alanmurray24 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 i've now established that there was a buyer who was advised by his family of the potential abuse that he (not they) might get, and this had made him change his mind,so maybe a word to the wise - if you have a grievance with the board,why not have a word with them before making your feelings public, they will listen and give explanations, everything thats posted on here and all other social media is picked up by journalists and does obviously cause potential investors to think twice, by all means have your say but be aware that what you say might (as has been shown here) actually stop people from doing hat you are hoping for. I take it thats a sort of apology, as far as ID badges thats up to you. We (Fans Council) were asked to wear our badges at the Topps event, so as members of the public know who we were when we were escorting them and their children through the stadium to the various activities that were happening on the day, this has also happened at all other events like the open day at the stadium recently, even yesterday at Braehead we were wearing them. My wife works for the Childrens Hospice Association Scotland and deals with Disclourse Scotland so i can assure you I know all about the law. So dont believe me its your choice, I know what i have said is true. Thats me done with posting on here. Cant be arsed with it all. Wish you guys happy posting and lets hope our Saints can get themselves out of this mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 FFS. If we had a prospective buyer who pulled out of a deal because of comments on a forum - which I would suggest on here are, in the main nowhere near abusive, then, seriously, get a grip. If it is true that a buyer DID walk away for this reason, then good riddance. Christ almighty, we give each other more abuse than we do club officials. I had a dig at Oaky tonight, he called folk 'whinging bastards'. StuDick dishes it out, but takes it right back. Alanmurray and BuddieinEK were at it earlier tonight. If we met each other in a pub, we'd buy each other a pint. Again, FFS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 With a few exceptions there is little chance of making money out of a football club, with freedom of contract limiting the chances to make money from young players is limited, in Scotland only Falkirk & Dundee Utd. have been able to sell a player a season from their youth set-up. For a club of our size what is being sold isn't really the bricks & mortar of the stadium but the passion of the support us - I find it hard to believe that potential abuse on twitter is the real reason for any prospective buyer pulling out. If it was then s/he wouldn't last long and presumably we'd be up for sale within six months. As Doris Day said in the verse that was omitted from Que Sera Sera - GIRFUY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 With a few exceptions there is little chance of making money out of a football club, with freedom of contract limiting the chances to make money from young players is limited, in Scotland only Falkirk & Dundee Utd. have been able to sell a player a season from their youth set-up. For a club of our size what is being sold isn't really the bricks & mortar of the stadium but the passion of the support us - I find it hard to believe that potential abuse on twitter is the real reason for any prospective buyer pulling out. If it was then s/he wouldn't last long and presumably we'd be up for sale within six months. As Doris Day said in the verse that was omitted from Que Sera Sera - GIRFUY! Unless the owners are savvy enough to employ people who see potential and tie those lads up quickly and with longevity in their contracts. It obviously is possible as some clubs, ala Hamilton and Dundee Utd do it with regularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Unless the owners are savvy enough to employ people who see potential and tie those lads up quickly and with longevity in their contracts. It obviously is possible as some clubs, ala Hamilton and Dundee Utd do it with regularity. What young players have Hamilton sold on since McArthy & Easton went in 2009 & McArthur in 2010? Kudos for cashing in while they were in fashion but they haven't been able to do it since. Only Falkirk & Dundee Utd. have been able to sell players on with any regularity which presumably means all the other SPL teams are missing out too. We've signed McLean & McGinn on 2/3 years deals IIRC but not managed to sell them on. We managed to tie up Kelly (2016) and Naismith (2017) on long term deals last season but there's no guarantee either of them will fetch a transfer fee - as I've said it's more miss than hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 What young players have Hamilton sold on since McArthy & Easton went in 2009 & McArthur in 2010? Kudos for cashing in while they were in fashion but they haven't been able to do it since. Only Falkirk & Dundee Utd. have been able to sell players on with any regularity which presumably means all the other SPL teams are missing out too. We've signed McLean & McGinn on 2/3 years deals IIRC but not managed to sell them on. We managed to tie up Kelly (2016) and Naismith (2017) on long term deals last season but there's no guarantee either of them will fetch a transfer fee - as I've said it's more miss than hit. My memory is that as soon as young players from the U20s break into the first team and play well in a few games they are usually handed contract extensions that add another 2 or 3 years to their existing deals. McLean and McGinn were put on 3 or 4 year deals when they broke into the team, and Kelly and Naismith got another few years added to their deals last year. Given that most first team players except Marc McAusland are on 1 and 2 year deals we have done OK with keeping our younger players longer. Championship clubs and the bigger Scottish clubs now seem a lot more careful about signing promising prospects from the SPL and then sticking them in the reserves for years and now seem to want to sign players for no fee or i the last 6 months of a contract for a nominal fee rather than pay out a big fee unless it is someone really exceptional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 The £5k will be covered by the fact we've got an unplanned replay which we'll receive half the gate money for. If there were more fans there on Saturday, there would be more abuse shouted at the players that would've probably made the players play worse and end up with us out the cup. Well done to everyone who didn't go as they've caused us to have an extra cup game which will earn us even more cash The board should be thanking us tbh. You will be lucky if the replay reaches half of saturday's crowd, so should be double the losses.... remember the Match officials take up over £2,000 alone Mind you, Inverness have a weird way about them on announcing attendances at games. i.e. their last home game V Motherwell the official attendance was given as 3,037. Now, I saw the crowd on TV and can honestly say you were lucky if there was 1500 at it... why do they do that? What do they get out of misrepresenting the attendance? Is it to justify their existence and place as a City? I am sure the taxman is glad though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 You will be lucky if the replay reaches half of saturday's crowd, so should be double the losses.... remember the Match officials take up over £2,000 alone Mind you, Inverness have a weird way about them on announcing attendances at games. i.e. their last home game V Motherwell the official attendance was given as 3,037. Now, I saw the crowd on TV and can honestly say you were lucky if there was 1500 at it... why do they do that? What do they get out of misrepresenting the attendance? Is it to justify their existence and place as a City? I am sure the taxman is glad though! corporate season tickets is one way they do it i believe,instead of putting money straight into the club a company is asked to buy a set amount of tickets which they can use to entertain business associates/customers, and as you might expect they are usually only interested when one of the so called big teams are in town but all season tickets are included in the crowd at every home game and the club could claim extra in grants because they attract a certain number of punters,i believe there was a bit of a stooshie in teuchterland when the european union (who were handing out grants to those in rural areas that provided sport/leisure facilities and had a good turnout) suddenly found out that ICT and ross county along with other leisure providers, had actually been a wee bit economical with the truth,the training academy at dingwall was funded by these type of grants, any business buying season tickets will declare them as expenses and therefore pay less tax in fact. Terry Butcher had several moans about the home supporters not turning up for bread and butter games to give a bit of atmosphere,but still their tickets would be counted as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Considering the first one would amount to £100,000 and the second to only £10,000, is that not a bit of a stupid question?Ssshhh! He's daft but happy, leave him to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a50lennyc Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Considering the first one would amount to £100,000 and the second to only £10,000, is that not a bit of a stupid question? doh! no sh1t Sherlock! this one is almost as bad as your premium bond post... but not quite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a50lennyc Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Ssshhh! He's daft but happy, leave him to it. deary me did you and Ernie go to the same school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a50lennyc Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 (edited) So you are admitting you asked a stupid question? er, well, that was kinda the point! A stupid rhetorical question in response to Soprano's stupid post. And yet again you jumped in to highlight your special kind of stupidity Edited December 5, 2014 by a50lennyc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 Considering the first one would amount to £100,000 and the second to only £10,000, is that not a bit of a stupid question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.