djchapsticks
-
Posts
4,621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
70
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by djchapsticks
-
-
7 hours ago, bazil85 said:
It wouldn’t be a meaningless friendly, it would be competing for one of the oldest trophies & tournaments in world football
Regardless of you or the clubs views, there shouldn’t be the right to stop the cup. People at the clubs are merely custodians of the tournament & have a duty to continue it.The Renfrewshire FA disbanded a few years back so I'd imagine the Renfrewshire Cup won't be contested
-
4 minutes ago, Brilliant Disguise said:
You obviously missed the bit I wrote
I did. Apologies.
I'd say more that the demographic of the shouty grumpy old men is what will make up a disproportionate amount of the 100 members in the SMISA meeting and won't in fact be a fair cross reference of the overall membership (as is evident in the voting outcome where AW was soundly rejected by the vote). That in itself is a problem, anyone who would offer up a dissenting voice like myself has absolutely no notion to sit in a crowd like that as it would descend into a bunfight.
Too many late middle aged guys with over inflated egos thinking they could do it better without any evidence to backup that they could, I'm afraid.
-
2 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said:
Episode 2 is the real action. It’s the most cringeworthy watch you will ever see. Not one member on the board and former member comes across with any credibility.
Needham gets pulled up for making faces at the people asking questions. (We wasn’t alone the entire board was doing it) Disgraceful actions from a so called chairman.
You believe AW came out of that looking good? He was like a spoilt, petulant child throughout, at one point even refusing to hand over his microphone for a rebuttal to a question FFS.
The SMISA meeting is a cross section of 100 or so members and taken across lets say, very *specific* demographic of late middle aged men who seem to be on the whole, quite agitated and firmly of the belief that their way is correct and that's that. So it did appear that there was significant support for AW in that room.
However, proof of where the fan and membership interest lies in this entire situation is in the polling, so lets lay down some irrefutable facts here:
- Approx 400 members voted in the recent elections - around 1/3 of the total SMISA membership.
- There were 5 candidates to choose from to elect to the SMISA board
- Alan Wardrop's statement garnered easily the most publicity, the most traction and was the most (to quote our pal Doakie) 'explosive' of all 5 member statements. A proper blockbuster they'd have you believe.
-
Alan Wardrop's statement and campaign resulted in him finishing 5th placed among the 5 entrants and nowhere near winning a place on the SMISA board despite the publicity around it.
From that, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of the SMISA membership either don't see this as a large enough issue to bother voting on whatsoever (because you can bet your bottom dollar that an engaged membership would have taken the time to cast a vote on such allegations if they believed there was systematic wrongdoing) and the vast majority of the 400 who did vote, decided that AW is either not to be believed and/or not worth one of the two places on the SMISA board.
That should be the end of it really. A few shouty, grumpy old men are really all that's left of this. I don't trust AW, I don't trust his reasons for doing what he's doing, I don't trust him sitting on this for several months and I don't trust the explanation given for him sitting on it since February until now. It was a cynical move to get on the SMISA BoD and it has failed spectacularly. Him and his mouthpieces now need to sit down, shut up and accept that the large majority of supporters are not interested in their noses being out of joint over minor issues and are not willing to support or back them up on this.
-
6 hours ago, Ronnie said:
On the strips situation I was talking to the guy in the club shop and said his boss (who's idea it was for this season's away kit was due a meeting with club soon to discuss this season's kits) according to him nobody seems to know if we are sticking with joma again or looking for someone else, he said we've been with Joma 9 years and might look elsewhere this time around but definitely not anybody like Adidas or Nike as some have asked about.The tender went out ages ago and everything is signed and sealed with a supplier for next season and several seasons following that.
There's absolutely no chance that we're in mid May and don't have next season's kits signed off on, much less not knowing who is supplying them.
Same deal as always with a new supplier, due to shorter lead times, season one will be templates out of the teamwear catalogue and following that, we'll have option of bespoke every following season.
Nike would never be an option as they only do exclusive contracts and the numbers we shift would not be worth their while so would have not bid on the tender. Plus for the size of company they are and brand reach Nike gear is really shitty quality in my opinion.
Adidas would have maybe been an option but again due to numbers, would have been exclusively a teamwear contract like Aberdeen have rather than a Celtic style bespoke contract.
