steve_the_saint

I'm a founder member of the club but have actually only been in twice due to no-one I go with being prepared to pay in. 
I'm more than happy continuing to pay my membership fee for at least a year to give the club a chance to get on its feet. 
However I think the club is missing a trick by not opening it to the general public. By making it member only or to pre-book at least a day in advance, it prevents the casual or occasional fan from visiting the club. It also prevents away fans from going which is a shame as it can encourage friendly relations with other clubs. 
What I would like to see is the membership fee used for a discount on drinks, with the regular price being increased for non-members. So for example, the regular price could be £4 a pint for non-members and £3 for members. For people that want to ensure they gain entry, they'll just have to get there early. If I was to get there and the place was full, I wouldn't have a problem with it, despite being a member. 

I'm a founder member of the club but have actually only been in twice due to no-one I go with being prepared to pay in. 
I'm more than happy continuing to pay my membership fee for at least a year to give the club a chance to get on its feet. 
However I think the club is missing a trick by not opening it to the general public. By making it member only or to pre-book at least a day in advance, it prevents the casual or occasional fan from visiting the club. It also prevents away fans from going which is a shame as it can encourage friendly relations with other clubs. 
What I would like to see is the membership fee used for a discount on drinks, with the regular price being increased for non-members. So for example, the regular price could be £4 a pint for non-members and £3 for members. For people that want to ensure they gain entry, they'll just have to get there early. If I was to get there and the place was full, I wouldn't have a problem with it, despite being a member. 

I'm a founder member of the club but have actually only been in twice due to no-one I go with being prepared to pay in. 
I'm more than happy continuing to pay my membership fee for at least a year to give the club a chance to get on its feet. 
However I think the club is missing a trick by not opening it to the general public. By making it member only or to pre-book at least a day in advance, it prevents the casual or occasional fan from visiting the club. It also prevents away fans from going which is a shame as it can encourage friendly relations with other clubs. 
What I would like to see is the membership fee used for a discount on drinks, with the regular price being increased for non-members. So for example, the regular price could be £4 a pint for non-members and £3 for members. For people that want to ensure they gain entry, they'll just have to get there early. If I was to get there and the place was full, I wouldn't have a problem with it, despite being a member. 

I'm a founder member of the club but have actually only been in twice due to no-one I go with being prepared to pay in. 
I'm more than happy continuing to pay my membership fee for at least a year to give the club a chance to get on its feet. 
However I think the club is missing a trick by not opening it to the general public. By making it member only or to pre-book at least a day in advance, it prevents the casual or occasional fan from visiting the club. It also prevents away fans from going which is a shame as it can encourage friendly relations with other clubs. 
What I would like to see is the membership fee used for a discount on drinks, with the regular price being increased for non-members. So for example, the regular price could be £4 a pint for non-members and £3 for members. For people that want to ensure they gain entry, they'll just have to get there early. If I was to get there and the place was full, I wouldn't have a problem with it, despite being a member. 

I'm a founder member of the club but have actually only been in twice due to no-one I go with being prepared to pay in. 
I'm more than happy continuing to pay my membership fee for at least a year to give the club a chance to get on its feet. 
However I think the club is missing a trick by not opening it to the general public. By making it member only or to pre-book at least a day in advance, it prevents the casual or occasional fan from visiting the club. It also prevents away fans from going which is a shame as it can encourage friendly relations with other clubs. 
What I would like to see is the membership fee used for a discount on drinks, with the regular price being increased for non-members. So for example, the regular price could be £4 a pint for non-members and £3 for members. For people that want to ensure they gain entry, they'll just have to get there early. If I was to get there and the place was full, I wouldn't have a problem with it, despite being a member. 

I'm a founder member of the club but have actually only been in twice due to no-one I go with being prepared to pay in. 
I'm more than happy continuing to pay my membership fee for at least a year to give the club a chance to get on its feet. 
However I think the club is missing a trick by not opening it to the general public. By making it member only or to pre-book at least a day in advance, it prevents the casual or occasional fan from visiting the club. It also prevents away fans from going which is a shame as it can encourage friendly relations with other clubs. 
What I would like to see is the membership fee used for a discount on drinks, with the regular price being increased for non-members. So for example, the regular price could be £4 a pint for non-members and £3 for members. For people that want to ensure they gain entry, they'll just have to get there early. If I was to get there and the place was full, I wouldn't have a problem with it, despite being a member. 

Instead of having a single individual, why could all or 4-5 members of the fan council not take on the role of SLO? They travel on supporters buses, sit with the rest of the fans and are generally known either personally or from a distance. 
It would mean it could be kept voluntary, saving the club money, and would make it easier to ensure there is an SLO presence at every game. 
Regardless of who it is, it should definitely be publicised much better and the fans informed of what exactly am SLO is for. 

