beyond our ken

Don't be daft. It is not clear at all.  If you look at the way that Wardrop has been treated by Needham then you can see why people who might also care are sitting tight lipped.
And maybe the board are keeping things tight because, if Wardrop is barking uo the right tree, then previous failure to act is also a failure to fulfil your duties as a director.
As I keep saying, thr board look like they were asleep at the wheel here, or possibly worse, were choosing to look the other way about something they knew they should be visible and vocal on.  
A proposal, with our name on it, was put forward to get funding that would TRANSFORM the area around the stadium.  But we weren't part of it and no tangible benefits have yet been identified.  To aid and abet that attitude is a serious dereliction of duty and as i said before, just because it was refused funding ond the club lost no money, still needs not only to be investigated but needs corrective actions put in place to ensure we either benefit from future proposals or are insulated from any possible harm.  None of that has been done yet.

Don't be daft. It is not clear at all.  If you look at the way that Wardrop has been treated by Needham then you can see why people who might also care are sitting tight lipped.
And maybe the board are keeping things tight because, if Wardrop is barking uo the right tree, then previous failure to act is also a failure to fulfil your duties as a director.
As I keep saying, thr board look like they were asleep at the wheel here, or possibly worse, were choosing to look the other way about something they knew they should be visible and vocal on.  
A proposal, with our name on it, was put forward to get funding that would TRANSFORM the area around the stadium.  But we weren't part of it and no tangible benefits have yet been identified.  To aid and abet that attitude is a serious dereliction of duty and as i said before, just because it was refused funding ond the club lost no money, still needs not only to be investigated but needs corrective actions put in place to ensure we either benefit from future proposals or are insulated from any possible harm.  None of that has been done yet.

we have had little to fear against Hearts this season, it has all been about our own approach

It may not be as dark as collusion and dece[tion on the part of the board, it could possibly be that they are just mortified at being out-manouvred and forced into going along with the idea as a way of saving a little face.  One way or another thoiugh the idea that the board were not on the ball has to be dealt with.

probably the usual few hundred tickets which will be snapped up 

Is that it, coming back with personal insults?
You really are a cowardly piece of crap

Don't be daft. It is not clear at all.  If you look at the way that Wardrop has been treated by Needham then you can see why people who might also care are sitting tight lipped.
And maybe the board are keeping things tight because, if Wardrop is barking uo the right tree, then previous failure to act is also a failure to fulfil your duties as a director.
As I keep saying, thr board look like they were asleep at the wheel here, or possibly worse, were choosing to look the other way about something they knew they should be visible and vocal on.  
A proposal, with our name on it, was put forward to get funding that would TRANSFORM the area around the stadium.  But we weren't part of it and no tangible benefits have yet been identified.  To aid and abet that attitude is a serious dereliction of duty and as i said before, just because it was refused funding ond the club lost no money, still needs not only to be investigated but needs corrective actions put in place to ensure we either benefit from future proposals or are insulated from any possible harm.  None of that has been done yet.

Don't be daft. It is not clear at all.  If you look at the way that Wardrop has been treated by Needham then you can see why people who might also care are sitting tight lipped.
And maybe the board are keeping things tight because, if Wardrop is barking uo the right tree, then previous failure to act is also a failure to fulfil your duties as a director.
As I keep saying, thr board look like they were asleep at the wheel here, or possibly worse, were choosing to look the other way about something they knew they should be visible and vocal on.  
A proposal, with our name on it, was put forward to get funding that would TRANSFORM the area around the stadium.  But we weren't part of it and no tangible benefits have yet been identified.  To aid and abet that attitude is a serious dereliction of duty and as i said before, just because it was refused funding ond the club lost no money, still needs not only to be investigated but needs corrective actions put in place to ensure we either benefit from future proposals or are insulated from any possible harm.  None of that has been done yet.

Is that it, coming back with personal insults?
You really are a cowardly piece of crap

Is Tait ready to return? We could really use him.  I think that we have always had the beating of Hearts this season and it is only our own approach that has let us down.  A win today and then at Pittodrie in 11 days will get the excitment back for the last day of the season, maybe with something to play for?

