gc_SMFC

Stupid from Baird. Needless pulled down their player. Naive as f**k

Would have started Mullen over Smith otherwise exactly the team I posted. I feel Mullen would offer a lot more work and defensive play in a game we're expected to be on the back foot.

James Keatings is an injury liability, did he actually play for Dundee Utd at all last season? We were in for him last season, and i wasn't bothered about missing out on him, my mind hasn't been changed this season

Reckon we should go for a narrow 5-3-2. It is overly reliant on our midfield offering a lot more going forward and at the back, but should shore up our defence and make us harder to play against. Samson Hodson Baird Jones Kpekawa Coulson Magennis McGinn Willock Brock Madsen Mullen Hopefully allows for greater link up and generally holding the ball for when we have to bypass the midfield. Also offers Coulson a lot more cover if he goes forward that what he's received in previous games. I'm looking forward to it.

I think people are over estimating how good our team actually was last year. It was functional with the addition of Morgan brilliance at times. The style we played was taken apart by more physical and experienced teams at times as well. The style was always going to have to change, and the personal has to follow. Smith was good last season, but again he's totally unproven at this level along with the team minus Samson and arguably McGinn (who's last spell in the league wasn't brilliant with Dundee). In all honesty Morgan was probably the only player we had last season likely to get into the starting 11 of the majority of teams we are now playing. Our recruitment is a mess, but that's because we weren't organised and allowed the circus of Ross leaving to hamper our efforts to improve early. The length of time we took to appoint someone despite it being clear that Ross was going was a massive hindrance. We are weeks behind most teams, I'm a big believer in the club having someone that retains the contacts and scouting knowledge of players rather than being reliant on the manager at the time to know some people. Stubbs has missed out on a few targets because of finances, and it looks like there is a few mistakes been made but there's still time to get people in, and actually settle the team. A few of the guys will improve, a few will go. Guaranteed if Stubbs last the season the squad will look entirely different.

Why is there so many rumours coming out the club now? True or false, why are we now totally incapable of dealing things behind closed doors, instead of absolutely everybody knowing what's apparently happening. Talk of player chucking it after 9 games? We'd be stuffed under any manager if that's their attitude if things aren't going their way.

Looking at the squad we don't have anyone that can turn the game by themselves as we did last year. Even last year there were times we looked pedestrian until Morgan came up with something himself. There's still time thankfully to get some players in, but it looks like our midfield aren't doing great going forward or defensively either. If we don't add that dig or creativity then it's definitely alarm bell time. The players we've got also just need to get on with it, instead of all this chat of an unsettled team. If your not happy that some guys have been signed to your position, just get on with it and win the job over them. Far too many whispers on social media for my liking.

Really doesn't matter. A lot of people seem to forget the football isn't cycles of multiple years for players/coaches to be on one team. Apart from the top level, where the money means they can have massive amounts of depth and players tied up for multiple years. Now coaches and players will be on the move close to once a year, with any managers needing to build an entire team every summer. You need to use Transfers, although we've paid for one transfer I'd very much doubt we'd sign more than one player a year for any sizable fee Pre-Contract Agreement rule; something we've got two players out of, one already away from the club, and can be a struggle of clubs our size to budget 6 months ahead, due to all the variables. Wait until players are out of contract, and hope your offer is better than whatever else they are getting offered Loans, low-risk potential high reward. Sign players from bigger clubs who need football, if they are good they get their move on if they're bad we can send them back to their parent club early. Ideally, they do well, then we get the chance to keep them using the two methods above like happened with Cammy Smith. The only thing you're potentially going to miss out on with loans is transfer fees. I quite like the use of loans, they offer a lot more flexibility for finances than a straight contract, with the parent club potentially paying part of the wages. They've served us pretty well the last 10 years or so, and seen quite a few players stay to play here. Carey, McGowan and Smith being examples. I'd go as far as saying the majority of the better players we've had in recent history have been loan signings.

The main issue is that McGinn isn't really needed by Celtic right now, and they can quite easily wait to get him on a free, it'd take an incredible season from him to properly get interest from any English teams that'd be of similar standard and potential wages/bonuses. I liked McGinn when he was with us, but he didn't strike me as particularly technically gifted, especially compared to Mallan or McLean nor athletic, but he made up for it with loads of dig, that's only going to get you so far. I reckon he'd be lost against the majority of midfielders down south where being physical against them isn't enough to get close to them.

This is like the Tommy Craig season with the amount of chances we're missing

Awful miss from Baird.

If a manager actually has a means to implement his tactical ideas, and a good range of contacts to attract players then a knowledge of Scottish football isn't all too important. If anything the refusal or the length of time it takes to embrace new ideas in this country, has limited our football identity. I wouldn't say the managers that have Scottish experience are what we should be looking for, unless we are ready to back them financially like their prior clubs.

Probably very unlikely. I'll probably be hated for saying it but Billy Reid if Graham Potter does leave Östersunds FK for Swansea, should be in contention. Excellent level of experience, in the Scottish league, and now abroad so you'd assume decent contacts and a pretty good track record at youth level. If our board are willing to risk the style of football though, is a different matter. Otherwise Zedek Zemen get the hipster support onboard and go down in attacking flames.

If anything it makes it clear that Ross won't be here next season. Perfectly understandable move in terms of finances for him and his family. It also makes sense for his agent to be touting him about for other jobs. Scott and Fitzpatrick should be sounding out the next manager, and their preferred targets.