To be fair, it was mahrez that said the Scottish first division. In the same way that ligue 1 is the top division in France, maybe he's just calling the top division in Scotland the first division.
And if it was just before he signed for quimper, he would have been about 18 and our reserve team at that time would have been the under 19/20/21 whatever the developmental league was called at the time, in which case he would have been playing/training with them to win a contract.
And he says he scored 7 in 4, however that would likely have been bounce games between our own players or closed doors games.
So it could have been true. His compatriots madjid boughera and the guy from hearts would have been here around that time so he might have had friendly faces here and a shared agent.

To be fair, it was mahrez that said the Scottish first division. In the same way that ligue 1 is the top division in France, maybe he's just calling the top division in Scotland the first division.
And if it was just before he signed for quimper, he would have been about 18 and our reserve team at that time would have been the under 19/20/21 whatever the developmental league was called at the time, in which case he would have been playing/training with them to win a contract.
And he says he scored 7 in 4, however that would likely have been bounce games between our own players or closed doors games.
So it could have been true. His compatriots madjid boughera and the guy from hearts would have been here around that time so he might have had friendly faces here and a shared agent.

A small midfield player he was according to Fergie
Reinvented himself as forward at the Fakes

The way I read it was that over the 10 years SMISA would purchase the shares Gordon had purchased on day 1, to take SMISAs total shareholding to 68 (+3.4)%. Gordon would then gift his 8% to SMISA, without looking to regain his initial investment, taking SMISAs total shareholding to over 79%.

The way I read it was that over the 10 years SMISA would purchase the shares Gordon had purchased on day 1, to take SMISAs total shareholding to 68 (+3.4)%. Gordon would then gift his 8% to SMISA, without looking to regain his initial investment, taking SMISAs total shareholding to over 79%.

I'm surprised that so many are against this appointment. Compare his coaching pedigree to the majority of our recent managers (Hendrie, coughlin, Gus, Danny, teale, Murray) and his cv is arguably better than those.
You could argue any success those managers had were a flash in the pan and had an element of luck about them (what's gus, Danny and Hendrie done since!?). They had all only managed part time clubs before us or not managed/barely even coached previously.
Then you look at Rae, 10 years worth of coaching at a variety of different - but all good - levels and environments including managing a full time team for two years.
There must be something about him for Paul ince to have him at 3 clubs (regardless of how good ince actually is!) and MacLeish to take him to Belgium. To be fair, from that genk interview, I thought he did impress with his apparent thirst for knowledge and making himself better.
And we all know he's a hard bastard that wont take no lip from nobody!
If we had taken him at the time of any of the above mentioned managers I reckon the majority would be happy.

I'm surprised that so many are against this appointment. Compare his coaching pedigree to the majority of our recent managers (Hendrie, coughlin, Gus, Danny, teale, Murray) and his cv is arguably better than those.
You could argue any success those managers had were a flash in the pan and had an element of luck about them (what's gus, Danny and Hendrie done since!?). They had all only managed part time clubs before us or not managed/barely even coached previously.
Then you look at Rae, 10 years worth of coaching at a variety of different - but all good - levels and environments including managing a full time team for two years.
There must be something about him for Paul ince to have him at 3 clubs (regardless of how good ince actually is!) and MacLeish to take him to Belgium. To be fair, from that genk interview, I thought he did impress with his apparent thirst for knowledge and making himself better.
And we all know he's a hard bastard that wont take no lip from nobody!
If we had taken him at the time of any of the above mentioned managers I reckon the majority would be happy.

I'm surprised that so many are against this appointment. Compare his coaching pedigree to the majority of our recent managers (Hendrie, coughlin, Gus, Danny, teale, Murray) and his cv is arguably better than those.
You could argue any success those managers had were a flash in the pan and had an element of luck about them (what's gus, Danny and Hendrie done since!?). They had all only managed part time clubs before us or not managed/barely even coached previously.
Then you look at Rae, 10 years worth of coaching at a variety of different - but all good - levels and environments including managing a full time team for two years.
There must be something about him for Paul ince to have him at 3 clubs (regardless of how good ince actually is!) and MacLeish to take him to Belgium. To be fair, from that genk interview, I thought he did impress with his apparent thirst for knowledge and making himself better.
And we all know he's a hard bastard that wont take no lip from nobody!
If we had taken him at the time of any of the above mentioned managers I reckon the majority would be happy.

I'm surprised that so many are against this appointment. Compare his coaching pedigree to the majority of our recent managers (Hendrie, coughlin, Gus, Danny, teale, Murray) and his cv is arguably better than those.
You could argue any success those managers had were a flash in the pan and had an element of luck about them (what's gus, Danny and Hendrie done since!?). They had all only managed part time clubs before us or not managed/barely even coached previously.
Then you look at Rae, 10 years worth of coaching at a variety of different - but all good - levels and environments including managing a full time team for two years.
There must be something about him for Paul ince to have him at 3 clubs (regardless of how good ince actually is!) and MacLeish to take him to Belgium. To be fair, from that genk interview, I thought he did impress with his apparent thirst for knowledge and making himself better.
And we all know he's a hard bastard that wont take no lip from nobody!
If we had taken him at the time of any of the above mentioned managers I reckon the majority would be happy.