-
Good on them getting the tickets out early doors this season while the feelgood factor is high.
Also, I don't want to get Shull's hopes up but I've heard a wee rumour that the new strips this season will be unveiled and on sale pretty damn sharp after the end of the season.
-
Has a wee chance to watch some of the Q&A session today and it's toe-curling stuff.
Doakie standing up and shouting 'I am the source' like something out League of Gentleman is a particular highlight.
-
On 5/20/2023 at 6:51 PM, saintargyll said:
That young boy Lewis macgregor of airdrie looks a player
Didn't Morton just release him a few months ago?
-
Nice to see this thread has gone pretty much as predicted in last 48hrs or so...
-
10 hours ago, gorgo said:
Our record of selling players for a big profit is not great.
We pull money in for player sales nearly every set of accounts.
You can't present the player sales as one-off luck moments. Whether we pull in enough for them is another matter altogether but we definitely make money on that front and it's disingenuous to say we don't.
-
On 5/18/2023 at 3:09 PM, SMFC 1877 Club said:
It was because the board were concerned Mr Wardrop might have used his role as host of the 1877 club to use the mic as a platform for his agenda against Kibble influence in St.Mirren Football Club.
I'm sure the board are well out of step here and Alan would have never used the 1877 club or it's name as a platform to publicly display his hatred for the Kibble, Mr.....erm.....1877 Club.
-
1 hour ago, gorgo said:
Are you just ignoring the fact we are nearly £2 million in debt.
Not as much as you're blatantly ignoring facts, it seems.
£2m in debt is quite the mental gymnastics, I'll give you that.
-
23 hours ago, SMFC 1877 Club said:
ALAN WARDROP STADIUM BAN
For those of you who were unable to attend last nights Smisa AGM the 1877 Club would like to reference the answer St.Mirren Chairman John Needham gave to why 1877 Club Host and Membership Manager Alan Wardrop has been banned from the stadium and prevented from supporting St.Mirren, the team he has supported for the last 50 years. It was because the board were concerned Mr Wardrop might have used his role as host of the 1877 club to use the mic as a platform for his agenda against Kibble influence in St.Mirren Football Club.
Asked if the board had engaged with Mr Wardrop prior to the Hearts game and raised their concerns, the answer was no.
Mr Wardrop did not attend the game as he was banned for POTENTIALLY speaking up against the Kibble staff on the Board of St.Mirren FC.
He did'nt attend the game adhering to the ban and not creating a scene for his friends who provide security to the main reception.
For the intelligent members on this forum which will exclude Billy Gray,Bazil85,FarawaySaint and JJMCG this is the world of George Orwell's 1984 where the thought police intervene and arrest you and punish you for "thought crime, personal and and political thoughts unapproved by KIBBLE's regime." Sorry we meant Ingsoc's regime .... but if the shoe fits ?
Alan remains banned indefinitely.
What if it was you ?
Animal, well done on creating this thread and your post, but it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Alan is a fanny.
Alan speaks about himself in 3rd person and instead of putting his own name on it, hides behind the 1877 Club handle on here and on twitter.
Don't a fanny. Don't be Alan.
-
44 minutes ago, gorgo said:
Did you give the chairman permission to ask for the club 1877 membership personal details. You'd think someone in that position would know about personal data protection.
The club is in possession of all my details at point of sale for any matchday or season tickets I have bought online in the last 10-12 years. I'd imagine that's also the case for every single adult 1877 club member certainly and most of the children as well so there will be no data protection breach.
-
Surely to f**k there can be no-one looking at that post and thinking 'yes, that's a good look for you Alan'.
Jesus cringing f**k
-
25 minutes ago, Family Stand said: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.
Disagree.
The Herald article contained quotes from AW himself that weren't attributed to any other press release prior to the Herald article. nor did they form any part of the SMISA application.
They may well have used your freelance article but it is almost certain that AW was involved also in order to give quotes and statements that had not been committed to any form of media before the herald article.
This is where the issue lies. If the were regurgitating week old quotes, this would have been over nothing but AW is not backing down on this, he's doubling down.
-
38 minutes ago, doakie said:
A well written response but there's a key element that no one has picked up on as far as I can see: I could be wrong but weren't AW's criticisms (and the Herald article) aimed at Kibble rather than the club? If he has only had a go at Kibble then why have the club board banned him? As an aside, I strongly suspect that the board have exceeded their authority in banning him. I'm no expert in the club's constitution but I doubt if there's a clause insisting that one can't criticise Kibble without running the risk of being banned.
