DXBBud

Looking good. The message from GLS is particularly welcome, to let us understand what is happening behind the scenes and what his thinking is for the short and long term.

Let's hope some good can come of this. The RIGHT manager this time please, not the cheapest. The players must be man enough to put their hands up & say they have contributed to this then get their digits out or they will go the same way come January.

One game of Champions League qualifying 2nd round at best

... because it is not an English language word, therefore English language rules don't apply. It is what they call "anglicisation" or "arabisation" in reverse when they take the word and use the letters of the other alphabet to make the phonetic sound of the original language.

I live in the Middle East and your typical Gulf arab is football daft. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool daft; NOT Scottish second-tier provincial club that they've never heard of daft. St Mirren is not the sort of "sleeping giant" that Man City or Chelsea were before Abrahmovic & Abu Dhabi Inc. investment arrived. Anyway, if it was to happen, wouldn't such investment lead us down a route that could see the club on the wrong side of financial fair play requirements with the salaries necessary to attract the sort of players to achieve such lofty goals being too large a proportional of overall turnover, to name one hurdle. God forbid that there is any mileage in this. OK, some Qatari sugar-daddy could flood the club with cash and take a controlling interest enabling him and his puppet, sorry, manager to bring in a team of promising kids and one-time stars and journeymen in an attempt to buy success. Look how long it took Chelski and Man City to get to the top with the backing they had, and the problems they had in staying there. All very flash in the pan and knee-jerk with the sacking of managers who either don't meet expectations or agree to what the sugar-daddy demands. All sounds way too fishy for me. As an aside, while living out here, my wife was friends with a European lady whose husband coached/managed one of the less glamorous local teams and in his first season took them to the final of the national cup competition and their best league placing in years. He was rewarded with a new contract offering him significantly less than he was on in his first year. Is that the sort of ownership we want?????

You make that sound like a bad thing. I would have thought not being able to see the pitch would have been of benefit given the quality of play in recent years.

I only get to follow the Buddies from afar but from results and reports i can't see what difference Alex Miller has made, so pleeeeeeease don't take the easy option and put him in charge. I suspect however that is exactly what will happen

Interesting to see Jamie Langfield say pretty much that via twitter. "Players need to take a long hard look at themselves". Brave words when he has to face them on Monday morning. Hopefully he is someone they will look up to and listen to, and take note from

I remember watching that very programme & thinking "WTF????"

Shouldn't that be the player we SHOULD get 500K for, only to move him on for a greatly reduced fee when the books and/or cashflow need balancing????

Different sport & different budget, but look at British Cycling who made use of Steve Peters (a clinical psychiatrist) on a part time basis to address what went on between the riders' ears to help them build a high performing team. This proves that a small investment can make a hell of a difference. Ah!, wait, flaw in that plan, it requires investment.

I know that. Is there a footballing equivalent of Kirsty Allsopp or Phil Spencer who can come in and tell them how to present the club for sale and manage their expectations over what it's actually worth????? because they sure as hell aren't making a good job of it on their own.

That's true, and just watch the value of that share plummet as soon as relegation is mathematically certain. Let's see how interested they are to sell at whatever price to cut their losses and run.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32290324 So, Mr Gilmour thinks that they've made more good decisions than bad, and that much of the criticism has been too personal. Shame. This article and the one by Tom English sum up the recent history of the club's BoD in a nutshell.

Have to disagree with that. A new manager brings a new mind set which will work through to the staff and the dressing room. Just had exactly that where I work after the dinosaur that was in charge retired and was replaced by a younger, more forward looking boss. Been a breath of fresh air. With a new manager, a new squad (including some from this season) and playing in a new league against unfamiliar opposition, every single one of them should be "up" for the challenge in front of them.

As a Man Utd. fan mate of mine put it, when they rid themselves of Djemba Djemba, the consensus was that that they were glad to be rid as they were both crap!!!!!

"... the right people..." That can be read two ways. Do the consortium mean that they do not consider the fans to be the right people to own the club? Unlikely in my view otherwise they would have said so eons ago and saved us all the aggro before this idea ever grew arms and legs. It could be interpreted that those who are not considered to be "the right people" does not relate specifically to the fans who backed the bid with their own money but other person/s unknown who they did not consider suitable, ie. the entity that was putting up the cash (Bii or whatever they are called) Just a thought.

What he said ... If this goes the wrong way, SG & the rest of the selling consortium will be left with their shareholding for a long time to come. Time for a simple demonstration of what the fans feel about this disgusting situation.

The vote earlier this week was only to obtain the views of the members of the CIC, a straw poll - nothing more nothing less. Therefore, any attempt to take money on the basis of the direct debit mandates that have been set-up for purchase of majority shareholding must surely only be possible if we are asked in advance and presented with sufficient to demonstrate why this action is required. Any attempt to take money for other means without prior consultation and explanation of why must surely be considered as theft or worse.

I said in a post somewhere a few days ago in the lead up to the CIC vote that the Chairmen must have had some information regarding the meeting today. What they are now suggesting, and apparantly desperate to put into effect, is not the outcome of a couple of hours round the table. I don't think we can trust any of the Chairmen on any of this with their "No to Newco" statements or anything else as things have clearly been cooking away to come up with this heap of sh1t.

Zombie related article quoting Stuart Gilmour in today's PDE: http://www.paisleydailyexpress.co.uk/renfrewshire-sport/renfrewshire-football/renfrewshire-football-st-mirren/2012/06/27/87085-31267620/ WTF!!!!!!!!! Our Chairman would appear to be backing entry of the hvns at SFL1

If the club is in such a position that the question even has to be asked, the value of the majority shareholding will have reduced as a result. The price put on the majority shareholding can only be what it is based upon contributing factors at any given time. Sounds too much like Duff & Duffer agreeing to sell the assets of Scumgers for 5.5 million regardless of whether the sh1t was only up to their ankles or their necks.

"clap" being the sort of thing you would associate with the orcs. All that inbreeding does terrible things ...

If the club is in such a position that the question even has to be asked, the value of the majority shareholding will have reduced as a result. The price put on the majority shareholding can only be what it is based upon contributing factors at any given time. Sounds too much like Duff & Duffer agreeing to sell the assets of Scumgers for 5.5 million regardless of whether the sh1t was only up to their ankles or their necks.

For once I find myself on the same page as Sid. Point is though that as we stand, there are still too many unknowns to even consider a request such as that suggested under Question 4 since we have no certainty on how revenues will be affected until after the "No to Newco" vote by the SPL and any subsequent vote by the SFL regarding where the zombies enter, all of which will be considered by Sky, title sponsors, club sponsors, pitch-side advertisers, fans of all clubs home and away. Too early to be shouting about "Question 4" scenarios for anything other than the sake of starting an argument. How early also remains to be seen. That time might come in a couple of weeks once votes have been held, but it may not come until part-way through the season once numbers through the gates etc. can be assessed. If the post on P&B about the fans mobilising in numbers this season is anything to go by, plenty are prepared to financially support clubs by paying at the agte, buying merchandise, catering etc etc. A lot of water to pass under the bridge yet on this issue before the question needs to be asked.