Is that it, coming back with personal insults?
You really are a cowardly piece of crap

Is that it, coming back with personal insults?
You really are a cowardly piece of crap

Don't be daft. It is not clear at all.  If you look at the way that Wardrop has been treated by Needham then you can see why people who might also care are sitting tight lipped.
And maybe the board are keeping things tight because, if Wardrop is barking uo the right tree, then previous failure to act is also a failure to fulfil your duties as a director.
As I keep saying, thr board look like they were asleep at the wheel here, or possibly worse, were choosing to look the other way about something they knew they should be visible and vocal on.  
A proposal, with our name on it, was put forward to get funding that would TRANSFORM the area around the stadium.  But we weren't part of it and no tangible benefits have yet been identified.  To aid and abet that attitude is a serious dereliction of duty and as i said before, just because it was refused funding ond the club lost no money, still needs not only to be investigated but needs corrective actions put in place to ensure we either benefit from future proposals or are insulated from any possible harm.  None of that has been done yet.

To be clear, AW has an agenda.  Like it or not.  He has used a common tactic to progress it, I recall a previous SMFC board using it, of putting a story out there and allowing the club the opportunity to offer definitve proof, which I don't think they have done.  The club have spoken around some of the points and offered some dates, but they don't cover every base that has been exposed.  So why should he be embarassed?  The club's only tangible response is to ban him from the stadium, somthing he can possibly challenge in law and they know it, so how does a tit-for-tat approach look?
As for settled, the club has moved on without adressing the most erious points.  As for minimal, by choosing to amble along behind Kibble on this the club COULD have been exposed to harm or loss.  Juat because no-one lost money, except maybe the council who have progressed the funding application, doesn't mean there is no reason to examine this.  My job is in occupational safety and I don't think I would last long if a potentially serious incident occurred and i chose not to investigate because no actual harm or loss was suffered.  That would be a dereliction of duty.
I understand the board are smarting over this, they have been accused of falling asleep at the wheel.  if they are just trying to muddle through it is not a good reflection on their standards

Slander is defamation in Scotland,  a matter of common law.  If someone says anything about you that it materially untrue with the intention and effect of harming you by diminishing your reputation, then you have recourse via the courts.  The first step is usually to instruct a solicitor who brings your belief that you have or are being defamed to the attention of the individual making the statement(s) as goinf to court will be costly for both parties and as a company the board need to move forward whilst observing the best interests of the company.   if the party making the statements don't back down then the next step would be to take the matter to court and if SMFC feel they are being defamed then they need to not only prove the statements are false but that the company has suffered financial harm as a result.  What is important here is that the directors need to take the correct and proportionate actions that protect the club.
So, no evidence yet that the club has lost money (unless i missed that).  So there is no basis for a defamation action.  But lashing out with a petty ban?  What is the point of that?  They then have to ask for the names of the club members?  That is a joke.  The club statement is ambiguous at best as there are two important things in the allegations.
1 Club land was going to be used.  That has now been disproven
2. SMFC and the charitable foundation were named in papers as being on board with the application.  That seems to be untrue and when the club eventually caught up with the facts they decided to amble along with things (the statement doesn't actually seem very assertive, nor does it indicate decisive action.  Just a desire to move along and forget the whole thing).  
The important thing for me is that the club don't seem to have been in control of events or even appraised of them and a venture that may or may not have been in the best interests of the club was touting itself for public funds and other investment.  In the process they claimed that the club was onboard with this and AW claims they weren't.  From what I can see the club have talked around that rather than completely disproven this assertion and they absolutely and unequivocally need to disprove the notion that they were being misrepresented.  I don't see that they have done that yet.  Until they do then AW can say what he wants, which is messy at best.
Most of all, the club needs to protect it's interests by dominating it's own patch and they are not doing that, they even seem to be being led on by Kibble in this episode and that is sleeping on the job while tied to a very acquisitive and assertive maybe even aggressively so, partner.  A dangerous situation to be in for sure.

