WeeBud

Can you imagine a keeper wearing whichever shirt he chooses and with a different supplier than the rest of the team today??

The costs of which they add to the hourly rate of pay..........they are an employee on a temporary basis and in the very vast majority of "agency" situations they are on zero hours contracts. Not direction AND control but direction OR control in your third sentence.

Except you can't be self-employed if you are working under supervision, direction or control and that the agency has no obligation to find them other work. You end up paying a "premium" on top of wages and only achieve an increase to your costs.

I think you are mixing up zero hours "employment" contracts and self-employed "contracts for service" here.......a lot of what you are saying is correct but all contributions for hours worked should be met under "zero hours" contracts as they are "employed" for the hours they work.

LPM, definitely agree with the bit in bold that ultimately priority is driving attendance figures towards where St Mirren get the benefit. I guess the argument at this juncture would be that if, in this one instance, a large away support benefits in the fight to stay in The Championship it will be easier to get people down to the 2021 in the higher league. It doesn't affect me personally as I'll unfortunately be driving (and my car is full to anyone looking for a lift) although as a SMiSA member I have an interest obviously.

Would it be good use of the "community spend" part of the monthly payment (the quarterly spend if you like), it would be difficult to argue that it wasn't being spent on the community that SMiSA is providing for. If there wasn't currently enough in the pot possibly it could be provided for "up front" and taken back from the next quarters generated funds.

I'm not sure I entirely agree Faraway.................I like debate and disagreement as long as it is carried out in a reasonably respectful manner ad I would actually avoid a dull/safe forum. For the record I don't think in any way StuD was the only person behaving in this manner and there was, in especial, a group of around 4 or 5 who followed him round the forum behaving in exactly the same manner as they criticised him for. There are also plenty of examples of the same kind of rubbish between other posters where threads were hijacked simply for opportunity to launch petty attacks and insults as opposed to discussing/debating whatever the thread was set up for. Unfortunately debate had become more about point scoring and abusing, at every opportunity, rather than discussing, debating, arguing whichever point was the order of the day.

Maybe he was on some sort of gardening leave with ICT and financially, at least in the short term, it didn't make sense for him...............it may be that subsequently a deal was reached between himself and ICT to come to an accommodation. There could be a million reasons!!

Even then I'm not too sure that some will accept him.

A piper either playing an "F" or striking a "G" or high "A".........................

From what I can gather the club agreed a fee with Barnsley and gave them permission to speak with Mallan, his bags were packed on the Thursday night waiting on the phone call.........it never came. It may also explain why his head maybe wasn't "in" the game on Saturday afternoon.

I think I heard yesterday that the EPL clubs, for the first time ever, brought in collectively more than they spent collectively to the tune of £60m.

He is seen as more of a wide midfielder who could fill in at LB if required I believe.

No........I think the OP was trying to infer that we have a clause "forcing" his new club to sell at an agreed value (release clause) and thus bringing in a sell on % but somehow putting it in the contract we have with the player before we even sell him, Probably in a Tevez type way!!

I'm not sure he's a great communicator with his backline either, there's often wee arguments going on between him and the defence!!

Correct..........what I was meaning, as I believe that's what he was getting at, was forcing a release contract onto his new contract with his new club to allow us to get a sell-on clause.

I'm not sure you can put a release clause or sell on incentives in a players contract, those caveats are in the negotiating and structuring of the deal between the selling and buying clubs.

good

I subscribe to the same TC but I'd sooner watch a game on BBC Alba than most of the over-rated keech in the EPL. That said I watch most of La Liga, some Bundesliga, Champions League and a hell of a lot of other sports. I agree with most of your first sentence too but unfortunately there are loads of people who watch the OF fixture all over the world.

I couldn't make sense of that either, I couldn't make the meeting unfortunately but did speak to him by phone. I asked about that and all he could say was that they could only base it on the info they had, worst case scenario and there were time pressures re a decision (which I took to mean they didn't have the time to do anything other than accept). The whole situation surrounding "Rangers" at the time was all very bizarre

I agree Drew but without evidence to the contrary they had to take it at face value......................my own gut is that, despite his protestations and saying they should be punished and his club could survive and thrive without them, Lawell was pushing this agenda too.

The bit in bold is it in a nutshell for me Drew................the only info re sponsorships, TV deals etc was coming from those clowns and all any of the clubs chairmen could do was relay that info. The fact that none of it came true shows that pair to be the shysters they are and incredibly they're both still in a job, it beggars belief!!

I think that was in the context of controlling Celtic and nothing else which is because of the ridiculous "voting" criteria

That could almost sound like judging the victim!!

He's been played as a winger/wide midfielder for them I think............he would rather play through the middle though