Initially yes. But the rebuttal didn't come from the Kibble, it came from the board. Wardrop has then disregarded this explanation and gone to the Herald to wilfully repeat his misinformation so has clearly also willingly made an enemy of the board in general.
-
35 minutes ago, doakie said:
Has the concept of free speech been discussed at board level?
What next? Will local councillor Kenny McLaren be banned from the stadium after the article in the Daily Record?
Will any poster here be banned?
This is alarming.
There is a clear and distinct difference to be drawn between criticism (which is fine) and making an accusation, having that accusation rebutted with dates, times and people present (again, fine) but instead of providing further evidence or having further discussion to say why you disagree with this turn of events (which would be the correct course to take) you run to the press and repeat your first accusation with the sole purpose of it being heard by a wider audience when you know it has been disproven and you've provided no further evidence for your stance.
I don't think there is such a law in Scotland but elsewhere that is more or less slander. The club are well within their rights to tell him to GTF on this one. Had they banned him without him doing the Herald thing, I'd have had a very different standpoint but he did do it and he's f**king goosed himself in doing so.
-
26 minutes ago, antrin said:
Mr Wardrop didn’t necessarily go to the press.
Any capable journo scouring obscure fitba forums will bump into similar gossip/trivia that can be built into a story… then tied up neatly by a few further questions to informed sources.If you genuinely believe that is what has happened here, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
That's two SMISA board applications from former SMFC board members that have made it to national press - none of the other many SMISA applications have.
If that don't put the 'dink' in coinkydink then I don't know what does.
-
Embarrassing from Wardrop. Been told there's no wrongdoing by all involved parties and still goes to the press.
-
4 hours ago, Wilbur said:
Nothing to lose now, we have four free hits before we reach the close season. Four opportunities to try something different with the squad we have available to us.
My suggestion is to stick Gogic up front alongside Main. He won't get bullied and he has already proved he knows where the goal is. Worth a try IMO.
Any other wild ideas out there ?
No. Grieve played and scored yesterday. He should and will retain his place.
Jamieson showed more in his 15 minutes than Offord has in his late appearances which is understandable as Jamieson is two years older and more physically developed so should be our option from the bench.
Starting a defender or midfield player up front as they won't be bullied is absolute suicide.
-
1 hour ago, faraway saint said:
From my distant view I have concerns that we seem to be going backwards with certain people who, IMO, have had their 15 minutes of fame jumping aboard a pretty successful ship.
The cricket club mentality remains.
People who were large fish in a small pond and simply cannot fathom that the club....THEIR club. Is being run even more successfully without them so they want back in.
-
4 minutes ago, faraway saint said:
Wish the few who have been stoking this up would hurry up, I'm running out of popcorn 🍿
I fear you'll go hungry. They will all disappear the same way the did when Gilmour successfully lov ied his way onto the Board.
SMISA is in real danger of becoming the proper harmful organisation within the club. High people turnover, a seemingly never ending conveyor belt of the sale old faces pulling the same old doomsday act and being too wound up by Kibble to actually get on with the job at hand.
-
2 hours ago, Brilliant Disguise said:
In simple terms if you ran a pub which had a spare driveway with one of your mates who also ran a mobile home company. I think you would be well pissed off to discover your mate had applied for grant funding to park a mobile home in your pubs driveway for his other business and not even ask you or tell you about it. AND when challenged responded “oh it doesn’t matter i never got the funds anyway.”
The gripe AW has is that the name of SMFC and SMFC land has been used without their knowledge to try and secure grant funding which is not ultimately for the benefit of SMFC. (While at the same time SMFC are discussing other proposals for the land with the “offending” Directors)
In simpler terms it was f**k all like that.
More like your mate applied for funds to build on the spare bit of ground near the pub that the landlord didn't own.
-
Colour me shocked that Alan Wardrop is talking a load of unsubstantiated shite.
I think it's fair to say that he should now do the right thing and remove his candidacy from the SMISA elections immediately given his was a one issue manifesto that has been soundly and comprehensivly shown up as wrong.
Squad 2023/24 Arrivals & Departures
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
Olusanya contracted until 2024 as well.