To be clear, AW has an agenda.  Like it or not.  He has used a common tactic to progress it, I recall a previous SMFC board using it, of putting a story out there and allowing the club the opportunity to offer definitve proof, which I don't think they have done.  The club have spoken around some of the points and offered some dates, but they don't cover every base that has been exposed.  So why should he be embarassed?  The club's only tangible response is to ban him from the stadium, somthing he can possibly challenge in law and they know it, so how does a tit-for-tat approach look?
As for settled, the club has moved on without adressing the most erious points.  As for minimal, by choosing to amble along behind Kibble on this the club COULD have been exposed to harm or loss.  Juat because no-one lost money, except maybe the council who have progressed the funding application, doesn't mean there is no reason to examine this.  My job is in occupational safety and I don't think I would last long if a potentially serious incident occurred and i chose not to investigate because no actual harm or loss was suffered.  That would be a dereliction of duty.
I understand the board are smarting over this, they have been accused of falling asleep at the wheel.  if they are just trying to muddle through it is not a good reflection on their standards

To be clear, AW has an agenda.  Like it or not.  He has used a common tactic to progress it, I recall a previous SMFC board using it, of putting a story out there and allowing the club the opportunity to offer definitve proof, which I don't think they have done.  The club have spoken around some of the points and offered some dates, but they don't cover every base that has been exposed.  So why should he be embarassed?  The club's only tangible response is to ban him from the stadium, somthing he can possibly challenge in law and they know it, so how does a tit-for-tat approach look?
As for settled, the club has moved on without adressing the most erious points.  As for minimal, by choosing to amble along behind Kibble on this the club COULD have been exposed to harm or loss.  Juat because no-one lost money, except maybe the council who have progressed the funding application, doesn't mean there is no reason to examine this.  My job is in occupational safety and I don't think I would last long if a potentially serious incident occurred and i chose not to investigate because no actual harm or loss was suffered.  That would be a dereliction of duty.
I understand the board are smarting over this, they have been accused of falling asleep at the wheel.  if they are just trying to muddle through it is not a good reflection on their standards

To be clear, AW has an agenda.  Like it or not.  He has used a common tactic to progress it, I recall a previous SMFC board using it, of putting a story out there and allowing the club the opportunity to offer definitve proof, which I don't think they have done.  The club have spoken around some of the points and offered some dates, but they don't cover every base that has been exposed.  So why should he be embarassed?  The club's only tangible response is to ban him from the stadium, somthing he can possibly challenge in law and they know it, so how does a tit-for-tat approach look?
As for settled, the club has moved on without adressing the most erious points.  As for minimal, by choosing to amble along behind Kibble on this the club COULD have been exposed to harm or loss.  Juat because no-one lost money, except maybe the council who have progressed the funding application, doesn't mean there is no reason to examine this.  My job is in occupational safety and I don't think I would last long if a potentially serious incident occurred and i chose not to investigate because no actual harm or loss was suffered.  That would be a dereliction of duty.
I understand the board are smarting over this, they have been accused of falling asleep at the wheel.  if they are just trying to muddle through it is not a good reflection on their standards

To be clear, AW has an agenda.  Like it or not.  He has used a common tactic to progress it, I recall a previous SMFC board using it, of putting a story out there and allowing the club the opportunity to offer definitve proof, which I don't think they have done.  The club have spoken around some of the points and offered some dates, but they don't cover every base that has been exposed.  So why should he be embarassed?  The club's only tangible response is to ban him from the stadium, somthing he can possibly challenge in law and they know it, so how does a tit-for-tat approach look?
As for settled, the club has moved on without adressing the most erious points.  As for minimal, by choosing to amble along behind Kibble on this the club COULD have been exposed to harm or loss.  Juat because no-one lost money, except maybe the council who have progressed the funding application, doesn't mean there is no reason to examine this.  My job is in occupational safety and I don't think I would last long if a potentially serious incident occurred and i chose not to investigate because no actual harm or loss was suffered.  That would be a dereliction of duty.
I understand the board are smarting over this, they have been accused of falling asleep at the wheel.  if they are just trying to muddle through it is not a good reflection on their standards

Wiki currently has him at Morecambe but I'm sure you can go back in and change it to saints again, at least for a few minutes.