My toys are ring-fenced m9. Can't touch them apart from their attended purchase.

If i'm being bitter, so be it. I honestly can't believe it's went that way. I look forward to hearing how smisa consider the funds to be remaining ring fenced. All I can see is they've won the vote on club before business, which is understandable. That's me out though, I hope everything I've put in only goes to share purchase.

I really hope there is people that can make the Agm and ask the hard questions. Even what do Smisa define as 'ring fenced'. We're all St. Mirren fans but we have to look after the takeover process as well as the club.

All fair points. I can't see any logic in the decision from the Smisa committee. Only they can explain why they've decided to let this go through to a vote, but unfortunately their response doesn't say anything apart from 'complex finances', supporters want a 'big ticket item' and we think the funds are still 'ring fenced'. Which makes me even more concerned. The guys on the committee have a tough job, they should be removing near to all the emotional attachment to the club to make decisions. I've a massive issue with the committee deciding it's acceptable to touch funds that are clearly set aside. As you said if they put it forward of we'll pay in instalments out of the £2 fund they'd be zero issue. To me the proposal means that the supporters are actually paying 50k more than the agreed price for the club. We give the club 50k then have to refund ourselves out of a pot of money set aside for other things. There's also still room for improvement in community projects. Getting a St mirren youth team sponsorship doesn't cut the mustard Get football accessible to any child who wants in Renfrewshire, if you want to do anything at youth level.

Unfortunately not, unless it's being held on a flotilla in the North Sea!

Yeah I'm pretty disappointed with the response, seems to be a pawing off rather than offering anything direct. If the agm is Saturday, I expect no one will be there, as we'll all be busy celebrating!

"We appreciate the latest April £2 ballot has generated a bit of debate and the finances are complex but hopefully I can answer your question. While I fully understand the point you are making, we don't believe what we have asked members to vote on goes against the principle of how #BuyTheBuds has been set up and we wouldn't have put it forward if we did. To be clear, the money set aside for the share purchase (ie the £10s) will still be used for the share purchase. So in that respect, we would still consider it ring-fenced. Ultimately our contribution to the Ralston project will - if approved - be paid for by the £2s. All we have proposed is using money which would otherwise be sitting in the bank to allow it to happen now. We put this project forward because we saw it as a good way to support what members told us was their top priority for £2 spends - ie the youth academy. All we have done is put a proposal to members - it is up to them whether they are happy to vote for it or not. I hope this helps but if you wanted to talk it through in any more detail please come along to our AGM on Saturday." My response from SMISA. Rather meh, and doesn't actually address anything. I'm thinking I may be out no matter the result of the vote. I'm happy with the £2 pot going to community and youth projects, but not mainly the the club. I'd be interested to see how much of the £2 spend has already been given to the club for the first team. I'm unable to attend the AGM but will be responding with my thoughts over the whole matter. I like the idea of a fan take over, but I want it to be run as a business making sure that we are taking on minimal risk and that everything falls within what we bring in as a club without turning to supporters associations.

Smisa shouldn't even have allowed this to go to a vote. This isn't about an AstroTurf pitch, it's about Smisa making a really poor business decision, which doesn't bod well for the future. That for me is something to be concerned about, in this format Smisa aren't showing enough business nouse to maintain the club and shape the club as we won't. You can't blame people for stopping paying their money if they feel the clubs ownership is going in the wrong direction. I'm sure a lot of people were sick of feeling the previous board had went stale after years at the helm, and with little movement on the club sale, Buy the Buds was a perfect opportunity to do something about this. This isn't the way I expected or wanted smisa to be going about business.

The £2 fund has definitely been overused in matters that are associated with running the club, from the sports scientist to new balls. Ideas that I don't really feel the £2 pot was supposed to be about. I was sold it was about community projects, something that would boost St. Mirrens profile off the pitch and make us a hub for the communities around Renfrewshire, from late night youth football to supporting local sports teams that have not had links with the clubs. The £10 pot is for buying the club, and that alone, no money should be taken out of this apart from the purchase of shares. Buy the Buds isn't a vehicle to support the club on the pitch or in the background. It's about a group of supporters taking over a business, we have to treat it accordingly, so we can shape the club how we see fit. Too many people understandably can't or won't be able to separate the business from the club they support. That in the long run will make things difficult when we do hit sticky patches. When this AstroTurf needs relayed under our ownership it'll be rightly be coming out the playing budget, if we don't want to do that, we don't have an AstroTurf field. People signed up for buy the Buds because the felt the old ownership was stale and had a fear of a rogue businessperson running the club into the ground. It feels now that Smisa is just giving the fans the option to vote for poor future management with the constant club bowl being passed around. I'm still awaiting to hear back from SMISA, but to be honest depending on what they say and future votes I'll be seriously reconsidering my membership of a project that clearly isn't on the right track and may not be able to correct itself.

Is the Asset lock the section which a laymen should look at in the constitution regarding this move?

I've emailed Smisa over the matter, hopefully they respond early next week, and if they aren't releasing a proper statement regarding the decision I'll post whatever response I get. It's always going to be a hard line to tread, with the 'we want what's best for the club' against the fact the takeover is a takeover of a business and needs to be treated as much, cold and clinical. Smisa have helped out the playing squad far more than I thought they would have already with regards to balls and bibs, to the ush heating nonsense.