Buddymarvellous

Naw - it was his other brother - understand the confusion

She wiz a fine wee lass.....

Well done - you can at last retire - thanks for all your efforts - you’ll be missed

I hope you’re not depending on that horrible ticket site - phone the ticket office and I’m sure you’ll get sorted

I voted NO on this because I saw it as simply passing £50K to the club - dressed up as an astroturf project which would go ahead anyway and should be included in a ‘living within our means’ policy. Perhaps SMISA should have been more honest and said we were donating to the player’s budget. I have asked lots of friends and relatives how they voted and the ‘all’ said they opened the email clicked on the vote and voted YES because the trusted the committee. You can argue that that’s democracy bud but I remain disappointed in the committee’s handling of the proposal.

Here’s a good idea - Baz and Lord P agree to stop posting on this thread for say 24 hours and let the rest of the forum get on with a reasonable debate

I think it’s a shame this debate is centred on the abuse of the main fund (which I agree should not be used as a lending bank for St Mirren) My main gripe is that we are supporting a mainstream requirement which should be planned with costs being spread over the life of the asset and budgeted appropriately by the club. What we are in fact doing is providing £50K to the club to save them from spending £50K on what is a normal business cost. So why dress it up as a project - just give the club the £2 pot and and save all the charade. And that is why I voted NO

I reckoned the question can be condensed into two issues 1 Is it okay to donate the majority of the next 9 quarterly pots (9 X £5K) to the club to help buy a new astoturf pitch 2 Is it okay to ‘borrow’ the total £50K from the main ring-fenced fund meantime. Some folk may be okay with the principal of helping the club out on the first part but are uncomfortable with the second part. For me I have voted no because I feel the club should be managing such capital investments and not be using the SMISA £2 pot as a cash cow. I also think the second issue would be a deal breaker for me.

Totally agree - I use my Ipad for most things but if I need to pick a seat I need to dig out my old PC and log in to be able to see seating availabilty - prehistoric in IT terms

Oh I never noticed him......

Foul started outside the box but continued to hold onto him into the box - so penalty Son did not just hesitate like most modern players but actually stopped and let goalie dive before starting totake kick & ungentlemenly conduct and yellow card

Looks like it was called the Railway Inn in those days...

Anyway ... Jack Baird.....

I agree at normal speed looked like an old fashioned 50:50 both going for the ball - it looks worse in slow motion and that’s usually what the pudits base their opinionson..

Well I never knew that ...are yousure ?

Just leave the Coll girls out of this..

Was cudger just a Paisley term - I used it when talking to a Weegie pal and he didn’t know what I was talking about.

There's an option to pick up from shop the week of the dinner

Cheers Callum ... thought it was quite odd

Noticed that this is now changed on official site to read "This match will be all ticket and please note that there will be no sale of tickets on the day of the match." what's that all about...

Found a picture on OldPaisley site - if you zoom in on the 1981 picture you can just make out PCMS on a vertical neon sign.. http://www.84204.mrsite.com/Paisley-in-the-80s-and-90s(2629526).htm

Hence the old Paisley riddle 'Can you cross Causeyside without crossing a bus route'

Yeah but that picture does'nt show a Neon sign which I believe was down the side of the next corner up Causeyside - I presume it came later ...

As I remember it the vertical neon sign was on the next corner of Forbes place where the freezer shop is now

Canney work the photo insert thingy..