I'd say that his legal advice probably leads him to put information out there in the hope that the club seek to address it via legal process.  This in turn requires the club to come right out and prove that the information is false and damaging.  He is effectively putting them on the spot and the club needs to come out with proof he is lying or simply sit there and take it.

Slander is defamation in Scotland,  a matter of common law.  If someone says anything about you that it materially untrue with the intention and effect of harming you by diminishing your reputation, then you have recourse via the courts.  The first step is usually to instruct a solicitor who brings your belief that you have or are being defamed to the attention of the individual making the statement(s) as goinf to court will be costly for both parties and as a company the board need to move forward whilst observing the best interests of the company.   if the party making the statements don't back down then the next step would be to take the matter to court and if SMFC feel they are being defamed then they need to not only prove the statements are false but that the company has suffered financial harm as a result.  What is important here is that the directors need to take the correct and proportionate actions that protect the club.
So, no evidence yet that the club has lost money (unless i missed that).  So there is no basis for a defamation action.  But lashing out with a petty ban?  What is the point of that?  They then have to ask for the names of the club members?  That is a joke.  The club statement is ambiguous at best as there are two important things in the allegations.
1 Club land was going to be used.  That has now been disproven
2. SMFC and the charitable foundation were named in papers as being on board with the application.  That seems to be untrue and when the club eventually caught up with the facts they decided to amble along with things (the statement doesn't actually seem very assertive, nor does it indicate decisive action.  Just a desire to move along and forget the whole thing).  
The important thing for me is that the club don't seem to have been in control of events or even appraised of them and a venture that may or may not have been in the best interests of the club was touting itself for public funds and other investment.  In the process they claimed that the club was onboard with this and AW claims they weren't.  From what I can see the club have talked around that rather than completely disproven this assertion and they absolutely and unequivocally need to disprove the notion that they were being misrepresented.  I don't see that they have done that yet.  Until they do then AW can say what he wants, which is messy at best.
Most of all, the club needs to protect it's interests by dominating it's own patch and they are not doing that, they even seem to be being led on by Kibble in this episode and that is sleeping on the job while tied to a very acquisitive and assertive maybe even aggressively so, partner.  A dangerous situation to be in for sure.

Think about what happened during the planning for Ralston.  If the CLUB are not at the heart of any development then they run the risk of being hemmed-in and disadvantaged.  SMFC need to dominate that campus and everything associated with it.  Going along with independent schemes as a supposed supporter without a veto is a dangerous position to be in.  SMFC is a major stakeholder in anyhting associated with that area and for them to be purported as being in support when they were not consulted is very concerning.
As for the last bit, i wish i was as trusting as you seem to be.  I have been involved in trusts and charities before when i was an employee of the core company associated and I can tell you they stink of self-interest and cronyism.

Think about what happened during the planning for Ralston.  If the CLUB are not at the heart of any development then they run the risk of being hemmed-in and disadvantaged.  SMFC need to dominate that campus and everything associated with it.  Going along with independent schemes as a supposed supporter without a veto is a dangerous position to be in.  SMFC is a major stakeholder in anyhting associated with that area and for them to be purported as being in support when they were not consulted is very concerning.
As for the last bit, i wish i was as trusting as you seem to be.  I have been involved in trusts and charities before when i was an employee of the core company associated and I can tell you they stink of self-interest and cronyism.

Think about what happened during the planning for Ralston.  If the CLUB are not at the heart of any development then they run the risk of being hemmed-in and disadvantaged.  SMFC need to dominate that campus and everything associated with it.  Going along with independent schemes as a supposed supporter without a veto is a dangerous position to be in.  SMFC is a major stakeholder in anyhting associated with that area and for them to be purported as being in support when they were not consulted is very concerning.
As for the last bit, i wish i was as trusting as you seem to be.  I have been involved in trusts and charities before when i was an employee of the core company associated and I can tell you they stink of self-interest and cronyism.