation being publicised and clarified. A lot has been circulated on the subject, but outwith a very small group of supporters who hold polarised views, I felt that the vast majority of St Mirren supporters were struggling to form any meaningful impression of what was going on.
Personally, I felt the salient points were whether the funding application was submitted without the knowledge of the full board, and whether the application contained plans to build on St Mirren owned land. The club has now confirmed that the answer to both of these questions was yes, and offered explanations on how it came about. I genuinely feel that this allows supporters to draw their own (relatively) informed on whether anything concerning has taken place ( and I promise that is not, in any way, a loaded statement.)
For me, the only show in town is what is best for St Mirren, and while I appreciate that many will disagree, I felt that it was in the best interests of the club that there was as much clarity and transparency around this as possible - irrespective of the eventual conclusions people might draw from it.
I should also add that I had requested to remain anonymous when I submitted the article to the Herald, and had they chosen to print it (rather than steal, butcher an sensationalise it..) I would have donated any fee from it to the club in some form, so there would have been no question of me trying to publicise my work or gain financially from an incendiary story about the club.