I'm surprised that so many are against this appointment. Compare his coaching pedigree to the majority of our recent managers (Hendrie, coughlin, Gus, Danny, teale, Murray) and his cv is arguably better than those.
You could argue any success those managers had were a flash in the pan and had an element of luck about them (what's gus, Danny and Hendrie done since!?). They had all only managed part time clubs before us or not managed/barely even coached previously.
Then you look at Rae, 10 years worth of coaching at a variety of different - but all good - levels and environments including managing a full time team for two years.
There must be something about him for Paul ince to have him at 3 clubs (regardless of how good ince actually is!) and MacLeish to take him to Belgium. To be fair, from that genk interview, I thought he did impress with his apparent thirst for knowledge and making himself better.
And we all know he's a hard bastard that wont take no lip from nobody!
If we had taken him at the time of any of the above mentioned managers I reckon the majority would be happy.

I'm surprised that so many are against this appointment. Compare his coaching pedigree to the majority of our recent managers (Hendrie, coughlin, Gus, Danny, teale, Murray) and his cv is arguably better than those.
You could argue any success those managers had were a flash in the pan and had an element of luck about them (what's gus, Danny and Hendrie done since!?). They had all only managed part time clubs before us or not managed/barely even coached previously.
Then you look at Rae, 10 years worth of coaching at a variety of different - but all good - levels and environments including managing a full time team for two years.
There must be something about him for Paul ince to have him at 3 clubs (regardless of how good ince actually is!) and MacLeish to take him to Belgium. To be fair, from that genk interview, I thought he did impress with his apparent thirst for knowledge and making himself better.
And we all know he's a hard bastard that wont take no lip from nobody!
If we had taken him at the time of any of the above mentioned managers I reckon the majority would be happy.

I'm surprised that so many are against this appointment. Compare his coaching pedigree to the majority of our recent managers (Hendrie, coughlin, Gus, Danny, teale, Murray) and his cv is arguably better than those.
You could argue any success those managers had were a flash in the pan and had an element of luck about them (what's gus, Danny and Hendrie done since!?). They had all only managed part time clubs before us or not managed/barely even coached previously.
Then you look at Rae, 10 years worth of coaching at a variety of different - but all good - levels and environments including managing a full time team for two years.
There must be something about him for Paul ince to have him at 3 clubs (regardless of how good ince actually is!) and MacLeish to take him to Belgium. To be fair, from that genk interview, I thought he did impress with his apparent thirst for knowledge and making himself better.
And we all know he's a hard bastard that wont take no lip from nobody!
If we had taken him at the time of any of the above mentioned managers I reckon the majority would be happy.

Whoosh?

I went to school with John Jamieson.

On the tip of the flag post.

If the players hand wasn't in the position it was in, what would have happened.....that is what I would be thinking about if I was the ref. So if a player is covering his balls or face with his hand and the ball hits his hand it wouldn't be hand ball, because if his hand wasn't there, it would hit the player anyway.
If a players hand is away from their body, it should always be considered from the view point that the player is trying to gain an unfair advantage - and the referee would need to be absolutely convinced that he wasn't not to award a foul.
In other words, guilty until convinced innocent. What you are suggesting is to assume the players innocence unless absolutely convinced of his guilt. This would result in hardly any handballs given because you could always think of legitimate "reasons" why the players hand was in that position - for example that they are told to do it by coaches!

If the players hand wasn't in the position it was in, what would have happened.....that is what I would be thinking about if I was the ref. So if a player is covering his balls or face with his hand and the ball hits his hand it wouldn't be hand ball, because if his hand wasn't there, it would hit the player anyway.
If a players hand is away from their body, it should always be considered from the view point that the player is trying to gain an unfair advantage - and the referee would need to be absolutely convinced that he wasn't not to award a foul.
In other words, guilty until convinced innocent. What you are suggesting is to assume the players innocence unless absolutely convinced of his guilt. This would result in hardly any handballs given because you could always think of legitimate "reasons" why the players hand was in that position - for example that they are told to do it by coaches!

You seem to keep missing the point - players don't pick Dumbarton over St. Mirren, we are not in direct competition with Dumbarton for signing players. They are part time, we are full time. If a player signs for Dumbarton on £500 a week, he can also have a regular full time job. Even a modest job outside of football would result in the player making over £1000 per week. That's why for some players they are more appealing than signing for St. Mirren - if you think St. Mirren are paying over £1000 per week then you need to get a reality check.
Do you really think it's the managers fault that he hasn't signed many players yet? He'll be trying to do the best he can with the little money he has, but it takes time trying to get guys to agree to £650 a week when they could get better deals elsewhere. I doubt even Guardiola could have signed any more players than Murray has by now for what the club is offering! (I'm not comparing Ian Murray with the best manager in the world - before anyone says anything!)